Drying Technology

An International Journal

ISSN: 0737-3937 (Print) 1532-2300 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ldrt20

Electrohydrodynamic Drying of Sand

Ashutosh Singh, Sai Kranthi Kumar Vanga, Gopu Raveendran Nair, Yvan
Gariepy, Valerie Orsat & Vijaya Raghavan

To cite this article: Ashutosh Singh, Sai Kranthi Kumar Vanga, Gopu Raveendran Nair, Yvan
Gariepy, Valerie Orsat & Vijaya Raghavan (2016): Electrohydrodynamic Drying of Sand, Drying
Technology, DOI: 10.1080/07373937.2016.1170028

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07373937.2016.1170028

Accepted author version posted online: 29

Apr 2016.
Published online: 29 Apr 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 32

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ldrt20

Download by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] Date: 06 June 2016, At: 16:37
 Electrohydrodynamic Drying of Sand

Ashutosh Singh1,, Sai Kranthi Kumar Vanga1, Gopu Raveendran Nair1, Yvan Gariepy1,

Valerie Orsat1, Vijaya Raghavan1

1
Department of Bioresource Engineering, McGill University, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue,

Quebec, Canada
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

Address Correspondence to Ashutosh Singh Department of Bioresource Engineering,

McGill University, 21111 Rue Lakeshore, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec, Canada,

H9X 3V9. E-mail: ashutosh.singh@mail.mcgill.ca

Abstract

This study analyzes the electrohydrodynamic (EHD) drying characteristics of sand.

Effect of process parameters (independent variables) including air speed, electrode gap

and applied voltage on drying kinetics and dependent variables including percentage

water removed (%), Sherwood number, EHD number and specific energy consumed

(kJ·kg-1) were also investigated using a central composite design and response surface

methodology. Maximum drying was obtained for process parameter combination of air

speed (2 m·s-1), electrode gap (1.5 cm) and applied voltage (15 kV). Air speed and

electric field intensity (ratio of applied voltage to electrode gap) were found to have

significant effect on percentage water removed (%) and Sherwood number. In case of

EHD number and specific energy consumed during the EHD drying process, all process

1
 parameters had significant effect on them. The specific energy consumed increased with

an increase in applied voltage but reduced with an increase in air speed at any given

applied voltage suggesting that the EHD drying process, in combination with cross-flow,

will lead to higher drying rate and low energy consumption under ambient conditions.

Regression models were also developed describing the relation between independent and

dependent variables.

KEYWORDS: Drying kinetics; electrohydrodynamic drying; specific energy

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

consumption; electric field intensity

1. INTRODUCTION

Drying is an important unit operation that is used to separate moisture or other volatile

substances trapped within the microstructure of a solid material [1]. In general

conventional drying systems involve application of convective, conductive and radiative

heat sources for enhancement of heat and mass transfer [2]. During the drying process the

drying material only absorbs a fraction of the energy conveyed from the aforementioned

sources, and a major part of the energy is lost, making these techniques highly inefficient

in terms of energy conservation [3]. In recent years an increasing global concerns over

climate change, which is often attributed to emission of greenhouse gases (GHG’s) from

industrial and domestic sources has motivated the research and development of novel

energy sources and techniques that are highly efficient in energy utilization.

Electrohydrodynamic (EHD) drying technique is one such method that utilizes the energy

produced from a corona discharge that occurs in the region close to a highly curved and

charged electrode (such as the tip of a needle or a small diameter wire). The development

2
 of high electric field leads to emission of electrons from the charged electrode. These

electrons ionize the gas molecules surrounding the electrode, which then migrate towards

the ground electrode and during the process they transfer their momentum to neutral

molecules in the gas via collision. This phenomenon leads to generation of an ion bulk

movement, which is termed as ionic wind or corona wind [2–6].

EHD technique provides several advantages over conventional drying techniques. Firstly,
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

it requires no movable parts to convert electrical energy into kinetic energy, therefore the

design, fabrication and maintenance of an EHD applicator requires less monetary

investment. Secondly, the amount of power consumed for generation of corona wind is

usually very small, which makes this technique attractive from an energy saving point of

view as compared to conventional drying techniques. The only disadvantage of an EHD

process is generation of ozone that might pose health risks, but ozone generation can be

effectively monitored, controlled and even eradicated [7].

In recent years several studies have shown that electric field can be used to significantly

enhance the drying rate [8–11]; for example studies on tomato slices [12], apple slices [5,

13], potato slab [6], wheat [10], rice [11], scallop [14], Japanese radish [8], okara [15, 16]

are available in the published journal domain. As most of these studies evaluate the

application of EHD in drying of food products, hardly any of them discuss the effect of

processing parameters including electrode gap, electrode geometry, applied voltage, and

discharge polarity. Only Lai et al. [3, 17–19] has conducted a series of studies to evaluate

the effect of corona discharge on overall drying rate and optimization of the drying

3
 process as a function of the aforementioned processing parameters. In their

comprehensive review on application of EHD and high-electric field for food and

bioprocessing, Singh et al. [2] showed that the specific energy consumed, which is

defined as amount of energy (kJ) consumed to evaporate one kilogram of water is much

lower for an EHD drying process as compared to the theoretical value of latent heat of

vaporization (2,700 kJ·kg-1), which makes EHD a highly energy efficient process for

drying, but it also generates several questions on how and in which form is the water
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

removed during EHD drying process. As a possible explanation, they suggested that the

lower specific energy consumption during EHD process might be because of the presence

of cross-flow of air over the sample surfaces used in the studies evaluated by them.

Another interesting aspect of EHD drying that needs to be validated is the applicability of

diffusion model for drying analysis. It is known that during a non-electric field driven

drying process, mass transfer is driven by diffusion and the same holds true in the case of

EHD as suggested by several literatures. However, this assumption is still debatable as

there is no existing general theory that can explain the mass transfer under the influence

of an external electric field.

This study was carried out to understand the interaction between cross-flow of air over

sample surface and electrical parameters including applied voltage and electrode gap on

drying enhancement of a single wire electrode system using response surface analysis.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Test Sample Preparation

4
 The test sample consisted of Ottawa Sand Standard (20-30 Mesh) saturated with water.

Sand samples were bone dried in an oven for 12 hours and left to cool down to ambient

temperature before every experiment, later water was added to the sand sample until it

became completely saturated.

2.2 Experimental Setup

Figure 1 shows the schematic diagram of the EHD setup used for the present study. It
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

consisted of a sample compartment made of Plexiglas of the following dimensions; 281

mm long, 110 mm wide and 80 mm high. It was connected to a blower at one end, which

forced the air into the compartment at different velocities (1 m·s-1, 1.5 m·s-1 and 2 m·s-1)

set manually before the start of the experiment. The sample container was also made of

Plexiglas of dimensions; 100 mm long, 25 mm wide and 25 mm deep. The base of the

sample container was made of aluminum, which acted as the ground electrode. The

sample compartment also enclosed a vertically mounted emitting electrode (copper wire

of diameter of 0.5 mm), which was suspended above the sample box. The gap between

the emitting electrode and sample surface was varied between 1.5 cm and 2.5 cm. A

direct current at high voltage (positive polarity) was applied to the emitting electrode

from a power supply unit, which had the maximum voltage output of 30 kV. The

temperature and the relative humidity of the ambient air and the loss of water was

recorded by a data logger every 10 s. The drying experiment was conducted for at least 5

h and during all the experiments the ambient temperature remained fairly constant, but

during some experimental runs the relative humidity showed substantial changes, this

5
 change might have contributed to the variability in the data that has be discussed in the

following sections.

2.2 Experimental Design

The experiment design consisted of three independent factors (air velocity, applied

voltage and electrode gap (distance between the emitting electrode and sample surface))

with 3 levels each, which were used to generate a face centered Central Composite
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

Design (CCD). The experimental design was developed using JMP software (ver. 10,

SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) to determine the effect of the process parameters

(variables), each at three equidistant levels (-1, 0, +1) or (a, 0, A) (Table 2) and their

interaction on the response variables, such as percentage water removed, Sherwood

number, EHD number and specific energy consumed (kJ·kg-1). The CCD consisted of 20

experimental combinations of factors including six central point combinations, six axial

combinations and eight factorial combinations. All the factorial and axial experimental

combinations were replicated thrice and the data were analyzed using Response Surface

Methodology (RSM). Results from the three replicates of control samples (only cross-

flow) were used as reference to evaluate the drying enhancement with electric field.

2.3 Mathematical Modeling

The effect of the process parameters on the drying kinetics was evaluated using

mathematical models including Newton, Page, Modified Page, Henderson and Pabis and

Wang and Singh (Table 3).

6
 Note: Where, k is the drying rate constant (min-1); n, a, b and c are drying coefficients

(dimension less) which have values depending on the drying curve and equation; t is the

time (min); and MR is the moisture ratio (Equation 7) [1].

The bone-dried sand of mass 100 g 1.3 g was used for all the experiments and known

mass of water was added to it. The initial moisture content of the saturated sand sample

for all experimental runs on dry basis (d.b.) was estimated to be (23 0.3 %).
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

Mw
M.C.(d.b.) (6)
Ms

Where, Mw is the mass of water in the sample (g); Ms is the mass of the solid in the

sample (g).

Mi Me
MR (7)
M0 Me

Where, M0, Mi and Me are initial moisture content, moisture content at time ti and

equilibrium moisture content respectively. The equilibrium moisture content was

considered negligible hence Equation 7 reduces to:

Mi
MR (8)
M0

Parameters such as root mean square error (RMSE) (Equation 9), coefficient of

determination R2 (Equation 10) and sum square error (SSE) were used to estimate the

goodness of fit of the model curves.

7
 i n
1
RMSE ( MRipred MRiexp ) (9)
n i 1

MRipred MRiexp
Where, n is the number of observations, is the predicted MR at time ti and is

the measured value of MR at time ti.

The coefficient of determination R2 is calculated using Equation 10.

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

i n
( MRiexp MRiPr ed ) 2
R2 1 i 1
i n
(10)
exp exp 2
( MR i MR )
i 1

exp
Where, MR represents the mean experimentally measured value of MR. The sum square

error (SSE) was also determined using Equation 11 as the criteria for goodness of fit [1].

(11)
1 i n
SSE ( MRipred MRiexp ) 2
n i 1

In their study Lai et al. [4, 17], represented the enhanced drying rate by electric field

under cross-flow conditions as a function of Sherwood number and EHD number. Hence,

these two variables were also estimated in the present study to evaluate the effect of

different experimental conditions on them.

Sherwood number (Sh) was expressed as below [4]:

8
 Sh
hm d m d
(12)
D Ac c D

Where, hm is the mass transfer coefficient (m·s-1); d is the diameter of the emitting wire

electrode (m); D is the mass diffusivity (m2·s-1); m. is defined as rate of mass transfer

(kg·s-1); Ac is the sample surface area exposed to the corona wind (m2); Δc is the water
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

vapor concentration difference between the sample surface and ambient air (kg·m-3).

Sherwood number is the measure of the ratio of convective mass transfer, i.e. it is the

ratio of mass transfer coefficient to molecular diffusion, which is commonly represented

by diffusivity.

EHD number (NEHD) (Equation 13) is defined as the ratio of corona wind velocity and air

velocity (cross-flow) [4].

ue
N EHD (13)
ui

Where, ue is the corona wind velocity (m·s-1) and ui is the air velocity (m·s-1). The corona

wind velocity was estimated using the equation suggested by Lai et al. [20].

2.4 Determination Of Specific Energy Consumption

The applied power (P) and the energy (E) for the EHD drying process were estimated by

Equation 14-15.

P=I V (14)

9
 E=P t (15)

Where, I is the current (A); V is the applied voltage and t is the drying time. The specific

energy consumed (SEC) was determined using Equation 16.

E
SEC (16)
M
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

Where, E (kJ) is the energy consumed and M (kg) is the mass of water removed.

2.5 Statistical Analysis

All statistical analyses were carried out using JMP software (ver. 10, SAS Institute Inc.,

Cary, NC, USA). The fitness of the model for CCD was determined by evaluating the

Fisher Test value (F-Value), and the coefficient of determination (R2) as obtained from

the analysis of variance (ANOVA) at 95% confidence (p 0.05) level. Duncan Multiple

Range test was performed using Statistical Analysis Software (SAS 9.2, SAS institute

Inc., Cary, NC, USA). The drying kinetics for the samples was determined using

MATLAB R2009b (Mathworks Inc. MA, USA).

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Current-Voltage Relationship

Before the start of the experiment, the relation between the current and voltage was

determined by increasing the positive applied voltage in the range of 7-25 kV and the

corona current (μA) was measured. To estimate the effect of electrode gap on the current-

10
 voltage relationship, the aforementioned steps were repeated for each set of electrode

distances (1.5, 2 and 2.5 cm). The resulting relationship is shown in Figure 2.

It was observed that the corona current increased with an increase in applied voltage but

as the difference between electrode gap was not significant, no conclusive difference in

the corona current values were observed among different electrode gaps. As the voltage

was increased, spark over was observed beyond 20 kV for electrode gap of 1.5 cm, hence,
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

for the present study applied voltage values were set at 10, 12.5 and 15 kV. The electrode

gap was not reduced further below 1.5 cm as the high voltage system became unstable

and system interruptions occurred.

3.2 Drying Kinetics

The drying curves for EHD dried saturated sand samples under different experimental

conditions are shown in Figure 3. From the figure it can be observed that the sand sample

exposed to the experimental condition of 2 (air velocity, m·s-1); 1.5 (electrode gap, cm)

and 15 (applied voltage, kV) dried faster than all other experimental conditions and

control.

Considering the drying kinetics it can also be observed that for almost all the

experimental conditions and control, a constant-rate drying period was observed, which

was in accordance with the findings of Lai et al. [3, 4], for only the experiments

conducted at 1.5 (air velocity, m·s-1), 2 (electrode gap, cm) and 10 (applied voltage, kV)

and 2 (air velocity, m·s-1), 2.5 (electrode gap, cm), 10 (applied voltage, kV) a variation

11
 was observed that can be attributed to the changes in the ambient relative humidity

(Figure 4). This variation can be explained by understanding the effect of relative

humidity on the ionization process or in the general the corona wind generation process.

The ionization around the emitting electrode or generation of the corona wind is

dependent on the field strength (applied voltage/electrode gap) and also on the water

vapor content of the atmospheric air [21]. Corona wind generation starts when the applied

voltage is high enough to let out emission of electrons and ionization of the air
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

surrounding the electrode. This wind is self-sustained as long as the voltage is high

enough to generate corona wind. In their study on the effect of humidity on the

generation of positive corona discharge Fouad et al. (1995) observed that as the relative

humidity of the air increased, the thickness of the ionization zone near the electrode

decreased, which lead to the decay in the momentum of the electrons or photons emitted

from the discharging electrode. In this study too it was observed that the increase in

relative humidity lead to decrease in the drying rate and the drying kinetics was abrupt

due to fluctuation in the relative humidity. It is important to note here that this study was

conducted under the condition, where relative humidity of the chamber or the

experimental area was not controlled, for majority of the experimental runs except for

two the relative humidity remained lower and constant. It was evident from the

observation that the effect of varying relative humidity on the EHD process needs to be

studied extensively to accurately design and develop a scaled EHD process for

commercial use.

12
 Mathematical models presented in Table 3 (Equations1 to 5) were fitted to the drying

curves and statistical values used to define the goodness of model fitness were calculated

(Table 4).

Only the best-fitted models for each experimental condition were represented in Table 4.

The criteria for selection were according to highest R2 average values, lowest RMSE and

SSE values. From Table 4 it can be observed that Page model can be used to fit all the
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

experimental conditions with R2 of 0.99 except for 1.5 (air velocity, m·s-1), 2 (electrode

gap, cm) and 10 (applied voltage, kV) and 2 (air velocity, m·s-1), 2.5 (electrode gap, cm)

and 10 (applied voltage, kV) with R2 of .87 and .93 respectively (Figure 4). These

variations were related to the change in relative humidity during the experimental run.

3.3 Response Surface Analysis

The results of the CCD experimental design are reported in Table 2. From the table it can

be observed that maximum water removal (38.1%) took place when the applied voltage

was set to 15 kV, electrode gap at 1.5 cm and air velocity at 2 m·s-1 and the minimum

(18.65 %) occurred when applied voltage was set to 15 kV, electrode gap at 2.5 cm and

air velocity at 1 m·s-1. The ANOVA analysis for the effect of process parameters on

percentage water removed (Table 5) revealed that air velocity (m·s-1) and electrode gap

(cm) had a significant influence (p≤0.0021 and p≤0.0325, respectively) on it. Whereas,

applied voltage had no significant effect (p>0.05). Out of all the cross terms, only the

cross term between applied voltage and electrode gap had a significant effect on the

amount of water removed, which was obvious as this cross term refers to the electric field

13
 intensity (applied voltage/electrode gap). Several studies have suggested that the higher

the electric field intensity, the higher is the drying rate [3, 8, 9]. At lower electric field

intensity, i.e. when the applied voltage is low or the electrode gap is increased, cross flow

can suppress the corona wind effect and could produce an adverse effect on drying. This

phenomenon can be attributed for lower water removal percentage for experiments

conducted at higher air velocity in combination with lower applied voltage and higher

electrode gap.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

In conventional drying process, presence of the cross flow will enhance the drying

process. But in case of EHD, cross flow interacts with the corona wind and if the cross

flow velocity is high enough it will diminish the influence of corona wind on the drying

process [22]. Figure 5 presents the results of the Tukey’s HSD (honest significant

difference) test, where it can be observed that most of the experimental conditions except

for (+-+: air velocity of 2 m·s-1, electrode gap of 1.5 cm and applied voltage of 15 kV and

00A: air velocity of 1.5 m·s-1, electrode gap of 2 cm and applied voltage of 15 kV)) had a

significant effect on the percentage of moisture removed.

The interaction among the process parameters was analyzed using a three dimensional

response surface graph (Figure 6). From the figure, it can be inferred that air velocity and

applied voltage had significant effect on the amount of moisture removed. It was also

observed that when the applied voltage and electrode gap were set at the lowest value of

10 kV and 1.5 cm, an increase in air velocity led to an increase in amount of water

14
 removed and as the voltage was increased at any given air velocity similar results were

obtained, indicating an increase in amount of water removed.

As suggested by Lai et al. [3, 18], the Sherwood and EHD numbers were also estimated

to predict the interactions between the process parameters and their effect on them. Lai et

al. [4] expressed the enhanced drying rate by EHD as a function of Sherwood’s number

and EHD’s number (in the presence of cross-flow). In this study, it was observed that
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

process parameters such as air speed and electrode gap had significant effect on drying

rate, while applied voltage alone had no significant effect. The interaction between

electrode gap and applied voltage i.e. the applied electric field intensity had a significant

effect on the Sherwood number and so did their individual quadratic terms (Table 6,

Figure 7). The mass transfer (removal of moisture) process depends on the relevant

physical properties of the fluid, the geometry used along with relevant dimensions and

the average velocity of the fluid. Hence, we can correctly infer that in the experimental

setup used in this study the geometry of the designed equipment and the two fluid flows,

i.e. cross-flow and the corona wind both will influence the removal of moisture.

Moreover, our response surface analysis of the effect of process parameters on the

Sherwood number duly supports this understanding.

With respect to the EHD number which is defined as the ratio of ion velocity or drag to

inertial force or air velocity [23] it was observed that all process parameters; air velocity,

electrode gap and applied voltage had a significant effect on the EHD number (Table 7,

Figure 8). This observation was not a surprise because, as per the definition, the

15
 calculation of EHD number includes electric field intensity that governs the ion drag and

air speed. From Equation 14 it can be understood that a higher EHD number suggests that

ion drag or the corona wind prevails over the air velocity and vice versa.

Hence looking at the experimental data obtained in the Table 2, for a given air velocity

and electrode gap, if the applied voltage is increased from 10 kV to 15 kV, the percentage

water removed increases and so does the EHD number. This observation was in
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

accordance with Lai et al. [3], who suggested that an increase in EHD number > 1 will

improve the rate of drying but as the air velocity is increased and electric field intensity

reduced, air velocity or inertial force will prevail over ion drag (EHD number <1) [24,

25].

In the case of specific energy consumed, it was observed that as the applied voltage

increased the amount of specific energy consumed increased. The ANOVA analysis

suggested that all given process parameters including air velocity, electrode gap and

applied voltage had a significant effect on the specific energy consumed during the EHD

process. The three-dimensional response plot of the effect of process parameters on

specific energy consumed (Figure 9) at a set electrode gap of 1.5 cm revealed that the

amount of specific energy consumed increased with an increase in applied voltage but an

increase in air velocity at a given voltage reduced the amount of energy consumed

because of its significant effect on the overall drying rate.

16
 For the present study the specific energy consumed values ranged between 420-3306

kJ.kg-1, which was in accordance to data presented by Singh et al. [2]. When compared to

conventional drying processes such as spouted bed drying the values obtained for specific

energy consumption for EHD drying are on the lower side, which proves and support the

objective of this study that application of electric field in combination with cross flow can

enhance the drying rate and that cross-flow has a significant effect on the amount of

water removed during the drying process. Table 8 presents the regression expressions
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

showing the relation of process parameters; air speed (A), electrode gap (Ge) and applied

voltage (V) on dependent variables including percentage water removed, Sherwood

number, EHD number and specific energy consumed (kJ·kg-1)

4. CONCLUSION

This study thoroughly examines the effect of process parameters such as air velocity,

electrode gap and applied voltage for EHD drying using a wire electrode. The percentage

of water removed was shown to be dependent on the strength of the applied electric field

(i.e. electric field intensity) and air velocity. It was also observed that the amount of

energy (kJ) consumed to dry a kg of water increased linearly with an increase in applied

voltage but decreased when air speed was increased, suggesting that EHD drying in

combination with a cross flow consumes less energy and provides better drying

efficiency. The most significant aspect of this study is also the fact that all these

experiments were conducted at ambient condition as compared to other conventional

drying techniques. Further studies need to be conducted to explain the relation between

the process parameters and removal of bound moisture as in this study the sample

17
 moisture available for removal were surficial or those loosely packed between the pores

of the sand sample and these studies will also be able to define the capabilities and

limitations of the EHD drying process as compared to a conventional drying process in its

application in the food industry.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors are grateful to NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

of Canada) for their financial support for this study. The authors would also like to

acknowledge Dr. F.C. Lai, School of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, University

of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA for his contributions in the field of

electrohydrodynamic (EHD) heat and mass transfer.

REFERENCES

1. Singh, A., Nair, G.R., Rahimi, J., Gariepy, Y., Raghavan, V.: Effect of Static

High Electric Field Pre-Treatment on Microwave-Assisted Drying of Potato Slices.

Drying Technology, 2013, 31(16), 1960-1968.

2. Singh, A., Orsat, V., Raghavan, V.: A Comprehensive Review on

Electrohydrodynamic Drying and High-Voltage Electric Field in the Context of Food and

Bioprocessing. Drying Technology, 2012, 30(16), 1812-1820

3. Lai, F.C., Lai, K.W.: EHD-Enhanced drying with wire electrode. Drying

Technology, 2002, 20(7), 1393-1405

4. Lai, F.C., Sharma, R.K.: EHD-enhanced drying with multiple needle electrode.

Journal of Electrostatics, 2005, 63(3-4 SPEC. ISS.), 223-237

18
 5. Hashinaga, F., Bajgai, T.R., Isobe, S., Barthakur, N.N.: Electrohydrodynamic

(EHD) drying of apple slices. Drying Technology, 1999, 17(3), 479-495

6. Chen, Y., Barthakur, N.N., Arnold, N.P.: Electrohydrodynamic (EHD) drying of

potato slabs. Journal of Food Engineering, 1994, 23(1), 107-119

7. Bajgai, T.R., Raghavan, G.S.V., Hashinaga, F., Ngadi, M.O.:

Electrohydrodynamic drying - A concise overview. Drying Technology, 2006, 24(7),

905-910
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

8. Bajgai, T.R., Hashinaga, F.: High electric field drying of Japanese radish. Drying

Technology, 2001, 19(9), 2291-2302

9. Bajgai, T.R., Hashinaga, F.: Drying of spinach with a high electric field. Drying

Technology, 2001, 19(9), 2331-2341

10. Cao, W., Nishiyama, Y., Koide, S.: Electrohydrodynamic drying characteristics of

wheat using high voltage electrostatic field. Journal of Food Engineering, 2004, 62(3),

209-213

11. Cao, W., Nishiyama, Y., Koide, S., Lu, Z.H.: Drying enhancement of rough rice

by an electric field. Biosystems Engineering, 2004, 87(4), 445-451

12. Esehaghbeygi, A., Basiry, M.: Electrohydrodynamic (EHD) drying of tomato

slices (Lycopersicon esculentum). Journal of Food Engineering, 2011, 104(4), 628-631

13. Atungulu, G., Nishiyama, Y., Koide, S.: Respiration and climacteric patterns of

apples treated with continuous and intermittent direct current electric field. Journal of

Food Engineering, 2004, 63(1), 1-8

19
 14. Yaxiang, B., Hu, Y., Li, X., Li, J.: Experiment study of electrohydrodynamic

(EHD) drying scallop. Presented at Power and Energy Engineering Conference

(APPEEC), 2009, 1-4.

15. Li, F.D., Li, L.T., Sun, J.F., Tatsumi, E.: Electrohydrodynamic (EHD) drying

characteristic of okara cake. Drying Technology, 2005, 23(3), 565-580

16. Li, F.D., Li, L.T., Sun, J.F., Tatsumi, E.: Effect of electrohydrodynamic (EHD)

technique on drying process and appearance of okara cake. Journal of Food Engineering,
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

2006, 77(2), 275-280

17. Alem-Rajabi, A., Lai, F.C.: EHD-enhanced drying of partially wetted glass beads.

Drying Technology, 2005, 23(3), 597-609

18. Balcer, B.E., Lai, F.C.: EHD-enhanced drying with multiple-wire electrode.

Drying Technology, 2004, 22(4), 821-836

19. Lai, F.C.: A prototype of EHD-enhanced drying system. Journal of Electrostatics,

2010, 68(1), 101-104

20. Lai, F.C., McKinney, P.J., Davidson, J.H.: Oscillatory electrohydrodynamic gas

flows. Journal of Fluids Engineering, Transactions of the ASME, 1995, 117(3), 491-497

21. Fouad, L., Elhazek, S.: Effect of humidity on positive corona discharge in a three

electrode system. Journal of Electrostatics, 1995, 35(1), 21-30.

22. Jaworek, A., Krupa, A.: Corona discharge from a multipoint electrode in flowing

air. Journal of Electrostatics, 1996, 38(3), 187-197

23. Sadek, S.E., Hurwitz, M.: Influence of electric fields on convective heat and mass

transfer from a horizontal surface under forced convection. Journal of Heat Transfer,

Transactions ASME 94 Ser C(2), 1972, 144-148

20
 24. Wolny, A., Kaniuk, R.: The effect of electric field on heat and mass transfer.

Drying Technology, 1996, 14(2), 195-216.

25. Wolny, A.: Intensification of the evaporation process by electric field. Chemical

Engineering Science, 1992, 47(3), 551-554

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

21
 Table 1: Coded (individually for each experimental factor) and corresponding actual

values of all independent variables.

Code Air Velocity (m∙s-1) Electrode Gap (cm) Applied Voltage (kV)

-1 / a 1 1.5 10

0 1.5 2 12.5

+1 / A 2 2.5 15
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

22
 Table 2: The Central Composite Design for response surface analysis of the interaction

between independent variables (factors) and their effect on dependent variables

(responses).

Co Air Electro Applied Water Sherw EHD Specific Energy

de Velocity de gap Voltage removed ood No. Consumed (kJ∙kg-

d (m∙s-1) (cm) (kV) (%) No. 1

)

a0 1 2 12.5 19.32 0.1 0.17 1.44 1590.91

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

−+ 1 2.5 15 18.65 0.16 1.95 3031.13

+

−− 1 1.5 10 20.1 0.17 0.95 550.22 .0

−

−− 1 1.5 15 20.97 0.5 0.21 2.04 3306.74 8.2

+

−+ 1 2.5 10 19.6 0.18 0.90 347.83

−

0a 1.5 1.5 12.5 23.04 0.20 0.96 1405.17

0

00 1.5 2 12.5 21.96 0.19 0.96 1386.14

23
 0

00 1.5 2 10 26.61 0.23 0.62 373.87

a

00 1.5 2 12.5 21.86 0.19 0.96 1391.65

0
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

00 1.5 2 12.5 20.42 0.2 0.96 1486.36

0

00 1.5 2 12.5 22.25 0.21 0.96 1367.19

0

00 1.5 2 12.5 21.15 0.2 0.96 1439.44

0

0A 1.5 2.5 12.5 23.77 0.12 0.97 1114.47

0

00 1.5 2 12.5 24.5 0.18 0.96 1243.34

0

00 1.5 2 15 27.98 0.24 1.34 2386.34

A

24
 +− 2 1.5 15 38.1 0.33 1.02 2058.04
+

++ 2 2.5 15 19.62 0.17 0.98 2481.08

+

A0 2 2 12.5 23.26 0.20 0.72 1333.33

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

++ 2 2.5 10 26.03 0.22 0.44 275.86

−

+− 2 1.5 10 26.42 0.23 0.47 420.00

−

25
 Table 3: Mathematical models used to predict EHD drying kinetics of sand

Model Name Equation Equation No.

Newton MR exp( k t ) 1

Page MR exp ( k t n ) 2

Henderson and Pabis MR a exp(-k t) 3

Modified Page MR exp ( kt) n 4

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

Wang and Singh MR 1 a t b t2 5

Note: Where, k is the drying rate constant (min-1); n, a, b and c are drying coefficients

(dimension less) which have values depending on the drying curve and equation; t is the

time (min); and MR is the moisture ratio (Equation 7) (Singh et al. 2013).

26
 Table 4: Best fitted drying models and their corresponding statistical values of RMSE, R2

and SSE for different experimental conditions.

Air velocity Electrode Applied Best fitted SSE R2 RMSE

(m∙s-1) gap (cm) voltage model

(V)

2 1.5 10 Page 0.00002369 0.9998 0.00095

1 1.5 10 Page 0.003473 0.9992 0.001383

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

1 1.5 15 Page 0.000037 0.9994 0.001752

1.5 1.5 12.5 Page 0.000054 0.9993 0.001443

2 1.5 15 Page 0.000091 0.9997 0.001866

1.5 2 10 Page 0.02516 0.8709 0.03111

1.5 2 12.5 Page 0.000051 0.9993 0.001394

1.5 2 15 Page 0.0002815 0.9975 0.00329

2 2 12.5 Page 0.0000784 0.9988 0.001736

1.5 2.5 12.5 Page 0.001143 0.9998 0.0007934

1 2.5 15 Page 0.0000665 0.9989 0.001601

1 2.5 10 Page 0.0000215 0.9996 0.00091

2 2.5 10 Page 0.004518 0.9387 0.01318

2 0 0 Page 0.00002828 0.9997 0.001043

1.5 0 0 Page 0.00000784 0.9999 0.000549

1 0 0 Page 0.000012 0.9998 0.0006797

2 2.5 15 Page 0.0000416 0.9995 0.001265

1 2 12.5 Page 0.00001688 0.9997 0.0008057

27
 Table 5: ANOVA analysis for the effect of process parameters, air speed (A), electrode

gap (Ge) and applied voltage (V) on percentage water removed.

Source Sum of Squares Degree of F Ratio p-value

freedom

Model 297.67843 9 4.6335 0.0126

A (m∙s-1) 121.03441 1 16.9557 0.0021

Ge (cm) 43.93216 1 6.1545 0.0325

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

V (kV) 4.30336 1 0.6029 0.4555

A Ge 32.20031 1 4.5109 0.0596

A V 3.57781 1 0.5012 0.4951

Ge V 49.55101 1 6.9416 0.0250

A2 14.31271 1 2.0051 0.1872

Ge 2 0.07611 1 0.0107 0.9198

V2 38.13004 1 5.3416 0.0434

Lack of Fit 61.833333 5 6.4751 0.0306

Error 71.38267 10

28
 Table 6: ANOVA analysis for the effect of process parameters, air speed (A), electrode

gap (Ge) and applied voltage (V) on Sherwood’s number.

Source Sum of Squares Degree of F Ratio p-value

freedom

Model 0.02932923 9 12.6478 0.0002

A (m∙s-1) 0.00718240 1 27.8758 0.0004

Ge (cm) 0.00806560 1 31.3036 0.0002

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

V (kV) 0.00067240 1 2.6097 0.1373

A Ge 0.00195313 1 7.5803 0.0204

A V 0.00012012 1 0.4662 0.5102

Ge V 0.00475313 1 18.4475 0.0016

A2 0.00005020 1 0.1949 0.6683

Ge 2 0.00204545 1 7.9387 0.9198

V2 0.00600445 1 23.3041 0.0182

Lack of Fit 0.00202657 5 3.6847 0.0007

Error 0.00257657 10

29
 Table 7: ANOVA analysis for the effect of process parameters, air speed (A), electrode

gap (Ge) and applied voltage (V) on EHD number.

Source Sum of Squares Degree of F Ratio p-value

freedom

Model 3.1200264 9 613.8423 0.0001

A (m∙s-1) 1.3195056 1 2336.427 <0.0001

Ge (cm) 0.0048974 1 8.6717 0.0147

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

V (kV) 1.5721225 1 2783.732 <0.0001

A Ge 0.0007801 1 1.3814 0.2671

A V 0.1460701 1 258.6440 <0.0001

Ge V 0.0003125 1 0.5533 0.4741

A2 0.0365155 1 64.6575 <0.0001

Ge 2 3.72784 E-7 1 0.0007 0.9800

V2 0.0004998 1 0.8851 0.3690

Lack of Fit 0.00564754 5

Error 0.0056475 10

30
 Table 8: Regression Equations established between process parameters, air velocity (A),

electrode gap (Ge) and applied voltage (V) and dependent variables (water removed (%),

Sherwood and EHD Numbers and Specific energy consumed (kJ·kg-1).

Depend Regression Equation

ent

Variabl
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

es

Percent A 1.5 GE 2 V 12.5 V 12.5 GE 2

22.643 3.479 2.096 0.656 ( 2.489)
0.5 0.5 2.5 2.5 0.5
age of
V 12.5 V 12.5
water 3.724 R2 0.81
2.5 2.5
remove

d (%)

Sherwo A 1.5 GE 2 V 12.5 A 1.5 GE 2

0.194 0.0268 0.0284 0.0082 ( 0.016)
0.5 0.5 2.5 0.5 0.5
od

Numbe
GE 2 V 12.5 GE 2 GE 2 A 12.5 A 12.5
( 0.024) ( 0.027) 0.47
r 0.5 2.5 0.5 0.5 2.5 2.5

EHD A 1.5 GE 2 V 12.5 A 1.5 V 12.5

0.965 0.363 0.022 0.397 ( 0.135)
0.5 0.5 2.5 0.5 2.5
number
A 1.5 A 1.5
0.115 R2 0.98
0.5 0.5

31
 Specific A 1.5 GE 2 V 12.5 A 1.5 V 12.5
1352.49 225.85 48.98 1129.56 ( 199.57) R
0.5 0.5 2.5 0.5 2.5
Energy

Consu

med

(kJ∙kg-
1
)
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

32
 Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

33
Figure 1: Schematic of the EHD experimental setup
 Figure 2: Current-Voltage relationship with respect to electrode gap
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

34
 Figure 3: Drying curve for saturated sand sample under all experimental conditions
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

35
 Figure 4: Drying kinetic model fitting to the drying curve for experimental conditions (a)

air velocity 1 m·s-1, electrode gap 2 cm and applied voltage 12.5 kV, (b) air velocity 1.5

m·s-1, (c) air velocity 1.5 m·s-1, electrode gap 2 cm and applied voltage 10 kV and (d) air

velocity 2 m·s-1, electrode gap 2.5 cm and applied voltage 10 kV. Where, MR: Moisture

Ratio.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

36
 Figure 5: Tukey’s HSD (honest significant difference) test on effect of different

experimental conditions (coded) and percentage of water removed.

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

37
 Figure 6: Response surface plot of the effect of process parameters on percentage of

water removed.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

38
 Figure 7: Response surface plot of the effect of process parameters on Sherwood number.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

39
 Figure 8: Response surface plot of the effect of process parameters on EHD number

(N_EHD).
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

40
 Figure 9: Response surface plot of the effect of process parameters on specific energy

consumed (kJ.kg-1).
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 16:37 06 June 2016

41