Author's Accepted Manuscript

Case studies on the effect of the air drying

conditions on the convective drying of
quinces
Dimitrios A. Tzempelikos, Alexandros P. Vour-
os, Achilleas V. Bardakas, Andronikos E. Filios,
Dionissios P. Margaris

www.elsevier.com/locate/csite

PII: S2214-157X(14)00014-8
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2014.05.001
Reference: CSITE31

To appear in: Case Studies in Thermal Engineering

Received date: 8 April 2014

Accepted date: 6 May 2014

Cite this article as: Dimitrios A. Tzempelikos, Alexandros P. Vouros, Achilleas

V. Bardakas, Andronikos E. Filios, Dionissios P. Margaris, Case studies on the
effect of the air drying conditions on the convective drying of quinces, Case
Studies in Thermal Engineering , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2014.05.001

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for
publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of
the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which
could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal
pertain.
 Case studies on the effect of the air drying conditions on the
convective drying of quinces
Dimitrios A.Tzempelikos1, Alexandros P. Vouros2, Achilleas V. Bardakas2,
Andronikos E. Filios2, Dionissios P. Margaris1
1
Laboratory of Fluid Mechanics, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Aeronautics,
University of Patras, Greece
2
Laboratory of Fluid Mechanics and Turbomachinery, Department of Mechanical Engineering
Educators,
School of Pedagogical and Technological Education (ASPETE), Greece

Corresponding author:
Dimitrios A. Tzempelikos
University of Patras
Department Mechanical Engineering and Aeronautics
Laboratory of Fluid Mechanics
University Campus, Rio, 26504
Greece
E-mail: dtzempelikos@meed-aspete.net
Phone: +302102896838
Fax: +302102896838
Abstract
The objective of the current study is to examine experimentally the thin-layer drying behaviour of
quince slices as a function of drying conditions. In a laboratory thermal convective dryer
experiments were conducted at air temperatures of 40, 50 and 60 oC and average air velocities of
1, 2 and 3 ms-1. Increasing temperature and velocity resulted to a decrease of the total time of
drying. The experimental data in terms of moisture ratio were fitted with three state-of-the-art thin-
layer drying models. In the ranges measured, the values of the effective moisture diffusivity (Deff)
were obtained between 2.67 x 10-10 and 8.17 x 10-10 m2s-1. The activation energy (Eα) varied
between 36.99 and 42.59 kJmol-1.

Keywords: Convective dryer, Quince, Mathematical modelling, Effective diffusivity, Activation

energy.

1
Highlights
¾ An increase from 40 oC to 60 oC, at 2 ms-1 resulted to a decrease of the total time of drying of
54%.
¾ An increase from 1 ms-1 to 2 ms-1, at 60 oC resulted to a decrease of the total time of drying of
about 30%.
¾ For the range of the conditions examined, Deff varied between 2.67 × 10-10 and 8.17 × 10-10
m2s-1.
¾ The estimated values of Ea lie within 36.99 and 42.59 kJmol-1.

Nomenclature
a, n coefficients in thin layer drying models
D0 pre-exponential factor of the Arrhenius equation (m2/s)
Deff effective moisture diffusivity (m2/s)
DR drying rate (g water/h)
Eα activation energy (kJ/mol)
k constants in thin layer drying models (h-1)
L half-thickness of samples (m)
N integer number of terms in Fick’s equation
M0 initial moisture content (g water/g dry matter)
Meq equilibrium moisture content (g water/g dry matter)
MR moisture ratio (dimensionless)
Mt moisture content at any time t (g water/g dry matter)
2
R coefficient of determination
Rg gas constant (8.3143 kJ/mol K)
RMSE root mean square error
T drying temperature (oC)
t drying time (h)
Tabs absolute temperature (K)
w weight loss (g)
wd dry matter (g)
wt dry matter at any time t (g)
wt+dt dry matter at time t+dt (g)

Greek symbols
χ2 reduced chi-square

2
1. Introduction
The drying is used for the removal of moisture content of different fruits and vegetables,
aiming to the efficient preservation and storage for long periods of time. It is a complex process
where a simultaneous heat and mass transfer in transient conditions occurs. Knowledge of the heat
and mass transfer mechanisms related to the process and the role of the drying parameters has a
direct impact on the improvement of the quality of the dehydrated product. The main parameters
affecting the drying process are temperature, velocity and relative humidity of the drying air.
There are many published studies dealing with the effect of the drying parameters during the
drying process of vegetables and fruits. Drying kinetics of vegetables such as potato, carrot, pepper,
garlic, mushroom etc. were studied by Krokida et al [1]. The authors studied the effect of air drying
conditions i.e. air temperature, humidity and velocity, and characteristic sample size on drying
kinetics and they concluded that the drying constant and the equilibrium moisture content of the
dehydrated product increases with temperature. For the examined cases, the temperature of the
drying air was the most important factor affecting the drying rate. Sacilik et al [2] studied the thin
layer characteristics of organic apples slices in a convective hot air dryer as a single layer with
thickness of 5 and 9 mm. Temperatures ranged from 40 to 60oC while a single air velocity of 0.8
ms-1 was utilized. They noticed that both moisture content and drying rate were affected by the
drying air temperature and slice thickness and they observed a decrease in the drying time, with the
increase of the air drying temperature and an increase in the drying rate, with the decrease of the
slice thickness. Babalis et al. [3] studied the influence of the drying conditions on the drying
constants and moisture diffusivity during the thin-layer drying of figs. The authors stated that air
velocities greater than 2ms-1 has no significant effect on the drying rate and they concluded that the
drying kinetics is most significantly affected by the air temperature, with the airflow velocity
having a limited influence on the drying process.
Focusing on the drying of quince slices, Kaya et al. [4] and Barroca et al. [5] studied the effect
of the temperature and velocity of the air stream. The former also conducted measurements by
altering the humidity of the drying air. In the study of Kaya et al. [4], the values of the imposed
temperatures varied from 35oC to 55oC, the relative humidity values from 40% to 70% while air
velocities from 0.2 ms-1 to 0.6 ms-1. The authors concluded that increasing the temperature or the
velocity of the drying air, the total drying time is decreased, while the relative humidity and the
total drying time are related in vice-versa manner. Barroca et al. [5] carried out experiments in
temperatures ranging from 40oC to 60oC and velocities from 0.7 ms-1 to 1.2 ms-1. The authors stated
that the moisture curves followed sigmoidal shape characteristic of the drying processes and gave
evidence of a reduction in drying time with the increase in temperature. They also concluded that an
increase in air velocities resulted to a higher drying rate; however, the effect of the drying velocity
on the drying rate was nearly negligible for lower moisture ratios.
The purpose of the present study is the experimental investigation of the drying kinetics of
quinces for air drying conditions (temperature 40, 50 and 60oC, velocity of 1, 2 and 3 ms-1,
humidity 10%) that have not been studied in the earlier literature and the determination of the
effective moisture diffusivity as well as the activation energy for the above conditions.

2. Experimental methods
Fresh quinces were stored in a refrigerator at about 6oC. Before drying, the quinces were
cleaned and sliced manually to a thickness of 10 mm. The initial net weight of the quince slices was
about 700 g and the initial moisture content (M0) was measured to be 81.04% in wet basis (w.b.) or
4.27 g water / g dry matter in dry basis (d.b.) and was determined by the oven-drying method, for
3
the fresh and for the final dehydrated products at 70oC for 24h [6] with repetition in order to assure
accurate moisture content average values.
The laboratory thermal convective dryer (LTCD) unit was started 2h before each experiment
in order to achieve the desired steady state conditions of the drying air flow. Experiments were
performed at air drying conditions of 40, 50 and 60 oC, air velocities 1, 2 and 3 ms-1, while the
relative humidity remained constant at 10%. Product weight, air drying temperature, probe-surface
temperature and relative humidity were acquired every 10 min. All experiments were twice repeated
and the means of measurements were averaged and used to express the data of the moisture content.
Fig.1 shows the LTCD unit which is equipped with an integrated measurement and control
instrumentation. The overall dimensions of the facility are 4.7 m (length), 2.5 m (width) and 2.5 m
(height). The air ducts are made from steel of 0.8 mm thickness. All the ducts were insulated with
10 mm of Alveolen (Frelen). The square section drying chamber (0.5 m x 0.5 m) is of tower
(vertical) type and contains a metal tray which is supported on four, side wall mounted, load cells.
A set of four refractory glasses of 10 mm thickness are available to replace the side steel walls when
optical clarity and precise visual observations are required. A detailed description of the
components and the operational characteristics has been presented in a previous publication [7].

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the LTCD unit (curved arrow indicate the flow direction when dryer
is in full recirculation operation): A. Front view, B. Top view, C. Right side view and D.
Perspective view. Numbered items: (1) Ambient air inlet, (2) Inlet damper, (3) By pass air damper,
(4) Outlet damper, (5) Air outlet, (6) Centrifugal fan, (7) Three-phase electric motor regulated by
an AC inverter, (8) Diffuser, (9) Temperature and humidity sensors, (10) Tube heat exchanger, (11)
Guide vanes, (12) Metal frame for pressure cells, (13) Flow straightener, (14) Temperature and
humidity sensors, (15) Pressure cells, (16) Metal tray, (17) Temperature and humidity sensors, (18)
Drying chamber, (19) Pitot rake, (20) Boiler, (21) Air compressor, (22) Water and air spray nozzle.

The air and drying product temperatures were measured using calibrated PT100 with class A
tolerance and accuracy ±0,15oC. A 3-wire transmitter used to connect the probes to the card

4
interface with accuracy ±0,2oC was used. The relative humidity of the drying air was determined
using calibrated humidity transmitter with accuracy ±2,95 %. A differential pressure transmitter
with a calibrated accuracy ± 2% of the selected range of 25 Pa was used to measure dynamic
pressure and hence air drying velocity. The weight was quantified using four load cells (total
nominal load 10 kg) with accuracy ±0,05% and an analog transmitter with accuracy ±0,03%. A
custom application in Labview® was used to operate and control the LTCD device.

3. Engineering analysis
The moisture content of the samples during the drying process is calculated according to the
following formula:
M t = ( wt − wd ) wd (1)
where Mt is the moisture content at any time t, g water/g dry matter; wt is the dry matter at any time
t, g; wd is the dry matter, g. It is used however to present moisture data in non-dimensional form
involving the moisture ratio defined by the following equation:
MR = ( M t − M eq ) (M 0 − M eq ) (2)
where M0 and Meq are the initial and equilibrium moisture contents, g water/g dry matter,
respectively. Meq is quite small compared with M0 and Mt and in the MR definition may be ignored
[8].
The drying rate DR of quince slices was calculated using the following equation:
DR = − d ( M t + dt − M t ) dt (3)
where Mt+dt is the moisture content at time t+dt, g water/g dry matter and t is time, h.
The experimental data were fitted using the following three, thin-layer drying models: i)
Newton, MR = exp(-kt) [9], ii) Henderson – Rabis, MR = α exp(-kt) [10] and iii) Page: ΜR = exp(-
ktn) [11], in order to find the best suitable model for describing the drying behavior of a quince slice
in LTCT unit. Non-linear regression analysis is used for the determination of the constants of each
model. The effectiveness of each model was evaluated based on statistical criteria i.e. coefficient of
determination (R2), reduced chi-square (χ2) and root mean square error (RMSE). The best model
describing the thin-layer drying characteristics of quince slices was chosen based on the higher R2
value and the lower χ2 and RMSE values. An analytical solution of Fick’s model of mass-diffusion
equation for drying biological products in a falling-rate period was developed by Crank [12]. The
assumption for the analytical solution were recently reviewed by Lopez [13]. For long drying times
a limiting of Crank’s equation is expressed in a logarithmic form:
ln MR = ln ( 8 π 2 ) − ⎡⎣ π 2 Deff t ( 4 L )⎤⎦
2
(4)

where Deff is the effective moisture diffusivity, m2s-1; t is the drying time, h; L is the half-thickness
of the samples. To determine Deff, firstly the slope (θ) of the relationship between the experimental
drying data in terms of lnMR and drying time, Eq. (4), is computed, and then Deff, is calculated by:
θ = π2 Deff 4L2 (5)

The activation energy can be obtained from the Arrhenius correlation, which demonstrates the
effective diffusivity reliance on temperature, and taking the natural logarithmic exponential form of
Arrhenius, can be expressed as:
Deff = D0 exp ⎡⎣ − Eα ( R T )⎤⎦
g abs (6)

5
where D0 is the pre-exponential factor of the Arrhenious equation, m2s-1; Eα is the activation energy,
kJ mol-1; Rg is the gas constant, kJ mol-1K-1; Tabs is the absolute temperature. The above exponential
form of Arrhenius can be expressed as:
ln Deff = ln D0 − ⎡⎣ Eα ( R T )⎤⎦
g abs (7)

A plot of lnDeff versus 1/Tabs, gives a straight line of slope Eα/Rg slope and consequently, the
energy activation (Eα).

4. Results and discussion

The drying curves for all drying experiments performed are reported in Figures 2 and 3.
Fig. 2a shows the variation of moisture content with time for different temperatures at 2 ms-1 air
velocity. Increasing the temperature from 40oC to 50oC, the drying time is decreased about 25%. A
further increase in 60oC decreased the drying time about 36%, while the total drying time is reduced
about 54% in respect of an increase of the drying temperature from 40oC to 60oC.
Fig. 2b presents the variation of moisture content for different air velocities at constant air
temperature of 60oC. In this way, the effect of the air drying velocity in the drying time is evident.
As can been seen an increase in the air velocity from 1 to 2 ms-1 results to a decrease of the drying
time about 30%. It is interesting to note that the curves corresponding to 2 and 3 ms-1 coincide
during the experiments, showing that for values greater than 2 ms-1, the velocity has not a
significant effect on the drying process. The results of the above figures indicate that the increase of
temperature and velocity affect the heat and mass transfer which seems to be most significant for
higher temperature differences of drying air and product and also for higher air drying velocities.
However, for large values of velocity, the most important parameter is the temperature difference,
while the effect of the velocity diminishes.

4.5 4.5
(a) (b)
Moisture content, M (g water / g dry matter)

4.0 40 C
o
4.0 1 m/s
Moisture content, M (g water / g dry matter)

o
50 C 2 m/s
3.5 o
3.5 3 m/s
60 C
3.0 3.0

2.5 2.5

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Drying time, t (h) Drying time, t (h)

Fig. 2 The variation of moisture content with drying time for (a) different temperatures at air
velocity of 2 ms-1 (b) different air velocities at temperature of 60oC.

6
 2.0 2.0
(a) (b)
1.8 1.8

Drying Rate, DR (g water / g dry matter h)

o
40 C
Drying Rate, DR (g water / g dry matter h)
1 m/s
1.6 o
50 C 1.6 2 m/s
o
1.4 60 C 3 m/s
1.4
1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Moisture content, M (g water / g dry matter) Moisture content, M (g water / g dry matter)
Fig. 3 The infulence of drying temperatures on the variation of the drying rate with moisture
content at (a) air velocity of 2 ms-1 (b) temperature of 60oC.

1.0 1.0
(a) (b)
0.9 0.9 1 m/s
o
40 C 2 m/s
0.8 o 0.8
50 C 3 m/s
o
0.7 60 C 0.7 fit 1 m/s
Moisture Ratio, MR
Moisture Ratio, MR

o
0.6 fit 40 C 0.6 fit 2 m/s
o
fit 50 C fit 3 m/s
0.5 o 0.5
fit 60 C
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Drying time, t (h) Drying time, t (h)
Fig. 4 Fitting the moisture ratio with the Page thin-layer drying model for (a) different
temperatures at air velocity of 2 ms-1 (b) different air velocities at temperature of 60oC.

Fig. 3a presents the influence of drying temperature on the variation of the drying rate with
moisture content at air velocity of 2 ms-1. Increasing the drying temperature results in an increase of
the drying rate and a decrease of the total time of drying. In agreement to the previous plots, the
higher temperature difference between the air and the quince accelerates the removal of water. All
the curves of the diagram indicate four zones which are characterized by the different rates of
drying rate decrease with the decrease of moisture content. Initially, a significant decrease of the
drying rates occurs until a moisture content value close to 3.8 g water / g dry matter for all the
drying temperatures. After this value of moisture, an intermediate region is observed before a third
zone, in which an almost linear decrease occurs, leads to low moisture contents. The third region
can be considered to extend from 3 to 0.5 g water / g dry matter for all the temperatures examined.
7
After this value of moisture content, the rates of decrease are sharp, denoting the final stage of
drying. For the three different temperatures, two different routes to the equivalent moisture are
apparent. The main feature of this plot is evidently the presence of the falling rate period, a behavior
which has been also observed in [2].
Fig. 3b presents the influence of air drying velocity on the variation of the drying rate with
moisture content at air temperature 60oC. It can be observed that the higher the air drying velocity
the higher the drying rate especially for greater moisture content (4.27 to 1.5 g water / g dry matter).
At lower moisture content, the effect of the velocity on the drying rate seems to be insignificant. In
particular, it is evident that the effect of air velocity can be considered negligible for values higher
than 2 ms-1, since after that limit the drying curves are practically identical.

Table 1. Fitting results for different drying conditions.

Air velocity T
Model k α n R2 χ2 x 10-4 RMSE
(ms-1) (oC)
Newton 0.0986 0.9907 4.92 0.0221
40 Henderson - Rabis 0.0922 0.9386 0.9943 3.01 0.0173
Page 0.1363 0.8721 0.9972 1.50 0.0122
Newton 0.1676 0.9974 1.71 0.0130
1 50 Henderson - Rabis 0.1631 0.9734 0.9974 1.68 0.0129
Page 0.1727 0.9852 0.9981 1.23 0.0110
Newton 0.2139 0.9958 2.97 0.0172
60 Henderson - Rabis 0.2158 1.0094 0.9958 2.96 0.0171
Page 0.1882 1.0716 0.9971 2.04 0.0142
Newton 0.1254 0.9942 3.59 0.0189
40 Henderson - Rabis 0.1184 0.9448 0.9955 2.81 0.0167
Page 0.1434 0.9423 0,9975 1.57 0.0125
Newton 0.1736 0.9955 2.85 0.0168
2 50 Henderson - Rabis 0.1660 0.9562 0.9961 2.49 0.0157
Page 0.1874 0.9616 0.9975 1.56 0.0124
Newton 0.2805 0.9951 3.57 0.0188
60 Henderson - Rabis 0.2835 1.0112 0.9952 3.53 0.0186
Page 0.2497 1.0768 0.9967 2.40 0.0153
Newton 0.1031 0.9946 3.41 0.0184
40 Henderson - Rabis 0.0990 0.9628 0.9956 2.83 0.0167
Page 0.1155 0.9536 0.9966 2.18 0.0147
Newton 0.1745 0.9979 1.42 0.0119
3 50 Henderson - Rabis 0.1728 0.9903 0.9980 1.40 0.0117
Page 0.1703 1.0123 0.9980 1.37 0.0116
Newton 0.2782 0.9946 3.97 0.0198
60 Henderson - Rabis 0.2789 1.0024 0.9946 4.03 0.0198
Page 0.2578 1.0507 0.9954 3.45 0.0183

The statistical results in terms of R2, χ2 and RMSE, as well as drying constants k for Newton,
a and k for Henderson – Rabis and k, n for Page models, are shown in Table 1, where T is the
drying temperature. All the three thin-layer drying models obtain an R2 > 0.99 while the small
values for the other criteria, show a very good consistence with the experiments. Among the
selected models, the Page model implies an excellent consistency in all the ranges of the drying air
temperatures and velocities (bold numbers in Table 1) and thus this model may be assumed to
represent the drying behavior of quince slices in a convective dryer within the examined range. All
the experimental values of the moisture ratio for the different drying air temperatures and velocities,

8
 as well the fittings obtained for each case using the Page model are illustrated in Figures 4a and 4b
respectively.
Table 2 shows the effective moisture diffusivity (Deff) for each test. Deff values varied from
2.67x10-10 to 8.17x10-10. These values are in a good agreement with those reported in the literature
[4, 14]. As can be seen an increase in either the velocity or temperature increases moisture
diffusivity due to the higher mass transfer.
The energy activation (Eα) and the Arrhenius coefficient (D0) for each value of drying air
velocity are presented in Table 3. An increase in air velocity increases both Eα and D0. The value of
energy activation ranged between 36.99 kJmol-1 and 42.59 kJmol-1, similar to those given in the
literature for the drying of different foods [4, 15].

Table 2. Effective moisture diffusivity coefficient, Deff.

Air velocity (ms-1) Temperature (oC) Deff x 10-10 (m2s-1) R2
40 2.67 0.9993
1 50 4.42 0.9989
60 6.26 0.9933
40 3.23 0.9982
2 50 4.91 0.9951
60 7.82 0.9958
40 3.06 0.9901
3 50 5.36 0.9940
60 8.17 0.9903

Table 3. Energy of activation Eα and Arrhenius coefficient D0.

Air velocity (ms-1) Eα (kJmol-1) R2 D0 (m2s-1)
1 36.99 0.9925 4.04 x 10-4
2 38.29 0.9976 7.78 x 10-4
3 42.59 0.9959 3.97 x 10-3

5. Conclusions
In the present study, a LTCD unit was used to assess the drying kinetics of quince.
Experiments were carried out at three different drying air temperatures (40oC, 50oC and 60oC) and
three drying air velocities (1 ms-1, 2 ms-1 and 3 ms-1) while relative humidity remained constant at
10%. The following conclusions can be drawn from the experimental study:
i. Increasing the drying temperature or the velocity of the drying air decreases the total drying
time. In particular, an increase from 40 oC to 60 oC in temperature, at 2 ms-1 drying velocity
resulted to a decrease of the total time of drying of about 54%. On the other hand at air drying
temperature of 60 oC, an increase from 1 ms-1 to 2 ms-1 in drying velocity resulted to a decrease
of the total time of drying of about 30%.
ii. At lower moisture content the effect of the air drying velocity on the drying rate is nearly
insignificant.
iii. A nonlinear regression analysis was performed, indicating that Page’s thin-layer drying model
is best-fitted to the experimental results.
iv. Using the experimental data, the values of Deff were estimated, showing an increase in drying
velocity or temperature increases effective moisture diffusivity.
v. The estimated values of Ea and D0 lie within the range reported in the previous literature for
quince slices drying while an increase in drying velocity increases energy of activation.

9
 References
[1] Krokida MK, Karathanos VT, Maroulis ZB, Marinos-Kouris D. Drying Kinetics of some
vegetables. Journal of Food Engineering 2003; 59:391-403.
[2] Sacilik K, Elicin AK. The thin layer drying characteristics of organic apple slices. Journal of
Food Engineering 2006; 73:281-289.
[3] Babalis SJ, Belessiotis VG. Influence of the drying conditions on the drying constants and
moisture diffusivity during the thin-layer drying of figs. Journal of Food Engineering 2004;
65:449-458.
[4] Kaya A, Aydin O, Demirtas C, Akgun M. An experimental study on the drying kinetics of
quince. Desalination 2007; 212:328-343.
[5] Barroca MJ, Guine RPF. Study of drying kinetics of quince. Proceedings (Electronic) da
International Conference of Agricultural Engineering CIGR-AgEng 2012, Valencia, Spain
2012, 8-12 July, 6 pp.
[6] AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis, 15th Ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists,
Arlington, VA, 1990.
[7] Tzempelikos DA, Vouros AP, Bardakas AV, Filios AE, Margaris DP. Design, construction
and evaluation of a new laboratory convective dryer using CFD. International Journal of
Mechanics 2013; 7:425-434.
[8] Doymaz I. An Experimental Study on Drying of Green Apples. Drying Technology 2009;
27:478-485.
[9] Jayas D, Cenkowski S, Rabis S, Muir W. Review of thin layer drying and wetting equations.
Drying Technology 1991; 9:551-588.
[10] Henderson S, Rabis S. Grain drying theory. II. Temperature effects on drying coefficient.
Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 1961; 6:169-174.
[11] Page G. Factor influencing the maximum rates of air drying shelled corn in thin layer. Master
Thesis, Purdue University, 1949.
[12] Crank J. The mathematics of diffusion, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, London, 1975.
[13] Lopez R, de Ita A, Vaca M. Drying of prickly pear cactus cladodes (Opuntia ficus indica) in a
forced convection tunnel. Energy Conversion and Management 2009; 50:2119-2126.
[14] Zogzas NP, Maroulis ZB, Marinos-Kouris D. Moisture diffusivity data compilation in
foodstuffs. Drying Technology 1996;14:2225-2253.
[15] Erbay Z, Icier F. A review of thin layer drying of foods: Theory, modelling and experimental
results.Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 2010; 50 (5):441-464.

10