D.

Determination of the Drying Models that Best Describe the Drying of Sand in this Experiment

Thin-layer equations are often used for a description of the drying kinetics for various
types of porous materials which fall mainly into three categories, namely, theoretical, semi-
theoretical and empirical. Henderson and Pabis model and Lewis model are both semi-theoretical
models which are used in this experiment to compare the curve on the drying characteristic of the
sand.

The Henderson and Pabis model is the first term of a general series solution of Fick’s
second law [CITATION Hen69 \l 1033 ].

M−M e
MR= =a exp (-kt )
M 0 −M e eq (1)

This model was used successfully for modelling a drying corn [CITATION Hen69 \l 1033
], wheat [CITATION Wat \l 1033 ] and peanuts [ CITATION Mos89 \l 1033 ]. The slope of this
model, coefficient k, is related to effective diffusivity when the drying process takes place only in
the falling rate period and liquid diffusion controls the process [ CITATION Mad96 \l 1033 ].

The Lewis (Newton) model ( [ CITATION Lew21 \l 1033 ] is a special case of the
Henderson and Pabis model where intercept is unity. Lewis described the moisture transfer from
agricultural materials as analogous to the flow of heat from a body immersed in cold fluid.
Comparing this phenomenon with Newton’s law of cooling, the drying rate is found to be
proportional to the difference in moisture content between the material being dried and the
equilibrium moisture content in the drying air condition. This can be depicted as,

dM
=−k ( M−M e )
dt eq (2)

Or after integrating yields

M −M e
MR= =exp (-kt )
M 0 −M e eq (3)
a. Henderson and Pabis Drying Curve Model

Using the values of moisture content of sand obtained from the data gathered in
the experiment, the equation of Henderson and Pabis model (Eq 1) is used to determine
the drying characteristic of the sand in oven at 80⁰C and 120⁰C. The resulting data is
graphed and is shown in Figure 1.4 a and b.

Henderson and Pabis Model at 80⁰C

0
0 f(x)20= - 0.01x40+ 0.06 60 80 100 120 140 160
-0.2 R² = 0.98

-0.4
ln(MR)

-0.6

-0.8

-1

-1.2
Time,t(min)

SERIES 1 Li near (SERIES 1)

Li near (SERIES 1)

Figure 1.4.1 Curve of Henderson and Pabis Model at 80⁰C

Handerson Pabis model at 120°C

0
0 f(x) =10- 0.05x + 0.220 30 40 50 60
R² = 0.96
-0.5

-1
ln(MR)

-1.5

-2

-2.5
Time,t(min)

SERIES 1 Li near (SERIES 1)

Figure 1.4.2 Curve of Henderson and Pabis Model at 120⁰C

 Both the graph of 80⁰C and 120⁰C are described by plotting the natural
logarithmic of moisture content versus time. From the figure, it is clear that moisture ratio
decreased considerably with increasing drying time. This is due to the escape of the
moisture content of the sand as it evaporates. The time required to reduce the moisture
ratio to any given level was dependent on the drying temperature, increasing at 80°C and
decreasing at 120°C. It is because the main factor influencing drying kinetics was the
drying temperature, as noted in other studies [ CITATION Bel00 \l 1033 ]. Thus, a higher
drying temperature produced a higher drying rate and consequently the moisture content
decreased faster. The coefficient of determination, R2, of 80°C is 0.9808, which is
relatively higher to the R2 of 120°C, which is 0.958. This means that at 80°C, the
Henderson and Pabis model has a better fit compared to that of 120°C.

b. Newton Curve Model

Newton model at 80⁰C

0
0 f(x) = - 0.01x
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
-0.2 R² = 0.99

-0.4
ln(MR)

-0.6

-0.8

-1

-1.2
Time,t(min)

Li near ()

Figure 1.4.3. Newton Model at 80°C

 Newton Model at 120⁰C
0
0 f(x) = - 0.04x
10 20 30 40 50 60
R² = 0.97
-0.5

-1
ln(MR)

-1.5

-2

-2.5
Time,t(min)

Li near ()

Figure 1.4.4 Newton Model at 120 °C

The figures above show the graph of Newton model at 80 ° C and 120◦C. The graph is
described by plotting the natural logarithmic of moisture ratio versus time. The time for the
drying process to be carried out at 80 ° C needed longer time compared to the newton model
at 120 ° C due to the fact that the rate of evaporation is actually driven by relative humidity
in relation to temperature. As the temperature increases, the relative humidity decreases
therefore it can absorb more fluid. In the figure, it clearly stated that moisture ratio decreases
with increasing drying time with 120°C as lower compared to 80°C. With temperature as one
factor in determining the drying kinetics, therefore at higher temperature, the drying rate will
increase while moisture ratio decreases. The coefficient of determination, R 2 and k for 80°C are
0.9678 and 0.0064 while at 120°C, 0.9383 and 0.0404 respectively. The mathematical model
derived for 80°C is MR = EXP(-0.0064t) and MR = EXP(0.0404t) for 120°C.

c. Tabulation of Handerson and Pabis Model and Newton Model

Table 1. R^2, k, a and model equation of Handerson and Pabis Model and Newton Model

temp model R^2 k a mathematical model

Newton 0.9678 0.0064 EXP(-0.0064t)
80 Handerson and 1.86824 1.868246EXP(-
Pabis 0.9808 0.0071 6 0.0071t)
Newton 0.9383 0.0404 EXP(0.0404t)
120 Handerson and 1.21993 1.219938EXP(-
Pabis 0.958 0.0458 8 0.0458t)
 Conclusion

The sand drying experiment was carried out determine the drying kinetics and determine
the suitable drying model based on data gathered. In modeling, Handerson and Pabis Model and
Newton model were used and based on the data, Handerson and Pabis model has a highest
coefficient of determination with R2 = 0.9808 and 0.958 at 80°C and 120°C. The mathematical
model developed for Handerson and Pabis model differ at different temperature with moisture
ration, MR = 1.868246EXP(-0.0071t) for 80°C and MR = 1.219938EXP(-0.0458t) for 120°C. This model
developed can be used to predict variations of moisture ratio at specific time of the same material
at the same temperature with reasonable accuracy using the said model.

References

Belghit, A., & Kouila, M. a. (2000). Experimental Study of Drying Kinetics by Forced
Convection of Aromatic Plants. Energy COnservation and Management, 1303-1321.
Henderson, S. M., & Pabis, S. (1969). Temperature Effect on Drying Coefficient. Journal of
Agriculture Engineering Research, 169-174.
Lewis, W. K. (1921). The Rate of Drying of Solid Materials. Industrial Engineering Chemistry,
13,427.
Madamba, P. S., Driscoll, R. H., & Buckle, K. A. (1996). Thin Layer Drying Characteristics of
Garlic Slice. Journal of Food Engineering, 29,75-97.
Moss, J. R., & Otten, L. (1989). A relationship Between Color Development and Moisture
Content During Roasting of Peanut. Canadian Institute of Food Science and Technology
Journal, 22,34-39.
Watson, E. L., & Bhargava, V. K. (1974). Thin Layer Studies on Wheat. Canadian Agricultural
Engineering, 16,18-22.