DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT

OF SOLAR DRYER FOR LOCAL

“GUSO”(Kappaphycus spp.) SEAWEED
Joey G. Carillo, Lord Boy C. Silong, & Engr. Jack O. Bertulfo
BS Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Program, College of Engineering and Geosciences

Introduction Results
Developed Solar Dryer
The developed solar dryer
Seaweed (Eucheuma spp. and Kappaphycus spp.)
adopted the idea of a
is one of the major sources of natural fiber and
greenhouse effect where the
carrageenan for cosmetics and food processes. As
solar energy is trapped inside
indicated by [1], seaweed as an ingredient in the
by the aid of the UV-plastic
food industry often requires it to be dried before
sheet, thus increasing the
use (for carrageenan production) as shown below.
drying temperature inside the
drying chamber. Figure 1 below
Fig. 1. Solar Dryer Prototype shows the actual prototype of
the solar dryer.
Drying Kinetics
Raw Dried Carrageenan
Drying using the developed solar dryer takes 8 hours to
In the Philippines, the most commonly used bone-dry the guso from initial moisture of 90.3%. The
method is sun-drying, which spreads the seaweed temperature and relative humidity inside the solar dryer was
evenly on the platforms or ground level. It usually recorded and presented below.
takes 2 to 3 days to obtain a moisture content of 6 Temperature Relative Humidity

Relative Humidity (%)

less than 35%, which is the desired moisture 70 70
Drying rate (g/hr)

Temperature (˚C)
5
65 65

content by buyers [2]. 4

3
60
55
60
55
50 50
2 45 45
1 40 40
35 35
0

7.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0

8.0
4.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5

4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0

Sun-drying Drying time (hr) Drying time (hr)

Fig. 2. Drying curve: Drying rate Fig. 3. Recorded Temperature and

method versus Drying time Relative Humidity
The drying curve does not follow the normal falling-rate
period, and the constant rate is absent; it is due to the
However, this method of drying the seaweed has variation of temperature and relative humidity at a
many disadvantages, such as being weather particular time.The same events were also observed by [4].
dependent and exposed to dirt and unwanted
materials. Also, a sudden occurrence of rain may Model Fitting Table 1. Calculated drying constants and statistical measures value
hinder the drying process and cause Model Drying Drying R² MBE RMSE
According [5], the constant coefficient
decomposition and damage to seaweeds [3]. Newton
0.00087 0.02947 k= 0.00793 0.9919
highest R2 values Page
0.000122 0.011066 k=0.001539 n=1.4934 0.9988
Hence, developing an enclosed solar dryer for Modified Page k=0.005
0.25895 0.50887 n=1 0.9808
and the values of the Henderson & k= 0.00843
0.002613 0.05112 a= 1.0722 0.9891
local “guso” seaweed for village-level operation is Pabis
lowest MBE and Midilli-Kucuk
a= 0.9973 0.9988 0.000101 0.01005 k= 0.0015
highly needed. n= 1.33
RMSE were the best- b=0

suited models for predicting the drying kinetics of seaweeds.

Significance of the Study Comparative Evaluation Analysis
Developing a solar dryer for seaweeds is a
Table 2. Independent Sample t-Test between
Solar Dryer and Sun-Drying
The analysis revealed that the
significant attempt to improve seaweed farmers' Types of Drying Drying Rate
developed solar dryer was
N
drying methods and minimize human labor. It was Dryers Time (hr) (kg/hr) statistically different in drying
a village-type dryer that was designed to be simple Solar Dryer 3 4.17a 0.10806a time and drying rate, having a
to construct and can be replicated easily. The
Sun-Drying 3 5.40b 0.08081b value of 4.17 hours and 0.10806,
Note: Means with a different letter is significant
enclosure of the solar dryer protects the seaweeds with each other at a 5% level of significance respectively, compared to sun-
from weather disturbances; thus, the quality of drying.
the dried seaweed can be improved Conclusion & Recommendation
The most suitable model to describe the drying behavior of
Objectives
seaweed inside the solar dryer was the Midilli-Kucuk model
1. Design and develop a solar dryer for local guso with 99.88% accuracy. There is an absence of a constant rate
(Kappaphycus spp.) seaweeds specifically of the drying rate of seaweed dried under the designed solar
intended for village-level operation; dryer because of variations in temperature and relative
2. Determine the drying kinetics of seaweed humidity. The drying performance of the developed solar
under the developed solar dryer; dryer is significantly different compared to the sun-drying
3. Conduct a comparative analysis between the method in terms of drying time and drying rate.
solar dryer and sun-drying in terms of drying For future development of the study, the researchers
rate and drying time recommended adding solar collectors for additional heat
generation for the drying chamber. Installation of a solar-
Methodology powered exhaust fan is also recommended to help remove
the moisture of the seaweed through the convection process.
01 Structural 02 Fabrication
Design Reference
Material Selection
Working Principle [1] U. Badmus, M. Taggart, & K. Boyd, "The effect of different drying methods on certain
and
and Design nutritionally important chemical constituents in edible brown seaweeds," Agricultural
Design specification
Consideration & Food Security, vol. 31, p. pp.3883–3897, 2019.
03 Drying [2] R. Pangan, M. Ampo, & Y. Barredo, "Design, Development, and Evaluation of Seaweed
Drying," Technology for Village Level Operation, 2021.
Kinetics Sun Drying versus
[3] R. Pangan, M. Ampo, & Y. Barredo, "Optimization of the floating-type seaweed dryer,"
Solar Dryer
Drying curve Aquacultural Engineering, pp. 89, 102068, 2020.
In terms of:
and [4] Mohamad Djaeni & Sari, "Low Temperature Seaweed Drying Using Dehumidified Air,"
Drying rate
Model Fitting Procedia Environmental Sciences, vol. 23, pp. 2-10, 2015.
Drying time
04 Comparative [5] A. Fudholi, M.Y. Othman, M. H. Ruslan, M. Yahya, A. Zaharim and K.Sopian, "Design and
Testing of Solar Dryer for Drying Kinetics of Seaweed in Malaysia," Recent Researches
Evaluation Analysis in Geography, Geology, Energy, Environment and Biomedicine, pp. 119-124, 2011.