Journal of Food Engineering 61 (2004) 321–330

www.elsevier.com/locate/jfoodeng

Drying constant: literature data compilation for foodstuffs

M.K. Krokida *, E. Foundoukidis, Z. Maroulis
Lab of Process and Analysis Design, Department of Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens,
Zografou Campus, 15780 Athens, Greece
Received 19 April 2002; received in revised form 25 November 2002; accepted 13 April 2003

Abstract
Recently published data of drying kinetics and drying constant in various foods were retrieved from the literature, and they were
classified and analyzed. The results of more than 35 food materials classified in eight food categories are presented. The results
concern the reported range of variation of drying constant data together with the corresponded range of variation of air temperature,
humidity, velocity and material size. The relative literature sources are presented for each food material. Drying constant was related
to air temperature, humidity, velocity and material size, using a simple empirical model.

2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction air temperature, humidity, velocity and material size on

drying constant has been studied extensively. The most
Drying constant describes the mechanisms of heat popular model is an empirical power model described in
and mass transport phenomena and investigates the in- detail by Marinos-Kouris and Maroulis (1995).
fluence that certain process variables exert on moisture The scope of this paper is (a) to select, homogenize
removal processes. It forms the most essential constant and analyze the drying constant data, revealing the
of the actual mathematical model of any dehydration range of variation for each food material versus the
operation, which seeks a proper estimation of the drying corresponding ranges of air conditions (b) to propose a
time as well as the behavior of all corresponding ope- mathematical model and calculate the drying constant
rational factors playing an important role in the design of some food materials as a function of air temperature,
and optimization of dryers. humidity, velocity and material size.
Drying constant is measured through experimental
studies of material moisture content removal versus time
at various drying conditions. The measurement of ma- 2. Data
terial moisture content as a function of time under
constant drying air conditions constitutes the so-called An exhaustive literature search was made in the most
drying curve. popular food engineering and food science journals
Drying constant data in the literature are scarce be- during the recent years, as follows:
cause of the effect of the following factors: (a) variation
in composition of the material, (b) variation of the ex- • Drying Technology, 1983–2000
perimental conditions. • International Journal for Food Science and Techno-
Literature data for drying kinetics in foods materials logy, 1988–2000
were selected and presented in Marinos-Kouris and • Journal of Food Engineering, 1983–2000
Maroulis (1995).
The drying constant depends on both material and air A total number of 45 papers were retrieved from the
properties as it is the phenomenological property rep- above journals according the distribution presented in
resentative of several transport phenomena, the effect of Fig. 1. The accumulation of the papers versus the pub-
lishing time is also presented in Fig. 2. The search re-
*
Corresponding author. sulted in 281 data concerning the drying constant in
E-mail address: [email protected] (M.K. Krokida). food materials.
0260-8774/$ - see front matter
2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0260-8774(03)00136-5
322 M.K. Krokida et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 61 (2004) 321–330

30 Eq. (1) constitutes an effort toward a unified des-

cription of the drying phenomena regardless of the
25
controlling mechanism. The use of similar equations in
Total Number of Papers

20 the drying literature is ever increasing.

The drying constant k is the most suitable quantity
15
for purposes of design, optimization, and any situation
10 in which a large number of iterative model calculations
are needed. This stems from the fact that the drying
5 constant embodies all the transport properties into a
0
simple exponential function, which is the solution of Eq.
Drying Technol J. Food Eng. Int. J. Food Sci & Technol. (1) under constant air conditions. On the other hand, the
Fig. 1. Number of papers concerning drying constant data in food
classical partial differential equations, which analytically
materials published in food engineering and food science journals describe the four prevailing transport phenomena dur-
during recent years. ing drying (internal–external, heat-mass transfer), re-
quire a lot of time for their numerical solution and thus
are not attractive for iterative calculations.
The drying constant depends on both material and air
100 properties as it is the phenomenological property rep-
resentative of several transport phenomena. So, it is a
Total Number of Papers

function of material moisture content, temperature, and

size, as well as air humidity, temperature, and velocity.
The empirical equations has the following form:
10
k ¼ k0 dpk1 T k2 V k3 akw4 ð2Þ

where k0 constant (h
1 ), k1 , k2 , k3 , k4 constants ()),

T temperature (C), V air velocity (m/s), aw air water
1 activity (%) and dp particle diameter (m).
1990 1995 2000 A complete description of the actual mechanisms
year involved, is usually not obtainable, and would certainly
Fig. 2. Accumulation of published papers concerning drying constant be hopelessly complex. Empirical models can be de-
data for food materials versus time. duced from detailed mechanistic ones under certain as-
sumptions, or can be evaluated empirically, in the sense
that they should at least account for the basic mecha-
nisms in the process examined. The empirical model,
3. Mathematical model
which was chosen to describe moisture transfer is sum-
marised on Table 1.
The drying constant can be defined using the so-
called thin-layer equation. Lewis suggested that during
the drying of porous hygroscopic materials, in the fall-
ing rate period the rate of change in material moisture 4. Procedure of regression analysis
content is proportional to the instantaneous difference
between material moisture content and the expected The proposed model is fitted to data using a nonlin-
material moisture content when it comes into equili- ear regression analysis method. It is fitted to all litera-
brium with the drying air (Lewis, 1991). It is assumed ture data for each material and the estimates of the
that the material layer is thin enough or the air velocity model parameters are obtained. Then the residuals are
is high so that the conditions of the drying air (humidity, examined and the data with large residuals are removed.
temperature) are kept constant throughout the material. The procedure is repeated until an accepted standard
The thin-layer equations has the following form: deviation between experimental and calculated values is
obtained.

dX =dt ¼ kðX
Xe Þ ð1Þ

where X (kg/kg db) is the material moisture content, Xe

(kg/kg db) the material moisture content in equilibrium 5. Results
with the drying air, and t (s) is the time. A review of
several other thin-layer equations can be found in Sok- Experimental data were plotted versus air tempera-
hansanj and Genkowski (1988), Jayas, Cenkowski, Pris, tures, air humidities, air velocities and sample sizes in
and Muir (1991). Fig. 3. These figures show a good picture concerning the
 M.K. Krokida et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 61 (2004) 321–330 323

Table 1 range of variation of drying constant, and air conditions

Mathematical model values.
Mathematical model More than 23 food materials are incorporated in the

dX =dt ¼ kðX
Xe Þ
Tables 2 and 3. They are classified into five food cate-
where gories. Table 2 shows the related publications for every
X moisture content (kg/kg db) food material. Table 3 presents the range of variation of
Xe equilibrium material moisture content
(kg/kg db)
drying constant for each material along with the corre-
t time (h) sponding ranges of sample size, air velocity, air tem-
perature and air humidity.
Parameters
k drying constant (h
1 )
Among the available data only five materials have
more than 10 data, which come from more than one
Parameter equation publication. The procedure is applied to these data and
k ¼ k0 dpk1 T k2 V k3 akw4
where
the results of parameter estimation is presented in Table
k0 constant (h
1 ) 4 and in Figs. 3–8.
k1 , k2 , k3 , k4 constants ()) Figs. 5–7 present the retrieved data from the litera-
T temperature (C) ture and the model calculated values for some of the
V air velocity (m/s) examined materials.
aw air water activity (%)
dp particle diameter (m)
It must be noted that the regression procedure was
applied simultaneously to all the data of each material,

100 100
k (h )

k (h )
-1

-1

1 1

0.01 0.01
10 100 1000 0.01 0.1 1 10
Temperature (ºC) Air Velocity (m/sec)

100 100
k (h )

k (h )
-1

-1

1 1

0.01
0.01
0.1 1 10 100
0.1 1 10
Air humidity (%) Sample characteristic size (cm)

Fig. 3. Drying constant data for all foods at various temperatures, air humidities, air velocities and sample sizes.
324 M.K. Krokida et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 61 (2004) 321–330

Table 2 Table 2 (continued)

Literature for drying constant rate data in food materials Vegetables
Cereal products Okra
Corn Gogus and Maskan (1999)
Soponronnarit, Pongtornkulpanich, and Prachayawarakorn (1997),
Zhang and Litchfield (1991) Onion
Elustondo, Pelegrina, and Urbicain (1996)
Rough rice
Basunia and Abe (1998), Regalado, Bekki, and Madamba (2000) Pea
Medeiros and Sereno (1994)
Maize
Courtois, Lebert, Duquenoy, Lasseran, and Bimbenet (1991) Potato
Rovedo, Suarez, and Viollaz (1995), Chou, Hawlader, and Chua
Corn (yellow dent) (1997a, 1997b), Zogzas and Maroulis (1996), McMinn and Magee
Martinez-Vera, Vizcarra-Mendoza, Galan-Domingo, and Ruiz- (1996), May, Sinclair, Hughes, Halmos, and Tran (2000)
Martinez (1995), Falabella, Suarez, and Viollaz (1991)
Soybean
Durum semolina Kulkarni, Bhole, and Sawarkar (1993)
Cummings, Litchfield, and Okos (1993)
Sugar beet
Salgato, Lebert, Garcia, and Bimbenet (1994)
Fish
Squid Onion (white)
Teixeira and Tobinaga (1998) Rapusas and Driscoll (1995)

Fish crackers Peper (red)

Teixeira, Tobinaga, and Misawa (2000) Passamai and Saravia (1997)

Potato (sweet)
Fruits Rovedo et al. (1995)
Apple
Kiranoudis, Tsami, Maroulis, and Marinos-Kouris (1997), Moreira, Other
Figueiredo, and Sereno (2000), Chiang and Petersen (1987) Cocoa
Banana Faborode, Favier, and Ajayi (1995), Augier, Nganhou, and Benet
Kiranoudis et al. (1997), Sankat, Castaigne, and Maharaj (1996) (1999)

Grapes Model food

Vazquez, Chenlo, Moreira, and Costoyas (2000), Vazquez, Chenlo,
Aqar + MICC
Moreira, and Cruz (1997), Karathanos and Belessiotis (1997)
Schrader and Litchfield (1992)
Mulberry
Maskan and Gogus (1998) Corn + starch + pastes
Saravacos, Marousis and Raouzeos (1988)
Plum
Courtois et al. (1991), Sabarez and Price (1999) Gelatine gel
Baucour and Daudin (2000)
Plantain
Johnson, Brennan, and Addo-Yobo (1998)

Pear
Kiranoudis et al. (1997) regardless of the data sources. Thus, the results are not
based on the data of only one author and consequently
Date
Kechaou and Maalej (2000) they are of higher accuracy and general applicability.
The drying constant increases, in general, with in-
Kiwi creasing drying temperature. Temperature has a positive
Kiranoudis et al. (1997) effect, which depends strongly on the food material.
Legumes
Lentil
Tang and Sokhansanj (1994)
6. Conclusion
Nuts
Nut The well known empirical model was fitted ade-
Lopez et al. (1998), Ozdemir and Devres (1999), Palipane and quately to drying constant literature data for some
Driscoll (1994) foods. The results obtained are of elevated accuracy, but
 M.K. Krokida et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 61 (2004) 321–330 325

Table 3
Drying constant of foods versus characteristic dimension, air velocity, air temperature and air humidity
Material Drying constant (min
1 ) L (cm) v (m/s) T (C) RH (%)
Min Average Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Cereal products 0.03 3.21 29.48 1.05 2.10 0.08 10.00 12 150 0.00 91.20
Corn 1.58 20.87 29.48 1.00 4.00 67 150 12.00 32.80
23.05 27.30 29.48 2.20 4.00 150 150 12.00 12.00
1.58 1.58 1.58 1.00 1.00 67 67 32.80 32.80

Rough rice 0.03 0.11 0.27 0.08 3.40 12 44 37.10 91.20

0.03 0.11 0.27 0.08 3.40 12 44 37.10 91.20
Maize 0.68 7.87 21.10 1.50 1.50 40 150 0.10 20.00
0.68 7.87 21.10 1.50 1.50 40 150 0.10 20.00
Corn (yellow dent) 0.44 0.94 2.17 1.05 2.10 2.10 10.00 40 120 0.00 12.00
0.44 0.47 0.50 2.10 2.10 10.00 10.00 40 50 9.00 12.00
0.59 1.25 2.17 1.05 1.05 2.10 2.10 50 120 0.00 1.00
Durum 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.55 1.55 53 53 13.00 13.00
1.38 1.38 1.38 1.55 1.55 53 53 13.00 13.00

Fish 0.11 0.57 1.04 1.00 1.05 34 56 7.30 9.00

Squid 0.11 0.11 0.11 1.05 1.05 34 34 9.00 9.00
0.11 0.11 0.11 1.05 1.05 34 34 9.00 9.00
Fishcrackers 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.00 1.00 56 56 7.30 7.30
1.04 1.04 1.04 1.00 1.00 56 56 7.30 7.30

Fruits 0.01 0.54 4.99 0.10 3.29 0.60 5.00 30 81 3.00 47.10
Apple 0.03 0.83 4.99 0.10 3.29 1.00 4.50 50 81 12.00 40.00
0.03 0.83 4.99 0.10 3.29 1.00 4.50 50 81 12.00 40.00
Banana 0.11 0.49 1.90 0.10 0.28 0.62 4.50 40 80 3.00 40.00
0.11 0.49 1.90 0.10 0.28 0.62 4.50 40 80 3.00 40.00

Grapes 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.60 3.00 60 60 11.00 25.00

0.01 0.03 0.04 0.60 3.00 60 60 11.00 25.00

Mulberry 0.13 0.16 0.19 1.20 1.20 60 80 6.00 12.00

0.13 0.16 0.19 1.20 1.20 60 80 6.00 12.00
Plantain 0.29 0.47 0.70 3.60 3.60 40 70 5.00 20.00
0.29 0.47 0.70 3.60 3.60 40 70 5.00 20.00
Pear 0.24 0.62 3.55 0.10 0.28 1.00 4.50 50 70 15.00 40.00
0.24 0.62 3.55 0.10 0.28 1.00 4.50 50 70 15.00 40.00
Plum 0.11 0.17 0.27 1.00 5.00 70 80 3.00 17.00
0.11 0.17 0.27 1.00 5.00 70 80 3.00 17.00
Date 0.07 0.10 0.16 1.20 2.70 30 69 11.60 47.10
0.07 0.10 0.16 1.20 2.70 30 69 11.60 47.10
Kiwi 0.17 0.68 3.17 0.10 0.28 1.00 4.50 50 70 15.00 40.00
0.17 0.68 3.17 0.10 0.28 1.00 4.50 50 70 15.00 40.00

Legumes 0.22 0.32 0.49 0.30 0.30 23 80 5.00 70.00

Lentil 0.22 0.32 0.49 0.30 0.30 23 80 5.00 70.00
0.22 0.32 0.49 0.30 0.30 23 80 5.00 70.00

Nuts 0.02 1.74 6.51 0.50 3.00 21 160 0.00 75.00

Nut 0.02 1.74 6.51 0.50 3.00 21 160 0.00 75.00
1.62 3.34 6.51 0.80 0.80 100 160 0.00 0.00
(continued on next page)
326 M.K. Krokida et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 61 (2004) 321–330

Table 3 (continued)
Material Drying constant (min
1 ) L (cm) v (m/s) T (C) RH (%)
Min Average Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Other 0.06 0.21 0.44 0.20 1.00 40 60 5.00 50.00
Cocoa 0.06 0.21 0.44 0.20 1.00 40 60 5.00 50.00
0.14 0.30 0.44 0.20 0.20 40 60 5.00 43.00
0.06 0.15 0.23 1.00 1.00 40 60 30.00 50.00
0.08 0.08 0.08 1.00 1.00 40 40 50.00 50.00

Vegetables 0.18 1.65 14.91 0.25 3.75 0.00 9.10 30 328 0.00 70.00
Okra 0.20 0.31 0.41 1.20 1.20 60 80 6.00 12.00
0.20 0.31 0.41 1.20 1.20 60 80 6.00 12.00
Onion 0.64 1.55 3.11 0.50 1.00 3.50 3.50 55 55 15.00 15.00
0.64 1.55 3.11 0.50 1.00 3.50 3.50 55 55 15.00 15.00
Pea 1.24 1.53 1.85 2.20 2.20 30 65 4.00 22.00
1.24 1.53 1.85 2.20 2.20 30 65 4.00 22.00
Potato 0.20 1.10 5.05 0.25 3.75 0.01 9.10 40 328 0.00 70.00
0.20 1.24 5.05 0.25 3.75 0.01 9.10 40 75 0.00 55.00
0.21 0.54 0.79 0.95 1.80 2.00 2.00 323 328 42.00 70.00
Soybean 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.00 110 110 0.10 0.10
0.55 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.00 110 110 0.10 0.10
Sugar beet 7.79 11.35 14.91 0.50 1.00 60 90 1.00 8.00
7.79 11.35 14.91 0.50 1.00 60 90 1.00 8.00
Onion (white) 0.36 2.19 4.66 0.60 1.00 50 90 5.20 31.00
0.36 2.19 4.66 0.60 1.00 50 90 5.20 31.00
Peper (red) 0.18 0.18 0.18 1.00 1.00 30 30 20.00 20.00
0.18 0.18 0.18 1.00 1.00 30 30 20.00 20.00
Potato (sweet) 0.21 0.24 0.28 1.00 3.00 50 50 12.50 15.00
0.21 0.24 0.28 1.00 3.00 50 50 12.50 15.00

Model food 0.16 1.34 12.03 0.39 2.10 2.00 10.00 20 80 15.00 98.00
Aqar + MICC 12.03 12.03 12.03 1.10 1.10 4.50 4.50 80 80 35.00 35.00
12.03 12.03 12.03 1.10 1.10 4.50 4.50 80 80 35.00 35.00
Cornstarch 0.45 0.53 0.60 2.10 2.10 2.00 2.00 60 60 15.00 15.00
0.45 0.53 0.60 2.10 2.10 2.00 2.00 60 60 15.00 15.00
Gelatine gel 0.16 0.43 0.63 0.39 0.39 10.00 10.00 20 20 88.00 98.00
0.16 0.43 0.63 0.39 0.39 10.00 10.00 20 20 88.00 98.00
Ranges of variation of available data.

Table 4
Parameter estimates of the model presented in Table 1
Material No. of papers No. of data k0 (h
1 ) k1 ()) k2 ()) k3 ()) k4 ()) sd (h
1 )
Cereal products
Nuts 3 31 1.72 1.11 0.00 1.00 0.11 0.72
Rice 2 23 0.06 1.43 0.00 )0.46 )0.42 0.01

Fruits
Apple 3 28 0.71 4.60 )2.23 0.29 0.33 0.15
Banana 2 31 1.06 1.45 )1.43 0.16 0.27 0.06

Vegetables
Potato 5 20 0.29 0.75 )0.15 0.08 )0.61 0.88
 M.K. Krokida et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 61 (2004) 321–330 327

10 RICE

1
0 50 100

k (h -1 )
0.1
Air velocity (m/sec)
0.01
1
2
0.01

Temperature (ºC)

10

1
0 50 100
k (h -1 )

0.1 Air humidity (%)

15
30
60
0.01

Temperature (ºC)

10

1
0 50 100
k (h -1 )

Characteristic length (cm)

0.1 0.01
0.1
0.3

0.01

Temperature (ºC)

Fig. 4. Drying kinetics of apple at various temperatures, air humidities, Fig. 5. Drying kinetics of rice at various temperatures, air humidities,
air velocities and sample sizes. air velocities and sample sizes.
328 M.K. Krokida et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 61 (2004) 321–330

10 BANANA 10 NUTS

1
1
0 50 100
0 50 100

k (h -1 )
k (h -1 )

Air velocity (m/sec)

0.01
Air velocity (m/sec) 1
0.1
0.1 0.01 2
1
2

0.01
0.01
Temperature (ºC)
Temperature (ºC)

10
10

1
1 0 50 100
0 50 100
k (h -1 )

Air humidity (%)

k (h -1 )

10
Air humidity (%) 30
0.1
0.1 60
15
30
60

0.01
0.01
Temperature (ºC)
Temperature (ºC)

10
10

1
1
0 50 100
0 50 100
k (h -1 )

Characteristic length (cm)

k (h -1 )

0.1
Characteristic length (cm) 0.1 1.5
0.1
3
0.01
0.1
0.3
0.01
0.01
Temperature (ºC) Temperature (ºC)

Fig. 6. Drying kinetics of banana at various temperatures, air Fig. 7. Drying kinetics of nuts at various temperatures, air humidities,
humidities, air velocities and sample sizes. air velocities and sample sizes.
 M.K. Krokida et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 61 (2004) 321–330 329

10 POTATO unfortunately enough data exist only for limited mate-

rials to carry out a successful regression.

1 References
0 50 100
k (h -1 )

Augier, F., Nganhou, J., & Benet, J. C. (1999). Experimental study of

matter transfer in cocoa beans during fermentation and drying.
Air velocity (m/sec) Drying Technology, 17(6), 1027–1042.
0.1 Basunia, M. A., & Abe, T. (1998). Thin-layer drying characteristics
0.01
of rough rice at low and high temperatures. Drying Technology,
1 16(3–5), 579–595.
2 Baucour, P., & Daudin, J. D. (2000). Development of a new method
for fast measurement of water sorption isotherms in the high
0.01 humidity range validation on gelatin gel. Journal of Food Engi-
neering, 44, 97–107.
Temperature (ºC) Chiang, W. C., & Petersen, J. N. (1987). Experimental measurement of
temperature and moisture profiles during apple drying. Drying
Technology, 5(1), 25–49.
Chou, S. K., Hawlader, M. N. A., & Chua, K. J. (1997a). On the
drying of food products in a tunnel dryer. Drying Technology,
10 15(3&4), 857–880.
Chou, S. K., Hawlader, M. N. A., & Chua, K. J. (1997b). Identifi-
cation of the receding evaporation front in convective food drying.
Drying Technology, 15(5), 1353–1367.
Courtois, F., Lebert, A., Duquenoy, A., Lasseran, J. C., &
Bimbenet, J. J. (1991). Modelling of drying in order to improve
1
processing quality of maize. Drying Technology, 9(4), 927–
0 50 100
945.
k (h -1 )

Cummings, D. A., Litchfield, J. B., & Okos, M. R. (1993). Stress and

failure prediction for the drying tempering and extruded durum
Air humidity (%) semolina. Drying Technology, 11(7), 1809–1836.
0.1
Elustondo, M. P., Pelegrina, A. H., & Urbicain, M. J. (1996). A model
10
for the dehydration rate of onions. Journal of Food Engineering, 29,
30
375–386.
60 Faborode, M. O., Favier, J. F., & Ajayi, O. A. (1995). On the effects of
forced air drying on cocoa quality. Journal of Food Engineering, 25,
0.01 455–472.
Falabella, M. C., Suarez, C., & Viollaz, P. E. (1991). Drying kinetics of
Temperature (ºC) corn in contact with a solid adsorbent. Journal of Food Engineering,
13, 273–283.
Gogus, F., & Maskan, M. (1999). Technical note: water adsorption
and drying characteristics of okra (Hibiscus Esculentus L.). Drying
Technology, 17(4&5), 883–894.
10 Jayas, D. S., Cenkowski, S., Pris, S., & Muir, W. E. (1991). Review of
thin-layer drying and wetting equations. Drying Technology, 9(3),
551–588.
Johnson, P.-N. T., Brennan, J. G., & Addo-Yobo, F. Y. (1998). Air-
drying characteristics of plantain (Musa AAB). Journal of Food
1
Engineering, 37, 233–242.
0 50 100
Karathanos, V. T., & Belessiotis, V. G. (1997). Sun and artificial air
k (h -1 )

drying kinetics of some agricultural products. Journal of Food

Engineering, 31, 35–46.
Characteristic length (cm) Kechaou, N., & Maalej, M. (2000). A simplified model for determi-
0.1
0.1 nation of moisture diffusivity of date from experimental drying
1.5 curves. Drying Technology, 18(4&5), 1109–1125.
3 Kiranoudis, C. T., Tsami, E., Maroulis, Z. B., & Marinos-Kouris, D.
(1997). Drying kinetics of some fruits. Drying Technology, 15(5),
1399–1418.
0.01
Kulkarni, S. D., Bhole, N. G., & Sawarkar, S. K. (1993). Technical
Temperature (ºC) note: dehydration of soybeans during high temperature processing.
Drying Technology, 11(1), 229–240.
Fig. 8. Drying kinetics of potato at various temperatures, air humidi- Lewis, W. K., (1991). The rate of drying of solid materials. I & EC-
ties, air velocities and sample sizes. Symposium on Drying, 3(5), 42.
330 M.K. Krokida et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 61 (2004) 321–330

Lopez, A., Pique, M. T., Boatella, J., Ferran, A., Garcia, J., & Sabarez, H. T., & Price, W. E. (1999). A diffusion model for prune
Romero, A. (1998). Drying characteristics of the hazelnut. Drying dehydration. Journal of Food Engineering, 42, 167–172.
Technology, 16(3–5), 627–649. Salgato, M. A., Lebert, A., Garcia, H. S., & Bimbenet, J. J. (1994).
Marinos-Kouris, D., & Maroulis, Z. B. (1995). Thermophysical Drying of sugar beet pulp using a laboratory air drier. Drying
properties for the drying of solids. In A. Mujumdar (Ed.), Technology, 12(4), 955–963.
Handbook of industrial drying. NY: Marcel Dekker. Sankat, C. K., Castaigne, F., & Maharaj, R. (1996). The air drying
Martinez-Vera, C., Vizcarra-Mendoza, M., Galan-Domingo, O., & behaviour of fresh and osmotically dehydrated banana slices.
Ruiz-Martinez, R. (1995). Experimental validation of a mathema- International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 31, 123–135.
tical model for the batch drying of corn grains. Drying Technology, Saravacos, G. D., Marousis, S. N., & Raouzeos, G. S. (1988). Effect of
13(1&2), 333–350. ethyl oleate on the rate of air-drying of foods. Journal of Food
Maskan, M., & Gogus, F. (1998). Sorption isotherms and drying Engineering, 7, 263–270.
characteristics of mulberry (Morus alba). Journal of Food Engi- Schrader, G. W., & Litchfield, J. B. (1992). Moisture profiles in a
neering, 37, 437–449. model food gel during drying measurement using magnetic
May, B. K., Sinclair, A. J., Hughes, J. G., Halmos, A. L., & Tran, V. resonance imaging and evaluation of the Fickian model. Drying
N. (2000). A study of temperature and sample dimension Technology, 10(2), 295–332.
in the drying of potatoes. Drying Technology, 18(10), 2291– Sokhansanj, S., & Genkowski, S., (1988). Equipment and methods of
2306. thin-layer drying. A Review, in Proc. 6th Inter. Drying Symp.
McMinn, W. A. M., & Magee, T. R. A. (1996). Air drying kinetics of (IDSÕ88), France, OP159-170.
potato cylinders. Drying Technology, 14(9), 2025–2040. Soponronnarit, S., Pongtornkulpanich, A., & Prachayawarakorn, S.
Medeiros, G. L., & Sereno, A. M. (1994). Physical and transport (1997). Technical note: drying characteristics of corn in fluidised
properties of peas during warm air drying. Journal of Food bed dryer. Drying Technology, 15(5), 1603–1615.
Engineering, 21, 355–363. Tang, J., & Sokhansanj, S. (1994). A model for thin-layer drying of
Moreira, R., Figueiredo, A., & Sereno, A. (2000). Shrinkage of apple lentils. Drying Technology, 12(4), 849–867.
disks during drying by warm air convection and freeze drying. Teixeira, M. B. F., & Tobinaga, S. (1998). A diffusion model for
Drying Technology, 18(1&2), 279–294. describing water transport in round squid mantle during drying
Ozdemir, M., & Devres, Y. O. (1999). The thin layer drying with a moisture-dependent effective diffusivity. Journal of Food
characteristics of hazelnuts during roasting. Journal of Food Engineering, 36, 169–181.
Engineering, 42, 225–233. Teixeira, M. B. F., Tobinaga, S., & Misawa, F. T. (2000). Some
Palipane, K. B., & Driscoll, R. H. (1994). The thin-layer drying theoretical and experimental considerations on the thin-layer
characteristics of macadamia in-shell nuts and kernels. Journal of drying of fish crackers: product expansion assessment. Drying
Food Engineering, 23, 129–144. Technology, 18(1&2), 1–19.
Passamai, V., & Saravia, L. (1997). Relationship between a solar Vazquez, G., Chenlo, F., Moreira, R., & Cruz, E. (1997). Grape drying
drying model of red pepper and the kinetics of pure water in a pilot plant with a heat pump. Drying Technology, 15(3&4),
evaporation (II). Drying Technology, 15(5), 1433–1455. 899–920.
Rapusas, R. S., & Driscoll, R. H. (1995). The thin layer drying Vazquez, G., Chenlo, F., Moreira, R., & Costoyas, A. (2000). Effects
characteristics of white onion slices. Drying Technology, 13(8&9), of various treatments on the drying kinetics of muscatel grapes.
1905–1931. Drying Technology, 18(9), 2131–2144.
Regalado, M. J. C., Bekki, E., & Madamba, P. S. (2000). Dehumidi- Zhang, Q., & Litchfield, J. B. (1991). An optimisation of intermittent
fication drying of high-moisture rough rice in a radial-flow circular corn drying in a laboratory scale thin layer dryer. Drying
bin. Drying Technology, 18(10), 2307–2326. Technology, 9(1), 233–244.
Rovedo, C. O., Suarez, C., & Viollaz, P. E. (1995). Drying of foods: Zogzas, N. P., & Maroulis, Z. B. (1996). Effective moisture diffusivity
evaluation of a drying model. Journal of Food Engineering, 26, estimation from drying data: a comparison between various
1–12. methods of analysis. Drying Technology, 14(7&8), 1543–1573.