www.elsevier.com/locate/jfoodeng
a
Department of Food Engineering, College of Food Engineering, State University of Campinas, P.O. Box 6121,
ZIP 13083-970, Campinas, SP, Brazil
b
EMBRAPA Semi-Arid, BR 428, km 152, P.O. Box 23, 56302-970 Petrolina, PE, Brazil
Abstract
The objective of the present work was to study the influence of two different osmotic agents (sucrose and corn syrup) on the
osmotic dehydration of papaya slices (Carica papaya L.). The study was carried out using two factorial experimental designs, with
three independent variables whose levels varied from 44% to 56% w/w for concentration, from 34 to 46 C for temperature and from
120 to 210 min for immersion time. The responses of the experimental designs were the weight reduction (WR), water loss (WL),
solids gain (SG) and water activity (aw). The results showed that, considering the same osmotic pressure for both osmotic agents,
the values obtained for WR, WL and SG for dehydration in sucrose solutions were higher than those obtained in corn syrup solu-
tions, due to their high viscosity and polysaccharide content. The opposite behavior was observed for aw. The models obtained for
the response variables followed a linear behavior except for SG.
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
0260-8774/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.04.016
268 Â.A. El-Aouar et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 75 (2006) 267–274
stability and retention of nutrients during storage (Rah- in order to calculate the response variables weight reduc-
man & Perera, 1999; Sablani et al., 2002). tion (WR), water loss (WL) and solids gain (SG),
The response surface methodology has been widely according to the following equations:
and effectively used in industrial investigations and other
processes such as the development and/or improvement ðwi wf Þ
WR ð%Þ ¼ 100 ð1Þ
of the nutritional products, due to its practical utility in wi
their optimization (Azoubel & Murr, 2003; Corzo & ðwi X i wf X f Þ
Gomez, 2004). This methodology presupposes the use WL ð%Þ ¼ 100 ð2Þ
wi
of experimental design techniques to investigate and Xf
Xi
learn about the functional form of the process or system wf 1 100 wi 1 100
SG ð%Þ ¼ 100 ð3Þ
that involves one or more response variables that are wi
influenced by various factors or independent variables.
where wi and wf are the initial and final (time t) samples
Therefore, our general objective was to study the
weights, respectively, (g); Xi and Xf are the initial and
influence of two different osmotic agents (sucrose and
final (time t) samples moisture content, respectively, (g
corn syrup) on the osmotic dehydration of papaya For-
water/100 g initial wet papaya).
mosa slices (Carica papaya L.). The specific objective
Solutions and samples water activity (aw) were mea-
was to model the influence of the concentration and
sured with a water activity meter (AquaLab Series 3
temperature of the osmotic solution and the immersion
TE) at 25 C with an accuracy of ±0.003.
time on changes in weight reduction, water loss, solids
gain and water activity for both osmotic agents.
2.3. Experimental design and statistical analysis
Table 1
Experimental data for weight reduction, water loss, solids gain and water activity under different treatment conditions of solution temperature and
concentration and immersion time
Treatment Sucrose Corn syrup
T (C) Ca(% w/w) t (min) WR (%) WL (%) SG (%) aw WR (%) WL (%) SG (%) aw
34(1) 44(1) 120(1) 21.11 32.37 11.26 0.971 10.59 16.10 5.51 0.985
34(1) 56(+1) 120(1) 31.69 41.35 9.66 0.965 18.08 22.75 4.67 0.985
34(1) 44(1) 210(+1) 25.16 39.14 13.98 0.959 14.44 20.87 6.43 0.982
34(1) 56(+1) 210(+1) 40.75 52.05 11.31 0.943 22.96 30.24 7.28 0.979
46(+1) 44(1) 120(1) 18.19 32.66 14.47 0.965 14.74 18.70 3.96 0.982
46(+1) 56(+1) 120(1) 34.24 45.76 11.52 0.959 22.31 28.20 5.89 0.979
46(+1) 44(1) 210(+1) 19.61 37.40 17.78 0.951 21.60 28.30 6.70 0.978
46(+1) 56(+1) 210(+1) 38.14 52.82 14.68 0.939 32.32 39.56 7.24 0.974
40(0) 50(0) 165(0) 28.97 41.19 12.22 0.958 19.32 24.79 5.47 0.980
40(0) 50(0) 165(0) 29.84 41.84 12.00 0.959 19.25 24.69 5.44 0.980
40(0) 50(0) 165(0) 28.94 41.21 12.28 0.958 19.27 24.75 5.48 0.981
a
Water activity of sucrose solutions at 25 C: 0.954 (44% w/w); 0.939 (50% w/w); 0.920 (56% w/w). Water activity of corn syrup solutions at 25 C:
0.966 (44% w/w); 0.959 (50% w/w); 0.940 (56% w/w).
Table 2
Values of coded first-order polynomial regression coefficients
Coefficients Sucrose Corn syrup
WR WL SG aw WR WL SG aw
b0 28.7854 41.6178 12.8324 0.9569 19.5330 25.3585 5.8255 0.9804
b1 1.0655 ns 1.5301 0.0028 3.1115 3.0994 ns 0.0020
b2 7.5942 6.3027 1.2916 0.0051 4.2899 4.5989 0.3091 0.0015
b3 2.3021 3.6582 1.3561 0.0084 3.1995 4.1536 0.9540 0.0023
b12 1.0512 0.8295 0.2217 ns 0.2846 0.5924 0.3078 0.0005
b13 0.9721 0.7094 0.2627 ns 1.0176 1.0885 0.0709 ns
b23 0.9349 0.7810 ns 0.0020 0.5226 0.5597 0.0372 ns
ns: non-significant (p > 0.05).
equations for both experimental designs were tested for It is important to point out that, for the analysis of
adequacy and fitness by analysis of variance (ANOVA) variance shown in Tables 3 and 4, the largest contribu-
according to Tables 3 and 4. tion in the residual value was due to the lack of fit, indi-
To convert the real values that include the studied cating that the experimental data presented good
range of the independent variables in coded ones, reliability.
according to Eq. (4), the following equation can be used:
RV CP 3.2. Influence of process variables
CV ¼ ð5Þ
DRVCP
Figs. 1 and 2 show the influence of concentration and
where CV is the coded value; RV is the real value; CP is temperature of the osmotic solution and immersion time
the real central point value; DRVCP is the step change at on the weight loss, loss of water, solids gain and water
the central point. activity during the osmotic dehydration of papaya in su-
Tables 3 and 4 summarize the results for linear and crose and corn syrup, respectively.
cross-product terms for weight reduction, water loss, According to Figs. 1(a) and (b), the osmotic solution
solids gain and water activity for each solute; some concentration was the most important effect on weight
non-significant terms (p > 0.05) were eliminated, in reduction and water loss, followed by the immersion
agreement with Table 2. According to Table 3, the fitted time, and they positively affected these responses for
models were significant (p 6 0.05), possessing low resid- the sucrose agent. The effect of temperature of the osmo-
ual values and satisfactory values of multiple determina- tic solution practically did not influence the weight
tion coefficients. By Table 4, only the model for the reduction and it was negative. The weight reduction
solids gain was not predictive, presenting significant lack exhibits a mass relationship among the whole flows in-
of fit, therefore, the curves generated from this model volved in the osmotic process (mainly between water
can only show the behavior of each independent vari- loss and solids gain) and due to this which is more pro-
able on the responses. nounced in the solids gain instead of the the water loss,
270 Â.A. El-Aouar et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 75 (2006) 267–274
Table 3
Analysis of variance for weight reduction (WR), water loss (WL), solids gain (SG) and water activity (aw) in the osmotic dehydration of papaya in
sucrose solutions
Source SS DF MS Fc Ft
Weight reduction (WR)
Regression 536.2523 6 89.3754 162.02 6.16
Residual 2.2065 4 0.5516 – –
Lack of fit 1.6833 2 – – –
Pure error 0.5232 2 – – –
Total 538.4588 10 – – R2 = 0.9959
Water loss (WL)
Regression 439.2592 5 87.8518 175.60 5.05
Residual 2.5014 5 0.5003 – –
Lack of fit 2.2267 3 – – –
Pure error 0.2748 2 – – –
Total 441.7606 10 – – R2 = 0.9943
Solids gain (SG)
Regression 47.7299 5 9.5460 22.09 5.05
Residual 2.1607 5 0.4321 – –
Lack of fit 2.1192 3 – – –
Pure error 0.0414 2 – – –
Total 49.8905 10 – – R2 = 0.9567
Water activity (aw)
Regression 8.6E-04 4 2.2E-04 91.50 4.53
Residual 1.4E-05 6 2.4E-06 – –
Lack of fit 1.3E-05 4 – – –
Pure error 6.7E-07 2 – – –
Total 8.8E-04 10 – – R2 = 0.9839
SS: sum square; DF: degree of freedom; MS: mean square; Fc: calculated F distribution value (p 6 0.05); Ft: tabulated F distribution value (p 6 0.05).
the negative effect of temperature found on weight (<10%) can be obtained using temperature of the osmo-
reduction could be explained. The temperature did not tic solution and immersion time in their lowest levels,
significantly influence the water loss. Values of 40% with the concentration in its highest level.
for WR and of 52% for WL can be obtained when the Fig. 1(d) shows that the immersion time was the most
concentration and the immersion time are in their high- important effect on water activity, followed by concen-
est levels, considering the whole temperature range, tration and temperature. All the effects were negative
practically. on water activity for sucrose solutions. Values of aw
Observing Fig. 1(c), for sucrose, the temperature was inferior to 0.945 can be obtained using the independent
the most important effect affecting solids gain, followed variables in their highest levels.
by the immersion time. These effects positively influ- In agreement with Fig. 2(a) and (b), the osmotic solu-
enced the solids gain for the osmotic process of papaya tion concentration was the most important effect on
in sucrose solutions. It is important to emphasize the weight reduction and water loss, followed by the immer-
negative effect of the concentration in solids gain for su- sion time and temperature of osmotic solution, and they
crose. According to Heng, Guilbert, and Cuq (1990), it positively affected these responses for corn syrup. Values
should be mentioned that, in this case, the sugar gain of 27% for WR and of 35% for WL can be obtained
is less important. Generally speaking it appears that lit- when the independent variables are in their highest
tle sugar is obtained when the water outflow is fast and levels.
significant. This occurs with a higher temperature, high- Considering the corn syrup agent, the temperature
er concentration and some agitation. Acceleration of did not influence the solids gain but it was positively
water loss without modification of solids gain, when and strongly affected by the immersion time and with
temperature or dehydration solution concentration is in- less intensity by the solution concentration (Fig. 2(c)).
creased, is observed by many authors (Bongirwar & Fig. 2(d) shows that the immersion time and the tem-
Sreenivasan, 1977; Hawkes & Flink, 1978; Islam & perature of the osmotic solution were the most impor-
Flink, 1982). This effect is generally attributed to the tant effects on water activity. All the effects were
influence of natural tissue membranes as well as to the negative on water activity for corn syrup solutions. Val-
diffuse properties of water and solutes as a function of ues of aw, inferior to 0.978 can be obtained using the
their respective molar mass. Low values of solids gain independent variables in their highest levels.
Â.A. El-Aouar et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 75 (2006) 267–274 271
Table 4
Analysis of variance for weight reduction (WR), water loss (WL), solids gain (SG) and water activity (aw) in the osmotic dehydration of papaya in
corn syrup solutions
Source SS DF MS Fc Ft
Weight reduction (WR)
Regression 317.6855 6 52.9476 255.98 6.16
Residual 0.8274 4 0.2068 – –
Lack of fit 0.8250 2 – – –
Pure error 0.0024 2 – – –
Total 318.5129 10 – – R2 = 0.9974
Water loss (WL)
Regression 398.8631 6 66.4772 157.49 6.16
Residual 1.6884 4 0.4221 – –
Lack of fit 1.6833 2 – – –
Pure error 0.0051 2 – – –
Total 400.5515 10 – – R2 = 0.9958
Solids gain (SG)
Regression 8.8553 5 1.7711 5.15 5.05
Residual 1.7202 5 0.3440 – –
Lack of fit 1.7193 3 – – –
Pure error 0.0008 2 – – –
Total 10.5754 10 – – R2 = 0.8373
Water activity (aw)
Regression 9.3E-05 4 2.3E-05 64.42 4.53
Residual 2.2E-06 6 3.6E-07 – –
Lack of fit 1.9E-06 4 – – –
Pure error 2.2E-07 2 – – –
Total 9.5E-05 10 – – R2 = 0.9772
SS: sum square; DF: degree of freedom; MS: mean square; Fc: F distribution calculated (p 6 0.05); Ft: F distribution tabulated (p 6 0.05).
1.01
In agreement with Table 1, for the same solute con- C Sucrose ¼ 0.83C Corn syrup ð8Þ
centration, the osmotic potential of sucrose solutions
is larger than corn syrup solutions. To compare between where C corresponds to the real value of osmotic solu-
both osmotic agents it is necessary to use solutions with tion concentration. Obeying the established relationship
the same initial osmotic potential because water activity in Eq. (8), it is possible to obtain the pairs of solution
is the driving force of the osmotic process. concentrations for both osmotic agents corresponding
According to Lewicki and Lenart (1995), excess pres- to the same osmotic pressure.
sure needed to reach the state of equilibrium between a Taking into account Eq. (8) and according to Figs.
pure solvent and a solution is called osmotic pressure. In 1(a) and 2(a) for an osmotic solution temperature of
the equilibrium state, 34 C and an immersion time of 120 min, the difference
between the weight reduction values of both osmotic
Chemical potentialsolvent solution
solvent P ¼ Chemical potentialsolvent P agents, for the same osmotic pressure, indicates that
1 2
Fig. 1. Influence of concentration and temperature of osmotic solution and immersion time on (a) WR, (b) WL, (c) SG and (d) aw for papaya
osmotic dehydration with sucrose solutions.
In agreement with Figs. 1(c) and 2(c), the differences According to Figs. 1(d) and 2(d), it was observed that
between the solids gain value of both osmotic agents, for samples dehydrated in sucrose solutions reached a water
the same temperature, immersion time and osmotic activity value of 1–3% less than samples processed in
pressure, indicate that samples dehydrated in corn syrup corn syrup solutions.
solutions had approximately a solids gain of 53–56% less On the whole, samples dehydrated in sucrose solu-
than samples processed in sucrose solutions. tions had values of WR, WL and SG higher than those
Â.A. El-Aouar et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 75 (2006) 267–274 273
Fig. 2. Influence of concentration and temperature of osmotic solution and immersion time on (a) WR, (b) WL, (c) SG and (d) aw for papaya
osmotic dehydration with corn syrup solutions.
obtained for samples processed in corn syrup solutions, The use of highly concentrated viscous sugar solu-
except for aw, even when considering the same osmotic tions creates major problems such as floating of food
pressure for both osmotic agents. The fact is that the pieces, hindering the contact between the food material
corn syrup solutions had visually a higher viscosity than and the osmotic solution, causing a reduction in the
the sucrose ones. mass transfer rates. Mavroudis, Gekas, and Sjöholm
274 Â.A. El-Aouar et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 75 (2006) 267–274
1.0x107
Acknowledgements
9.0x106
5.0x106 References
6
4.0x10
44 46 48 50 52 54 56 Azoubel, P. M., & Murr, F. E. X. (2003). Optimization of osmotic
Concentration (% w/w) dehydration of cashew apple (Anacardium occidentale L.) in sugar
solutions. Food and Science Technology International, 9, 427–433.
Fig. 3. Relationship between concentration and osmotic pressure of Bongirwar, D. R., & Sreenivasan, A. (1977). Studies on osmotic
sucrose and corn syrup osmotic solutions. dehydration of banana. Journal of Food Science and Technology,
14, 104–112.
Corzo, O., & Gomez, E. R. (2004). Optimization of osmotic
dehydration of cantaloupe using desired function methodology.
(1998) affirm that the increase of agitation level could be Journal of Food Engineering, 64, 213–219.
Hawkes, J., & Flink, J. M. (1978). Osmotic concentration of fruits
a good alternative for this case. In early works (Bongir-
slices prior to freeze dehydration. Journal of Food Processing
war & Sreenivasan, 1977; Ponting, Watters, Forrey, Preservation, 2, 265–284.
Jackson, & Stanley, 1966) the effect of agitation was Heng, K., Guilbert, S., & Cuq, J. L. (1990). Osmotic dehydration of
studied by comparison of agitated and non-agitated papaya: Influence of process variables on the product quality.
treatments. Analysis of the agitation effect was limited Sciences des Aliments, 10, 831–848.
Islam, M. N., & Flink, J. M. (1982). Dehydration of potato. II.
to weight loss and was without quantification. However,
Osmotic concentration and its effects on air drying behaviour.
it was clear that agitated samples exhibited greater Journal of Food Technology, 17, 387–403.
weight reduction, and consequently water loss, than Khuri, A. J., & Cornell, F. A. (1996). Response surfaces: Design and
non-agitated ones and thus agitation was found to be analyses. New York: Marcel Dekker, 510p.
another process parameter. Lazarides, H. N., Katsanidis, E., & Nickolaidis, A. (1995). Mass
transfer kinetics during osmoticpreconcentration aiming at mini-
Chemical and physical properties of corn syrup solids
mal solid uptake. Journal of Food Engineering, 25, 151–166.
given by the Corn Products, Brazil, were as follows. Lewicki, P. P., & Lenart, A. (1995). Osmotic dehydration of fruits and
Moisture content max. 5.0%; dextrose equivalent 38– vegetables. In A. S. Mujumdar (Ed.), Handbook of industrial drying
40; pH 4.5–5.5; carbohydrates (% dry basis): dextrose (pp. 691–713). New York: Marcel Dekker.
15, maltose 12, other sugars 73. According to Lazarides, Mavroudis, N. E., Gekas, V., & Sjöholm, I. (1998). Osmotic
dehydration of apples—effects of agitation and raw material
Katsanidis, and Nickolaidis (1995), overall mass
characteristics. Journal of Food Engineering, 35, 191–209.
transfer coefficients for sugar uptake decrease with the Ponting, J. D., Watters, G. G., Forrey, R. R., Jackson, R., & Stanley,
molecular size of the osmotic solute. The larger the sol- W. L. (1966). Osmotic dehydration of fruits. Food Technology, 20,
ute size, the lower the sugar uptake under fixed process 125–128.
conditions. Rahman, M. S., & Perera, C. O. (1999). Drying and food preservation.
In M. S. Rahman (Ed.), Handbook of food preservation
(pp. 173–216). New York: Marcel Dekker.
Rastogi, N. K., & Niranjan, K. (1998). Enhanced mass transfer during
4. Conclusions osmotic dehydration of high pressure treated pineapple. Journal of
Food Science, 63, 508–511.
When water loss and solid gain take place in a paral- Rastogi, N. K., & Raghavarao, K. S. M. S. (2004). Mass transfer
during osmotic dehydration of pineapple: Considering Fickian
lel mode; the rate of water loss is always higher than the
diffusion in cubical configuration. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft und-
rate of solid gain. The solution concentration and tem- Technologie, 37, 43–47.
perature and immersion time have a significant effect Rastogi, N. K., Raghavarao, K. S., & Niranjan, K. (1997). Mass
on weight reduction, water loss, solids gain and water transfer during osmotic dehydration of banana: Fickian diffusion
activity during the osmotic dehydration of papaya slices in cylindrical configuration. Journal of Food Engineering, 31,
423–432.
with sucrose and corn syrup. Considering the same os-
Sablani, S. S., Rahman, M. S., & Al-Sadeiri, D. S. (2002). Equilibrium
motic pressure for both osmotic agents, it was found distribution data for osmotic drying of apple cubes in sugar-water
that weight reduction, water loss and solids gain were solution. Journal of Food Engineering, 52, 193–199.
higher when sucrose was used as an osmotic agent, how- Statsoft (1997). Statistica for windows. Tulsa. USA.