Drying Kinetics of Maize Cob Using Mathematical Modelling

Pankaj Kumar; Dhritiman Saha

doi:10.52151/jae2021581.1733

Authors

Pankaj Kumar ICAR-Central Institute of Post-Harvest Engineering and Technology, Ludhiana, Punjab, India Author
Dhritiman Saha ICAR-Central Institute of Post-Harvest Engineering and Technology, Ludhiana, Punjab Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.52151/jae2021581.1733

Keywords:

Maize cob, drying, mathematical models, moisture diffusivity

Abstract

Maize cobs (with husk and without husk) with initial moisture content of 78.38 % and 62.39 % (d.b.), respectively, were dried up to 20 % moisture content (d.b.) at three temperatures (45°C, 55°C and 65°C). Moisture ratios (MR) were calculated from moisture loss data and fitted to six (Newton’s, Page, Thompson, Modified Page, Henderson and Pabis, and Wang and Singh) drying mathematical models. Coefficient of determination (R2) and root mean square error (RMSE) were used for comparison of the models. From the analyses, Modified Page model showed the best fit to the experimental data with R2 varying from 0.9924 to 0.9968 for maize cob with husk and 0.9994 to 9989 for cobs without husk at given drying temperatures. The Modified Page model was found to be a superior model representing the drying kinetics of maize cob with and without husk at drying temperatures of 45, 55, and 65°C. The increase in drying temperature caused a reduction in drying time, and the drying took place in the falling rate period. Maize cobs with husk took more time for drying as compared to that without husk at the same temperature. The values of effective diffusivity lied between 1.079×10-8 m2.s-1 and 4.239×10-8 m2.s-1 for maize cob with husk, and between 1.194×10-8 m2.s-1 and 5.230×10-8 m2.s-1 for maize cob without husk. Effective diffusivity increased with increase in drying temperature, and was higher for maize cob without husk than that of with husk.

Author Biographies

Pankaj Kumar, ICAR-Central Institute of Post-Harvest Engineering and Technology, Ludhiana, Punjab, India

Scientist
Dhritiman Saha, ICAR-Central Institute of Post-Harvest Engineering and Technology, Ludhiana, Punjab

Scientist

References

Adiletta G; Wijerathne C; Senadeera W; Russo P; Crescitelli A; Matteo M D. 2018. Dehydration and rehydration characteristics of pretreated pumpkin slices. Ital. J. Food Sci., 30(4), 684-706.

Agbossou K; Napo N; Chakraverty S. 2016. Mathematical modelling and solar tunnel drying characteristics of Yellow Maize. Am. J. Food Sci. Technol., 4(4), 115-124.

Ajala A S; Abubakar M A. 2018. Study of drying kinetics and quality attributes of fermented corn grains as affected by drying temperatures and velocities. J. Nutr. Health Food Eng., 8(2), 205-212.

AOAC. 1984. Official Methods of Analysis. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 14th Edition, AOAC, Arlington.

Asiru W B; Raji A O; Igbeka J C; Elemo G N. 2013. Mathematical modelling of thin layer dried cashew kernels. Niger. Food J., 31(2), 106-112.

Baballs J; Belessiotis V G. 2014. Influence of the drying conditions on the drying contents and moisture diffusivity during the thin layer drying of figs. J. Food Eng., 65, 449-458.

Chijioke E O; Philomena K I; Nwabanne J T. 2016. Effective moisture diffusivity, activation energy and specific energy consumption in the thin-layer drying of potato. Int. J. Novel Res. Eng. Sci., 3(2), 10-22.

Correa P C; Ferenando B; Gabriel O; Andre G; Osvaldo R; Silvia C B. 2011. Mathematical modelling of the drying process of corn ears. Acta Sci. Agron., 33(4), 574-581.

Dagde K K; Iminabo J T. 2018. Determination of kinetic parameters for thin layer drying of corn. Int. Res. J. Adv. Eng. Sci., 3 (4), 119-124.

Doymaz I. 2017. Drying kinetics, rehydration and color characteristics of convective hot-air drying of carrots slices. Heat Mass Transfer, 53, 25–35.

Duc L A; Hyuk K D. 2020. Mathematical Modeling and Simulation of Rapeseed Drying on ConcurrentFlow Dryer. In: Israel Pala-Rosas (Ed.), Current Drying Processes, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, IntechOpen, DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.91036.

Fandohan P; Ahouansou R; Houssou P; Hell K; Marasas W F O; Wingfield M J. 2006. Impact of mechanical shelling and dehulling on Fusarium infection and fumonisin contamination in maize. Food Addit. Contam., 23(4), 415-421.

Gwirtz J A; Garcia-Casal M N. 2014. Processing maize flour and corn meal food products. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 1312, 66-75.

Huma B; Hussain M; Ning C; Yuesuo Y. 2019. Human benefits from maize. Sch. J. Appl. Sci. Res., 2(2), 04-07.

Inyang U E; Oboh I O; Etuk B R. 2018. Kinetic models for drying techniques- Food Materials. Adv. Chem. Eng. Sci., 8, 27-48.

Jackis A; Muvengei M; Hiram N; Calvin O. 2018. Modeling of thin layer drying kinetics of maize in hybrid solar biomass dryer. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Technol. Res., 7(9), 643-650.

Jaidka M; Bathla S; Kaur R. 2019. Improved Technologies for Higher Maize Production. In: Jaidka Manpreet; Bathla Shikha; Kaur Ramanjit (Eds.) MaizeProduction and Use, IntechOpen, 1-20. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88997.

Karthik S K; Mahesh T; Sumanth B; Tanmay M. 2017. Study of physical and engineering properties of corn (Zea mays). Bull. Env. Pharmacol. Life Sci., 6(1), 404-409.

Kohli D; Shahi N C; Kumar A. 2018. Drying kinetics and activation energy of asparagus root (Asparagus racemosus Wild.) for different methods of drying. Curr. Res. Nutr. Food Sci., 6(1), 191-202.

Kucuk H; Kilic A; Midilli A. 2014. Common Applications of Thin Layer Drying Curve Equations and Their Evaluation Criteria. In: Dincer I; Midilli A; Kucuk H. (Eds.) Progress in Exergy, Energy and the Environment, Springer, Cham, 669-680.

Kumar D; Jhariya N A. 2013. Nutritional, medicinal and economical importance of corn: A mini review. Res. J. Pharm. Sci., 2, 7–8.

Madan A; Pare A; Godwa N N A. 2014. Mathematical modelling of thin-layer drying process of bamboo (Bambusa bambos) shoots at varying temperature. Res. Rev. J. Bot., 3(1), 1-9.

Maisnam D; Rasane P; Dey A; Kaur S; Sarma C. 2017. Recent advances in conventional drying of foods. J. Food Technol. Preserv., 1, 25-34.

Mbegbu N N; Nwajinka C O; Amaefule D O. 2021. Thin layer drying models and characteristics of scent leaves (Ocimum gratissimum) and lemon basil leaves (Ocimum africanum). Heliyon, 7(1), e05945.

Midilli A; Kucuk H; Yapar Z A. 2002. New model for single layer drying. Drying Technol., 20 (7), 1503-1513.

Moshen B. 2016. Energy efficiency and moisture diffusivity of apple slices during convective drying. Food Sci. Technol., 36(1), 145-150.

Mphahlele R R; Pathare P B; Opara U L. 2019. Drying kinetics of pomegranate fruit peel (cv. Wonderful). Sci. Afr., 5, e00145.

Muchilwa I E; Hensel O; Matofari J W. 2014. Evaluating the water activity simulation consistency of empirical models for shelled and cobbed maize drying. Int. J. AgriSci., 4(3), 177-188.

Mukwangole M; Simate I N. 2017. Thin layer mathematical modelling of cob maize in a natural convection solar dyer. Energy Environ. Res., 7(2), 37-47.

Neme K; Mohammed A. 2017. Mycotoxin occurrence in grains and the role of postharvest management as a mitigation strategies. A review. Food Control, 78, 412-425.

Norhashila H; Onwude D; Ezdalina R. 2014. A preliminary study: Kinetic model of drying process of pumpkins (Cucurbita Moschata) in a convective hot air dryer. Agric. Sci. Proc., 2, 345-352.

Onwude D I; Hashim N; Janius R; Nawi N; Abdan K. 2016a. Evaluation of a suitable thin layer model for drying of pumpkin under forced air convection. Int. Food Res. J., 23, 1173-1181.

Onwude D I; Hanshim N; Janius R B; Nawi N M; Abdan K. 2016b. Modeling the thin layer drying of fruits and vegetables: A review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Safety, 15, 299-318.

Orhun G E. 2013. Maize for life. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. Eng., 3(2), 13-16.

Osodo B; Nyaanga D; Muguthu J. 2017. Selection and verification of a drying model for maize (Zea mays L.) in forced convection solar grain dryer. Am. J. Food Sci. Technol., 5(3), 93-100.

Pandey S K; Diwan S; Soni R. 2015. Review of mathematical modeling of thin layer drying process. Int. J. Curr. Eng. Sci. Res., 3, 96-107.

Perea-Flores M J; Garibay-Febles V; ChanonaPerez J J; Calderon-Dominguez G; Mendez-Mendez J V; Palacios-Gonzalez E; Gutierrez-Lopez G F. 2012. Mathematical modelling of castor oil seeds (Ricinus communis) drying kinetics in fluidized bed at high temperature. Indian Crop Prod., 38, 64-71.

Rosa D P; Cantu-Lozano; Luna-Solano G; Polachini T C; Telis-Romero J. 2015. Mathematical modelling of orange seed drying kinetics. Cienc. Agrotechnol., 39, 291-300.

Rosentrater K A; Evers A D. 2018. Flour treatments, applications, quality, storage and transport. In: Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition, Kent’s Technology of Cereals (Fifth Edition), Woodhead Publishing, 515- 564.

Ruiz C A; Francisco C; Fernando L R; Aida R. 2013. Thin layer drying behavior of industrial tomato bye-products in a convective dryer at low temperatures. Res. J. Biotechnol., 8(2), 50-60.

Santiago R; Cao A; Butron A. 2015. Genetic factors involved in fumonisin accumulation in maize kernels and their implications in maize agronomic management and breeding. Toxins, 7(8), 3267-3296.

Siqueira V C; Resende O; Chaves T H. 2012. Drying kinetics of Jatropa seeds. Rev. Ceres., 59, 171-177.

Younis M; Abdelkarim D; El-Abdein A Z. 2018. Kinetics and mathematical modelling of infrared thinlayer drying of garlic slices. Saudi J. Biol. Sci., 25(2),