This preprint is under consideration at Scientific Reports. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research Article
Vali Rasooli Sharabiani
University of Mohaghegh Ardabili
Corresponding Author
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Two different drying methods were applied for dehydration of apple, i.e., convection drying (CD) and microwave drying (MD). The process of convection drying through divergent temperatures; 50, 60 and 70°C at 1.0 m/s air velocity and three different levels of microwave power (90, 180, and 360 W) were studied. In the analysis of the performance of our approach on moisture ratio of apple slices, artificial neural networks (ANNs) was used to provide with a background for further discussion and evaluation. In order to evaluate the models mentioned in the literature, the Midilli et al. model was proper for dehydrating of apple slices in both MD and CD. The microwave drying technology enhanced the drying rate when compared with convective drying significantly. Effective diffusivity of moisture in CD drying (1.95×10−7 - 4.09×10−7 m2/s) was found to be lower than that observed in MD (2.94×10−7–8.21×10−7 m2/s). The Ea values of convective drying and microwave drying were 122.28- 125 kJ/mol and 14.01- 15.03 W/g respectively. The MD had the lowest SEC as compared to CD drying methods. According to ANN results, the best values for predication of MR in CD and MD were 0.9993 and 0.9990, respectively.
Keywords
Apple, Energy consumption, Drying, Modeling, Artificial neural network
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
This preprint is available for download as a PDF.
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
Version 1
Posted 06 Jan, 2021
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 01 Mar, 2021
Review #4 received
Received 19 Feb, 2021
Review #3 received
Received 19 Feb, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 19 Feb, 2021
Review #2 received
Received 19 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #5 agreed
On 18 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 18 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #7 agreed
On 02 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #12 agreed
On 02 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #6 agreed
On 02 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 02 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #11 agreed
On 02 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #8 agreed
On 02 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 02 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #9 agreed
On 02 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 02 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #10 agreed
On 02 Feb, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 02 Feb, 2021
Editor assigned
On 02 Feb, 2021
Editor invited
On 31 Dec, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 31 Dec, 2020
First submitted
On 30 Dec, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
This preprint is under consideration at Scientific Reports. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research Article
Vali Rasooli Sharabiani
University of Mohaghegh Ardabili
Corresponding Author
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
Version 1
Posted 06 Jan, 2021
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 01 Mar, 2021
Review #4 received
Received 19 Feb, 2021
Review #3 received
Received 19 Feb, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 19 Feb, 2021
Review #2 received
Received 19 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #5 agreed
On 18 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 18 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #7 agreed
On 02 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #12 agreed
On 02 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #6 agreed
On 02 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 02 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #11 agreed
On 02 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #8 agreed
On 02 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 02 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #9 agreed
On 02 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 02 Feb, 2021
Reviewer #10 agreed
On 02 Feb, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 02 Feb, 2021
Editor assigned
On 02 Feb, 2021
Editor invited
On 31 Dec, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 31 Dec, 2020
First submitted
On 30 Dec, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Two different drying methods were applied for dehydration of apple, i.e., convection drying (CD) and microwave drying (MD). The process of convection drying through divergent temperatures; 50, 60 and 70°C at 1.0 m/s air velocity and three different levels of microwave power (90, 180, and 360 W) were studied. In the analysis of the performance of our approach on moisture ratio of apple slices, artificial neural networks (ANNs) was used to provide with a background for further discussion and evaluation. In order to evaluate the models mentioned in the literature, the Midilli et al. model was proper for dehydrating of apple slices in both MD and CD. The microwave drying technology enhanced the drying rate when compared with convective drying significantly. Effective diffusivity of moisture in CD drying (1.95×10−7 - 4.09×10−7 m2/s) was found to be lower than that observed in MD (2.94×10−7–8.21×10−7 m2/s). The Ea values of convective drying and microwave drying were 122.28- 125 kJ/mol and 14.01- 15.03 W/g respectively. The MD had the lowest SEC as compared to CD drying methods. According to ANN results, the best values for predication of MR in CD and MD were 0.9993 and 0.9990, respectively.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
This preprint is available for download as a PDF.
Loading...