MASS TRANSFER MECHANISM DURING

DEHYDRATION OF MEAT
A PROJECT REPORT OF J
COMPONENT
EQUILIBRIUM STAGED OPERATIONS
(CHE4001)
Slot: A1
Lab Slot: L43-L44

School of Chemical Engineering

(SCHEME)

Winter Semester 2020-21

Submitted to

Dr. Aslam Abdullah.

By

Sr. No. Name Reg. No.

1. Sariga Reghunathan 18BCM0042

2. Atishay Jain 18BCM0068

3. Samruddhi Kadam 18BCM0070

4. Abhay Yadav 18BCM0079

5. Aditya Zawar 18BCM0121

[1]
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project report entitled “MASS TRANSFER MECHANISM
DURING DEHYDRATION OF MEAT” submitted by Sariga Reghunathan (18BCM0042),
Atishay Jain(18BCM0068), Samruddhi Kadam (18BCM0070), Abhay Yadav (18BCM0079),
Aditya Zawar (18BCM0121) as ‘J’ component for the course CHE4001 EQUILIBRIUM
STAGED OPERATIONS.

Prof. Aslam Abdullah

Project Guide

Date: 30/05/2021
Place: VIT

[2]
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE NO.

NO.

1. ABSTRACTS 4

2. INTRODUCTION 5

3. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES 6

3.1 Aim
3.2 Objectives

4. LITERATURE REVIEW 7-8

5. MATHEMATICAL MODELS 9-10

6. PROCEDURE 11

7. OBSERVATION 12

8. READINGS 13-16

9. CALCULATIONS 17-20

10. ANN MODELLING 22

11. RESULTS 23

12. CONCLUSION 24

13. REFERENCE 25

[3]
 ABSTRACT

Drying conditions can greatly affect the physical and mechanical properties of meat. The
drying process must be controlled to reduce or minimize drying damage. In the last few
years, the demands of the meat and meat dried products have increased tremendously. In the
past drying was performed to preserve perishable foods with less emphasis on
multidimensional quality attributes a recent trend is to develop dried meat products
maintaining its quality, such as flavor, texture, convenience, and functionality with increased
nutritional quality and reduced anti-nutritional factor. At present, drying of meat has extreme
focus on maintaining its qualities and to increase the shelf life. The main purpose of this paper
is to give an overview on the drying of meat. It reduces storage and transportation costs and
makes handling stress-free by reducing size, weight, and risk of microbial contamination of
meat and meat products. Meat drying characteristics such as shrinkages/volumetric
shrinkage, rehydration ratio, apparent or effective diffusion coefficient or diffusivity, affects
the drying behavior of the meat.
Keywords: Drying, multidimensional quality, nutrition, shelf life, shrinkage, diffusivity,
rehydration ratio

[4]
 INTRODUCTION
Dehydration of Food - Meat

Drying or dehydration is, by definition, the removal of water by evaporation, from

solid or liquid food, with the purpose of obtaining a solid product sufficiently low in water
content. Dehydration, in food processing, means by which many types of food can be
preserved for indefinite periods by extracting the moisture, thereby inhibiting the growth of
microorganisms. Food dehydration is one of the oldest unit operations used by the food
processing industry. Food dehydration is a process of reducing moisture of food to low levels
for improved shelf life by adding one or more forms of energy to the food.
Most commonly, heat is added to the food by hot air, which also carries the moisture
away from the food. The process of food dehydration involves simultaneous transfer of mass
and heat within the food and the medium used to transfer energy to the food. Drying usually
refers to the removal of moisture from solids by evaporation into agas stream. The moisture
contained in a wet solid or liquid solution exerts a vapor pressure to an extent depending
upon the nature of moisture, nature of the solid and the temperature. If the wet solid is
exposed to a continuous supply of the fresh gas containing a fixed partial pressure of the
vapor ‘p’. The solid will either loose or gain the moisture from the gas until the vapor
pressure of the moisture of the solid equals’ p. The solid and the gas are then in equilibrium,
and the moisture content of the solid is termed equilibrium moisture at this prevailing
conditions.

[5]
 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
The aim of this work was to consider different types of fish meats and drying
them at a range of different temperatures and also at different conditions of mass. Then to
record the changes in moisture content during the process of drying. These readings were
then converted into moisture ratios. They we used this to explain the convective drying
behavior of meat. A second analysis was carried out, in this 2 different thin film drying
models and their statistical values were compared these are RMSE and χ2. The best model
was selected on the basis of low RMSE and low χ2 values. Among the models that were
evaluated, the Newton model showed the best fit to the observed data of moisture ratio.

The values that we got from the Newton equation were minimum as compared
with the other models of drying. After the numerical calculations were done it was figured
out that it leaded to the result that Newton was the optimal fit with the value of RMSE as
1.48 x 10−7 and χ2 as 5.39 x 10-4 for 1500 𝑐 Microwave Temperature and 60g Sample Load
and the value of RMSE as 6.39 x 10−8 and χ2 as 4.08 x 10-4 for 1000 𝑐 Microwave
Temperature and 25g Sample Load.

[6]
 LITERATURE REVIEW

1. ONIONS AND RELATED CROPS

Khokar, G.R & Fenwick

Dehydration of Onions was carried out by S. Khokar, G.R & Fenwick due to their high solids
content (18–20% and above). Onions were dehydrated at 75–60 °C, The final moisture content
of 4% is achieved through warm air circulation. The results were, 8– 10 kg of raw onions
produce 1 kg of dehydrated product. Experiences of hot- air drying have revealed problems
such as an undesirable flavor, texture, and color. Flash-freezing and drying have proved
effective in overcoming these problems.

2. OSMOTIC DEHYDRATION OF PORK MEAT CUBES - RESPONSE SURFACE

METHOD ANALYSIS
Biljana Lj.Ćurčića*, Lato L. Pezob, Ljubinko B. Levića, Violeta M. Kneževića, Milica R.
Nićetina, Vladimir S. Filipovića and Tatjana A. Kuljanina

The main objective was to examine the influence of different osmotic parameters on the mass
transfer kinetics during osmotic treatment of pork meat. The system’s response parameters
observed were: water loss, solid gain, final dry matter content and water activity. Optimum
osmotic parameters: osmotic time of 4h, molasses solution concentration of 72% and solution
temperature of 45ºC. Conditions were determined using Response Surface Methodology, by
superimposing the contour plots of each process variable. The predicted responses for the
optimum drying conditions in sugar beet molasses solution were: DM of 64.5%, WL in the
close vicinity of 0.53, SG about 0.15 and aw in the range of 0.83 to 0.8

[7]
3. OSMOTIC DEHYDRATION OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES: A REVIEW

Ashok Kumar Yadav and Satya Vir Singh

In this review different methods, treatments, optimization and effects of osmotic dehydration
have been reviewed. Studied showed that combination of different osmotic agents was more
effective than sucrose alone due to combination of properties of solutes.During the experiments
it was found that optimum osmosis was found at approximately 40 °C, 40 °B of osmotic agent
and in near about 132 min. Pretreatments also leads to increase the osmotic process in fruits
and vegetables. Solid’s diffusivity was found in wide range (5.09–32.77 kl/mol) studied by
Fick’s laws of diffusion.

4. DEHYDRATION OF VEGETABLE FOOD

Derossi A., Severini C. and Cassi D.

In traditional & innovative ways as water removal increases shelf life of the edible items.
Control of outward flow of water with utmost care is important to maintain high output prod.
& min. energy cost as drying is complex phenomenon. The available models are not so precise,
so future challenge is to obtain micro-structure information of biological tissue. During
dehydration process theoretical model that include the different concentration and pressure
gradients along with 3-D pathway inside which fluid moves are needed for best results.

[8]
 • Comparison between Carbonium ion and Free radical mechanism (Pentane Cracking)
This comparison is done taking the reference of paper the roles of the free radical
and carbonium ion mechanisms in alkane cracking to produce light olefins by School of
Chemical Engineering, Changchun University of Technology students. This is carried
out over a zeolite catalyst at 600–800 °C
Sr. No. Carbonium ion mechanism
1 Catalytic cracking is an ionic process
involving carbonium ions, which are
hydrocarbon ions having a positive charge
on a carbon atom
2 The reactions occurring in catalytic
cracking are fundamentally different from
thermal cracking reactions in that the
former take place in accordance with the
general principles of carbonium-ion
reactions
3 A small amount of olefin which is
required to start the-carbonium-ion
reaction, is undoubtedly formed by
thermal cracking
4 The carbonium ion mechanism is believed
to rule hydrocarbons catalytic cracking
over zeolite catalysts at the low
temperatures
5 The initiation, propagation and
termination
steps related to the carbonium ion
mechanism
6 The product distribution was determined
by the relative
contributions of propagation and initiation
steps, which was tailored by adjusting
operating conditions and zeolite properties
7 The carbonium ion routes occur on the
zeolite
surface
8 The carbonium ion mechanism selectively
enhanced propene formation, and
achieved the highest propene selectivity
and lowest ethylene selectivity.
9 The product distribution for pentane
catalytic cracking at 680 °C following the
carbonium ion mechanism
[9]
Free radical mechanism
Free radicals are molecules that have an
unpaired (lone) electron. This makes them very
unstable, and they rapidly combine with other
species that are trying to gain a valence
electron.
The reactions occurring in thermal cracking
take place in accordance with the general
principles of free radical mechanism.
The free radical mechanism takes place
followed by carbonium ion mechanism.
The free radical mechanism took over the
dominant position at the high temperatures
Categorized the elementary reactions as the
radical-forming, radical-interconverting, and
radical-consuming steps.
The critical structural and kinetic features
determined the response of elementary
reactions to the operating conditions and thus
the product distribution
The free radical routes take place in the void
space during
alkane catalytic pyrolysis over zeolites at the
high temperatures
The free radical mechanism selectively
enhanced ethylene formation, and achieved the
highest ethylene selectivity and lowest propene
selectivity.
The product distribution for pentane
uncatalytic
pyrolysis at 780 °C following the free radical
mechanism
10 For the carbonium ion mechanism, the
mole selectivity to the specific products
was in a descending order of propene >
ethane > ethylene > hydrogen.
11 The carbonium ion mechanism for
pentane cracking was initiated by the
heterolysis of C-C/C–H bond over B acid
sites on K-ZSM-22 zeolites, and it was
less energy-demanding compared to the
homolysis.
12 If the kc/kt ratio is greater than one,
indicating that the carbonium ion route
has surpassed the free radical route and
taken over the dominant position
[10]
For the free radical mechanism, the mole
selectivity to
the specific products were in a descending
order of ethylene >hydrogen > propene >
methane > butylene.
The free radical mechanism for pentane
cracking was initiated by the homolysis of C-
C/C–H bond, which was a highly energy-
demanding process, and led a high apparent
activation energy.
If the kcp/(kc+kt) ratio is greater than one,
indicating that the concurrence of the
carbonium ion and free radical routes led to the
synergistic effect, and thus the superiority of
pentane cracking.
 MATHEMATICAL MODELS

Newton (Lewis) model:

This model is also referred to as Exponential model, Single Exponential model or Lewis
model. Lewis elaborated that the transfer of moisture content in materials is similar to that of
Law of Heat when a body is immersed into a fluid of lower temperature. Comparing the
same with Newton’s Law of cooling, the drying rate is directly proportional to the difference
between the actual moisture content and equilibrium moisture content.
dM
= −k ( M − M e )
dt
This law considers only surface resistance and hence moisture gradient within the material is
neglected. At time, t=0 and assuming boundary condition as M=M0,we get Newton’s model
equation as:
MR = exp(− kt )
Where MR is the moisture ratio, k is the drying constant(s-1), M is the dry basis moisture
content at any time t, M0 is the initial dry basis moisture content of the sample, and Me is the
equilibrium moisture content in the material.
Newton’s model is known as the one of the simplest model in order to analyze the moisture
transfer in food materials.

Page model: Page model is an empirical modification to Newton’s model to remove the
errors of that model by the addition of a dimensionless empirical constant “n” to the time
term t. this constant parameter has an effect of moderating the time, and generally the model
in this case provides better results for the prediction of loss in moisture content.
MR = exp(−kt n )

[11]
Model Calculation:
The root mean square error (RMSE), reduced χ2, and correlation coefficient R2 were used for
determining the best suitable model.
1
1 N
2
RMSE = 
N

i =1
( MRexp,i − MR pre,i ) 

2

 (MR exp,i − MR pre ,i ) 2

2 = i =1

N−z
N

 [MR exp,i − MR pre,i ]

R = 1−
2 i =1

 N

N   MR pre,i 
  MR pre,i − k =1
k =1  N


 

Where MRexp,I is the experimental moisture ratio of ith data, MRpre,I is the predicted moisture
ration of ith data, N is the number of observations, & z is the number of drying constants.

[12]
 PROCEDURE

• Fish as meat sample was taken into consideration.

• Samples of fish were placed on a tray that can be loaded into the convective oven dryer.
• The experiments were conducted at two different factors for convectional drying
temperatures (100ºC, and 150ºC), and sample load (25g, and 60g).
• Drying of fish started with initial weight known and continued for 75 minutes and the
weight of the meat was noted down for every 3 minutes.
• The area of the material was calculated.
• Two samples of fish, King fish and Prawn fish were taken, 19 readings for King fish were
noted. These included the time (min), Weight (gm), Moisture present(gm), Moisture
removed(gm), X(kg of moisture/kg of dry meat) , N(kg/hr*m^2)
• The drying curve was plotted, having N(kg/hr*m2) on they Y-axis, and X(kg of moisture/kg
of dry meat).
• The second drying curve plotted was X(kg of moisture/kg of dry meat) on Y-axis and
Time(min) on the X-axis.
• Similar procedure was carried out for the conventional drying of prawn fish, 25 readings
were noted and the drying curves were plotted.
• From the drying curves, critical moisture was calculated and the drying calculations were
done.
• Then, two Mathematical models were developed, and the model that fits best was chosen.

[13]
 OBSERVATION
➢ Prawn Fish Meat

➢ King Fish Meat

[14]
 READINGS
King Fish Meat

Initial Meat weight 60g=0.060kg

Ss=Kg of dry solid 25g=0.025Kg
A=Area of Mat.= T – base 0.009375m2
Type of drying Conventional drying.
Temperature 150ºC
X Kg Moisture present
X=
Kg Dry Solid
N(kg/hr.m2) Ss  60  X
N=
A

Time Weight Moisture Moisture X N (kg/hr*m2)

(min) (grams) present(grams) removed(grams)
0 60 35 0 1.4 2.133333
3 59 34 1 1.36 2.133333
9 58 33 1 1.32 1.066667
12 57 32 1 1.28 8.533333
15 53 28 4 1.12 8.533333
18 49 24 4 0.96 4.266667
24 47 22 2 0.88 2.133333
27 45 20 2 0.8 2.133333
30 44 19 1 0.76 4.266667
36 42 17 2 0.68 2.133333
42 40 15 2 0.6 1.066667
45 39 14 1 0.56 2.133333
54 38 13 1 0.52 1.422222
57 36 11 2 0.44 4.266667
60 34 9 2 0.36 2.133333
63 33 8 1 0.32 2.133333
69 32 7 1 0.28 2.133333
72 30 5 2 0.2 10.66667
75 30 5 2 0.2 10.66667

[15]
 Rate of Drying Curve
10
9
8
7
N (kg/hr*m2)

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
X(kg of moisure/kg of dry meat)

Drying Curve
1.6

1.4
X(kg of moisture/kg of dry meat)

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time(minutes)

[16]
 Prawn Fish

Ss (kg of dry 0.005kg

solid)
Initial meat 25.3g
Weight
Area of meat (0.01*3.14*0.07*2) = 4.396*10^-3
surface m^2
Type of drying Conventional
Temperature 100°Celsius
X Kg Moisture present
X=
Kg Dry Solid
N(kg/hr.m2) Ss  60  X
N=
A

Time(min) Weight(grams) Moisture Moisture X N(kg/hr.m^2)

present removed
0 25.3 20.3 0 4.06 3.13921747
3 24.61 19.61 0.69 3.922 3.13921747
6 23.74 18.74 0.87 3.748 3.958143767
9 22.85 17.85 0.89 3.57 4.049135578
12 21.7 16.7 1.15 3.34 5.232029117
15 20.59 15.59 1.11 3.118 5.050045496
18 19.53 14.53 1.06 2.906 4.822565969
21 18.66 13.66 0.87 2.732 3.958143767
24 17.83 12.83 0.83 2.566 3.776160146
27 17.2 12.2 0.63 2.44 2.866242038
30 16.58 11.58 0.62 2.316 2.820746133
33 15.99 10.99 0.59 2.198 2.684258417
36 15.43 10.43 0.56 2.086 2.547770701
39 14.88 9.88 0.55 1.976 2.502274795
42 14.4 9.4 0.48 1.88 2.183803458
45 13.96 8.96 0.44 1.792 2.001819836
48 13.54 8.54 0.42 1.708 1.910828025
51 13.14 8.14 0.4 1.628 1.819836215
54 12.75 7.75 0.39 1.55 1.774340309
57 12.44 7.44 0.31 1.488 1.410373066
60 12.16 7.16 0.28 1.432 1.27388535
63 11.83 6.83 0.33 1.366 1.501364877
66 11.54 6.54 0.29 1.308 1.319381256
69 11.26 6.26 0.28 1.252 1.27388535
72 11 6 0.26 1.2 1.18289354
[17]
 Rate of Drying Curve
6

4
N(kg/hr.m^2)

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
X(kg moisture/kg dry solid)

Drying Curve
4.5

3.5
X(kg moisture/kg dry solid)

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time(min)

[18]
CALCULATIONS

King Fish Meat

Chi^2 0.00053988
K 0.00015678
RSS 2.2083E-14
RSME 1.486E-07

[19]
Page MR Difference
MR=exp(-KT^n) Exp-Theoretical (Exp-Theoretical)^2
1 0 0
0.777503373 0.20582996 0.042365973
0.758428391 0.208238276 0.043363179
0.74665007 0.220016596 0.048407303
0.73800981 0.21199019 0.044939841
0.731143986 0.152189347 0.023161597
0.72542706 0.091239607 0.008324666
0.720517875 0.062815458 0.003945782
0.716209124 0.067124209 0.004505659
0.712365074 0.037634926 0.001416388
0.708891846 0.024441487 0.000597386
0.705721718 -0.005721718 3.27381E-05
0.70280418 -0.00280418 7.86343E-06
0.700100525 -0.033433858 0.001117823
0.697580413 -0.030913746 0.00095566
0.695219612 -0.045219612 0.002044813
0.692998449 -0.059665116 0.003559926
0.690900727 -0.057567393 0.003314005
0.688912947 -0.055579614 0.003089093
0.687023739 -0.087023739 0.007573131
0.68522343 -0.118556763 0.014055706
0.683503723 -0.133503723 0.017823244
0.681857445 -0.148524111 0.022059412
0.680278352 -0.146945018 0.021592838
0.678760973 -0.178760973 0.031955486
0.677300491 -0.177300491 0.031435464
8.48321E-13 0.381644976

Chi^2 0.01590187
k 0.12432715
n 0.13579769
RSS 3.2628E-14
RSME 1.8063E-07

[20]
 Newton Model
1.2
Series1
1
Linear (Series1)

0.8
MR

0.6

0.4
y = -0.0001x + 0.9698
0.2 R² = 0.9912

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Time(sec)

Page Model
1.2

Series1
1

0.8 Linear (Series1)

MR

0.6

0.4

0.2
y = -3E-05x + 0.7875
R² = 0.4482
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Time(sec)

[21]
 Prawn Fish

Newton (MR Theoretical) MR Difference

MR=exp(-KT) Exp-Theoretical (Exp-Theoretical)^2
1 0 0
0.961972941 0.010754332 0.000115656
0.925391939 0.012947982 0.00016765
0.890202005 0.012960051 0.000167963
0.85635024 0.001357269 1.84218E-06
0.823785759 -0.009951767 9.90377E-05
0.792459609 -0.02052285 0.000421187
0.762324701 -0.024775294 0.000613815
0.733335734 -0.028592651 0.00081754
0.705449133 -0.025607236 0.000655731
0.678622977 -0.023287009 0.000542285
0.652816941 -0.020801131 0.000432687
0.627992232 -0.01811081 0.000328001
0.604111535 -0.015969242 0.000255017
0.58113895 -0.011968989 0.000143257
0.559039944 -0.007261288 5.27263E-05
0.537781299 -0.002603434 6.77787E-06
0.517331058 0.002036531 4.14746E-06
0.497658479 0.00629409 3.96156E-05
0.478733991 0.012965614 0.000168107
0.460529145 0.020103266 0.000404141
0.443016576 0.024572357 0.000603801
0.426169958 0.029956524 0.000897393
0.409963968 0.03509532 0.001231682
0.394374244 0.040408365 0.001632836
2.02227E-13 0.009802895

Chi^2 0.000408454
K 0.000215383
RSS 4.09E-15
RMSE 6.39453E-08

[22]
Page MR Difference
MR=exp(-KT^n) Exp-Theoretical (Exp-Theoretical)^2
1 0 0
0.664637212 0.308090061 0.094919486
0.656832612 0.281507309 0.079246365
0.652206904 0.250955151 0.062978488
0.648897993 0.208809517 0.043601414
0.646316048 0.167517944 0.028062262
0.644196508 0.127740251 0.016317572
0.6423975 0.095151907 0.009053885
0.640833981 0.063909102 0.004084373
0.639450898 0.040390999 0.001631433
0.638210545 0.017125423 0.00029328
0.637085956 -0.005070146 2.57064E-05
0.636057171 -0.026175748 0.00068517
0.635108998 -0.046966706 0.002205871
0.634229607 -0.065059646 0.004232758
0.6334096 -0.081630944 0.006663611
0.632641389 -0.097463524 0.009499138
0.631918759 -0.11255117 0.012667766
0.631236551 -0.127283982 0.016201212
0.630590441 -0.138890836 0.019290664
0.629976763 -0.149344352 0.022303736
0.629392387 -0.161803454 0.026180358
0.628834614 -0.172708132 0.029828099
0.628301105 -0.183241816 0.033577563
0.627789816 -0.193007207 0.037251782
1.0425E-13 0.560801992

Chi^2 0.024382695
K 0.329960413
n 0.041123649
RSS 4.17E-15
RSME 6.45755E-08

[23]
 Newton Model
1.2

Series1
1
Linear (Series1)

0.8
MR

0.6

0.4
y = -0.0001x + 0.9351
R² = 0.9507
0.2

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Time(sec)

Page Model
1.2

Series1
1
Linear (Series1)
0.8
MR

0.6

0.4
y = -2E-05x + 0.7064
R² = 0.2029
0.2

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Time(sec)

[24]
 ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORKS
An artificial neural network (ANN) is an information processing paradigm that is
inspired by the way that biological nervous systems, such as the brain, process information.
The key element of this paradigm is the new structure of the information processing system8.
It is made up of a large number of highly interconnected processing elements (neurons).
ANN, learn by example. An ANN is configured for a specific application, such as pattern
recognition or data classification, through a learning process.
To form a network structure, the inputs and outputs of neurons are connected in some
or the other way. According to the connection method, neural networks can be divided into
two main categories: Feed Forward neural networks (FNN), in which their representative
graphs do not have loops, and RNN (recurrent neural networks), in which loops occur due to
the feedback connection. Feedback networks are static, which means that a given input can
only produce one set of outputs, and therefore cannot carry memory. In contrast, recurring
network architectures allow temporary storage of information on networks

Graph of Moisture content vs time in ANN:

[25]
Progress of ANN model in MATLAB:
The training is done by Levenberg-Marquardt method. The 70 percent of the total readings
are used for training the ANN model and 30percent is used for prediction of the moisture
content present in the meat. Performance here is the rmse value of the system.

Prediction of moisture content:

The ‘x’ points are the trained values and ‘o’ are the predicted values. The x axis has the true
value of moisture content and y axis contains the predicted value of moisture content. To
check the validation of the model we need to see the how far are the points from the linear
plot. As we see all the points are close to the linear plot so the prediction is reasonable with
the performance i.e rmse of 1.1739e-08.

[26]
 RESULTS

Table 1: Thin layer drying equation constants, RMSE and

𝛘 for 𝟏𝟓𝟎𝟎 𝒄 Microwave Temperature and 60g Sample Load
𝟐

Model Constants RMSE R2 𝛘𝟐

Name
k n
Newton 1.56 - 1.48 x 0.99 5.39
x 𝟏𝟎−𝟕 x
𝟏𝟎−𝟒 10-4
Page 0.124 0.135 1.81 x 0.448 1.59
𝟏𝟎−𝟕 x
10-2

Table 2: Thin layer drying equation constants, RMSE, R2 and

𝛘𝟐 for 𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒄 Microwave Temperature and 25g Sample Load

Model Constants RMSE R2 𝛘𝟐

Name
k n
Newton 2.15 - 6.39 x 0.95 4.08
x 𝟏𝟎−𝟖 x
𝟏𝟎−𝟒 10-4
Page 0.329 0.056 6.34 x 0.202 2.43
𝟏𝟎−𝟖 x
10-2

[27]
 CONCLUSION
In the experiment, different meats (fish) were dried at different drying temperatures and mass
conditions, and the changes in moisture content during drying were recorded. They were
converted into moisture ratios and used to explain the convective drying behavior of meat. In
the analysis, 2 different thin film drying models and their statistical values were compared,
namely RMSE and χ2. The best model is obtained, based on low RMSE and low χ2 values.
Among the evaluated models, Newton showed the best fit to the observed data of moisture
ratio. The values obtained with Newton equation are minimum when compared with other
drying models. As per the numerical calculations it leads to the result that Newton was the
optimal fit with the value of RMSE as 1.48 x 10−7 and χ2 as 5.39 x 10-4 for 1500 𝑐
Microwave Temperature and 60g Sample Load and value of RMSE as 6.39 x 10−8 and χ2 as
4.08 x 10-4 for 1000 𝑐 Microwave Temperature and 25g Sample Load

[28]
 REFERENCE

• Khokar, S., & Fenwick, G. R. (2003). Onions and related crops. Encyclopedia of Food
Sciences and Nutrition, 4267– 4272. doi:10.1016/b0-12-227055-x/00862-2

• Antonio Derossi , Carla Severini, Davide Cassi, Mass Transfer Mechanisms during
Dehydration of Vegetable Food: Traditional and Innovative Approaches, Research gate,
February 2011, 14.

• Biljana Lj.Ćurčića*, Lato L. Pezob, Ljubinko B. Levića, Violeta M. Kneževića, Milica R.

Nićetina, Vladimir S. Filipovića and Tatjana A. Kuljanina, Osmotic dehydration of pork meat
cubes - response surface method analysis, apteff, 44, 1-321 (2013).

• Derossi A., Severini C. and Cassi D. Mass Transfer Mechanisms during Dehydration of
Vegetable Food: Traditional and Innovative Approaches February 21st 2011, 9.

• Effects of Different Drying Methods and Storage Time on Free Radical Scavenging Activity
and Total Phenolic Content of Cosmos caudatus Ahmed Mediani 1, Faridah Abas 1,2,*, Chin
Ping Tan 3 and Alfi Khatib 2,4 Received: 17 February 2014; in revised form: 7 April 2014 /
Accepted: 24 April 2014 / Published: 7 May 2014

• Irwin A. Taub Food Technology Division, Food Engineering Laboratory, US Army Natick
R&D Center, Natick, MA 01760

• Catalyst Cracking of pure Hydrocarbons, Vladimir Haensel, Universal Oil Products

Company, Riverside, Illinois

• Carbonium reactions a study of their rates & mechanism By J. L. FRANKLIN Humble Oil
and Refining Co., Refining Department, Technical and Research Divisions, Baytown, Texas,
U.S.A. Received 19th June, 1951 ; in final form, 10th December, 1951

THANK YOU

[29]