14TH REGIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON CHEMICAL ENGINEERING 2007 ISBN 978-979-16978-0-4

Osmotic Dehydration of Mango (Mangifera indica) by Zugarramurdi and Lupin Method

Aditya Putranto, Judy Retti Witono, Arlina Purwanti, and Dian Natalia Chemical Engineering Department Parahyangan Catholic University Jalan Ciumbuleuit 94 Bandung, Indonesia Email: adityaptr@yahoo.com

Abstract Osmotic dehydration experiments of mango cubes at different temperatures (25,30,35 oC), different speed of agitations (50,100,150 rpm), and different osmotic solution (sucrose, glucose, and glycerol) were analyzed. In all experiments, the osmotic solutions concentration is 15 % and 1 cm cube of mango. Mass transfer coefficients and equilibrium concentrations are determined by Zugarramurdi and Lupin model. The effects of agitation speed and temperature on the coefficients and equilibrium concentrations are discussed thoroughly. Models relating mass transfer coefficients and variable processes have been developed. 1. Introduction Osmotic dehydration is the process of water removal and solid gain by immersion of water containing cellular solid in a concentrated aqueous solution [P.P Sutar & D.K.Gupta, 2007]. Osmotic dehydration will increase the solid gain and water removal and reduce the water activity in the fruits. This process will cause a longer period, better flavors and nutrition. The product of osmotic dehydration is the semifinal product before drying or others preservation methods. The driving force of osmotic dehydration is the difference of osmotic pressure between fruit and its surrounding solution. This process is based on the immersion of foods, whole or in pieces, in hypertonic solutions. The process is two simultaneous counter-current flows: water flow from the fruits to the hypertonic solutions and migration of the solute from the hypertonic solutions to the fruits. The rate of water loss depends on several factors such as solutions concentration, its temperature, dehydration time, level of agitations, sample size and geometry, and solution to solid volume ratio [Rastogi, Raghavarao, & Miranjan, 1997]. In this experiment, mass transfer coefficients were measured. These results were then use to estimate the correlation in the form of dimensionless number (Sherwood, Reynolds, and Smith number). Keyword: osmotic, dehydration, mass transfer 2. Materials and Methods 2.1 Raw materials preparation Fresh and good quality mangoes (Mangifera indica) were purchased from the local market and stored at the refrigerator. The mangoes after peeling were cut into 1 cm cubes with a sharp edge knife. 2.2 Preparation of osmotic solutions The osmotic solutions were used are 15% concentration of sucrose, glucose, and glycerol. They were prepared by dissolving required amounts of osmotic agents in distilled water. 2.3 Experimental procedure Validation of Zugarramurdi-Lupin model was conducted prior to the main experiments. Zugarramurdi-Lupin model is a model to approach the equilibrium value of osmotic solution concentration [Zugarramurdi and Lupin, 1980]. The validation procedure used 15 % sucrose solution agitated at 100 rpm at the room temperature. The data of refractive index were taken every one hour until same values of refractive index are reached for five times.

Yogyakarta-Indonesia, 4-5th December 2007 Chemical Engineering Department , Gadjah Mada University

14TH REGIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON CHEMICAL ENGINEERING 2007 ISBN 978-979-16978-0-4

Main experiments were conducted at three different temperatures (25, 30, 35 oC), three different speed of agitations (50,100,150 rpm), and three different osmotic solutions (sucrose, glucose, and glycerol). In all experiments, the osmotic solutions concentration is 15 % and 1 cm cube of mango. During each experiment, the observations of refractive index were taken every one hour to obtain the experimental data on osmotic kinetics. 2.4 Kinetics The model of validation was Zugarramurdi-Lupin model (1980):

Xi (t + t ) = Xie (1 e ki t ) + (e ki t ) Xi (t )
Xi = concentration of osmotic solution, ki = osmotic dehydration kinetics constant, Xie = equilibrium concentration of osmotic solution.

(1)

3. Results and Discussion Validation Data obtained in this experiment are used to validate Zugarramurdi and Lupin model (1980). The equilibrium concentration of sucrose from Zugarramurdi and Lupin model is 0.085 while the experiment showed that the equilibrium concentration is 0.097 so the validity of model can be accepted in this experiment. Rate of solute gain Sucrose, glycerol, and glucose solution (15%-weight) are used as osmotic agents and the profiles of concentrations of the solute in the solution are shown in Figure 1.

X vs t--sucrose
0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 X 0.12 0.11 0.1 0.09 0.08 0 2 4 t (h) 6 8 10 100 rpm, 25oC 100 rpm, 30oC 100 rpm,35oC 50 rpm,25oC 50 rpm,30oC 50 rpm,35oC 150 rpm, 25oC 150 rpm,30oC 150 rpm,35oC

Figure 1. Rate of Solute Gain (15% sucrose solution)

Yogyakarta-Indonesia, 4-5th December 2007 Chemical Engineering Department , Gadjah Mada University

14TH REGIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON CHEMICAL ENGINEERING 2007 ISBN 978-979-16978-0-4

X vs t--glycerol
0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 X 0.12 0.11 0.1 0.09 0.08 0 2 4 t (h) 6 8 10 100 rpm, 25oC 100 rpm, 30oC 100 rpm,35oC 50 rpm,25oC 50 rpm,30oC 50 rpm,35oC 150 rpm, 25oC 150 rpm,30oC 150 rpm,35oC

Figure 2. Rate of Solute Gain (15% sucrose solution)

X vs t--glucose
0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 X 0.12 0.11 0.1 0.09 0.08 0 2 4 t (h) 6 8 10 100 rpm, 25oC 100 rpm, 30oC 100 rpm,35oC 50 rpm,25oC 50 rpm,30oC 50 rpm,35oC 150 rpm, 25oC 150 rpm,30oC 150 rpm,35oC

Figure 3. Rate of Solute Gain (15% sucrose solution) It can be observed that for all experiments the concentrations of solute in the osmotic solution decrease dramatically initially but a slow decrease was observed at the end of dehydration process. This phenomenon is quite reasonable since driving force of this process is the difference in concentration which becomes lower during the dehydration time until equilibrium concentration is reached. The results are in agreement with Giraldo et al. (2003). It was described that sugar gain and water loss increase significantly initially and increase slowly at the end of experiments. It can be shown that the increase of temperature results in the increase of rate of solute gain of the products. Sereno et al. (2001) showed that the increase of temperature results in the increase of water loss. Since it is assumed that simultaneous water loss and solid gain occurs, it is quite reasonable to assume the increase of temperature results in the increase of solute gain. It is also observed that the increase of agitation speed causes the increase of solute gain. Similiarly, Mavroudis et al. (1998) explained that the increase of Reynolds number causes the increase of solute gain.

Yogyakarta-Indonesia, 4-5th December 2007 Chemical Engineering Department , Gadjah Mada University

14TH REGIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON CHEMICAL ENGINEERING 2007 ISBN 978-979-16978-0-4

Similar conditions happen for experiments using glycerol and glucose solution as osmotic agents. However, the rate of solute gain is different for glucose, sucrose, and glycerol. Rate of solute gain of sucrose is the lowest followed by glucose and glycerol. It may be due to the molecular weight. Molecular weight of sucrose is the highest followed by glucose and glycerol. The higher molecular weight may decrease the diffusivity so the penetration of solute might be inhibited. Mass Transfer Coefficient In this experiment, mass transfer coefficient is determined by Zugarramurdi and Lupin model. Validation has been conducted and it is shown that the model is quite valid. Mass transfer coefficient and equilibrium solute content is determined from the slope and intercept of plot X(t+dt) versus X(t). For all experiments, R2 of the plot is quite high. Mass transfer coefficient and equilibrium concentration of all experiments are presented in Table 1. Table 1. Mass Transfer Coefficient and Equilibrium Solute Content osmotic agent Variation rpm temperature k(1/h) Xe 1 sucrose 50 25 0.128 0.074 2 sucrose 100 25 0.053 0.0641 3 sucrose 150 25 0.088 0.0392 4 sucrose 50 30 0.0602 0.0393 5 sucrose 100 30 0.192 0.114 6 sucrose 150 30 0.237 0.0939 7 sucrose 50 35 0.353 0.115 8 sucrose 100 35 0.267 0.129 9 sucrose 150 35 0.222 0.0939 10 glycerol 50 25 0.132 0.077 11 glycerol 100 25 0.471 0.119 12 glycerol 150 25 0.06 0.0224 13 glycerol 50 30 0.149 0.071 14 glycerol 100 30 0.192 0.103 15 glycerol 150 30 0.374 0.104 16 glycerol 50 35 0.137 0.069 17 glycerol 100 35 0.22 0.0922 18 glycerol 150 35 0.302 0.069 19 glucose 50 25 0.174 0.09 20 glucose 100 25 0.076 0.0505 21 glucose 150 25 0.306 0.104 22 glucose 50 30 0.257 0.108 23 glucose 100 30 0.077 0.056 24 glucose 150 30 0.076 0.064 25 glucose 50 35 0.302 0.1 26 glucose 100 35 0.235 0.0907 27 glucose 150 35 0.309 0.099 For sucrose solution as osmotic agent, it can be seen that mass transfer coefficient of solute is not dependent on agitation speed but it is affected by temperature. This indicates that mass transfer is controlled by diffusion inside the product, not by convective transport, because turbulence promoted by agitation speed does not affect the coefficient. However, Panangiotou et al. (1998) showed that mass transfer coefficient of glucose and water is affected by agitation speed. The impact of agitation speed on

Yogyakarta-Indonesia, 4-5th December 2007 Chemical Engineering Department , Gadjah Mada University

14TH REGIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON CHEMICAL ENGINEERING 2007 ISBN 978-979-16978-0-4

mass transfer coefficient of water can be understood due to the molecular size. The difference of this result with the result of Panangiotou et al. (1998) may be due to difference of fruits used since Panangiotou et al. (1998) use apples and kiwi. Similiarly, for glucose and glycerol, it is found that there is no effect of agitation speed on mass transfer coefficient of those solutes so the mass transfer is also governed by diffusion inside the product. In addition, for three solutes, temperature strongly affects mass transfer coefficients of those solutes. The increase of temperature results in mass transfer coefficient. It is quite reasonable since the transport is more pronounced at higher temperature. The results are in agreement with Panangiotou et al. (1998) and Sereno et al. (1991). It was reported that the increase of temperature will increase the mass transfer coefficient of solutes. Similiarly, Giraldo et al. (2003) reported that the increase of temperature enhance yield and mass transfer coefficient of solutes. However, it should be recognized that the impact of each osmotic agent on mass transfer coefficient is not the same. It can be shown that mass transfer coefficients of glycerol is the highest followed by glucose and sucrose. It may be due to the physical properties of solution. Viscosity of glycerol is the highest followed by glucose and sucrose. Also, diffusivity of glycerol is higher than that of glucose and sucrose. Both of them play an important role to enhance the mass transfer coefficient of glucose. The high mass transfer coefficient of glycerol can be analyzed also by the sharp increase of glycerol uptake compared to glucose and sucrose uptake. Eqilibrium concentration Turn to solutes equilibrium concentrations, it is observed that for all solutes, the equilibrium concentrations are not affected by agitation speed but by temperature. This is quite reasonable since the concentrations are thermodynamic properties affected by temperature not by external factors such as agitation speed. This is supported by Panangiotou et al. (1998). It was explained that concentration of osmotic agent and temperature affect equilibrium concentration. Unfortunately, the impact of concentration of osmotic agent on equilibrium concentration has not been investigated in this experiment. Furthermore, Ertekin and Sultanaglu (2000) reported that the increase of concentration results in the increase of equilibrium concentrations. Corzo and Bracho (2005) showed the similar phenomenon. Modeling Modeling is conducted to obtain the relationship between mass transfer coefficient and other factors influencing it. Many models have been proposed but not in the form of dimensionless term. Sereno et al. (2001) proposed models to relate mass transfer coefficient with concentration and temperature. Moreover, Sutar and Gupta (2007) conduct modeling to describe relationship between water loss and sugar gain with concentration and temperature. In this case, Sherwood number is related to Reynolds and Schmidt number. Model is shown below.

Sh = 34.21 Re 0.7137 Sc 0.8

(2)

Conclusion Zugarramurdi and Lupin model (1980) has been applied in osmotic dehydration of mango. Equilibrium solute content of osmotic agents and mass transfer coefficient has been determined by this model. Mass transfer is seemed to be controlled by diffusion inside product. Both mass transfer coefficient and equilibrium solute content is affected by temperature. It is suggested also that they are affected by concentration. Future work to investigate this may be needed. References Corzo, O. and Bracho, N. (2005). Osmotic dehydration of sardine sheets using Zugarramurdi and Lupin model, Journal of Food Engineering, 66, pp. 51-56.

Yogyakarta-Indonesia, 4-5th December 2007 Chemical Engineering Department , Gadjah Mada University

14TH REGIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON CHEMICAL ENGINEERING 2007 ISBN 978-979-16978-0-4

Ertekin, F.E. and Sultanoglu, M. (2000). Modelling of mass transfer during osmotic dehydration of apples, Journal of Food Engineering, 46, pp. 243-250. Giraldo, G., Talens, P., Fito. P., and Chiralt, A. (2003). Influence of sucrose solution concentration on kinetics and yield during osmotic dehydration of mango, Journal of Food Engineering, 58, pp. 33-43. Mavroduis, N.E., Gekas, V., and Sjoholm, I. (1998). Osmotic dehydration of apples-Effects of agitation and raw material characteristics, Journal of Food Engineering, 35, pp. 191-209. Panangiotou, N.M., Karathanos, V.T., Maroullis, Z.B. (1998). Mass transfer modeling of the osmotic dehydration of some fruits, International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 33, pp. 267-284. Rastogi, N.K., Raghavarao, K.S.M.S., and Niranjan, K. (1997). Mass transfer during osmotic dehydration of banana: Fickian diffusion in cylindrical banana, Journal of Food Engineering, 31, pp. 423-432. Sereno, A.M., Moreira, R., and Martinez, E. (2001). Mass transfer coefficients during osmotic dehydration of apples in single and combined aqueous solution of sugar and salt, Journal of Food Engineering, 47, pp. 43-49. Sutar, P.P. and Gupta, D.K. (2007). Mathematical modeling of mass transfer in osmotic dehydration of onion slices, Journal of Food Engineering, 78, pp. 90-97. Zugarramurdi, A and Lupin, H.M. (1980). A model to explain observed behavior on fish salting, Journal of Food Science, 45, pp. 1305-1311 cited on Corzo, O. and Bracho, N. (2005). Osmotic dehydration of sardine sheets using Zugarramurdi and Lupin model, Journal of Food Engineering, 66, pp. 51-56.

Yogyakarta-Indonesia, 4-5th December 2007 Chemical Engineering Department , Gadjah Mada University

14TH REGIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON CHEMICAL ENGINEERING 2007 ISBN 978-979-16978-0-4

Yogyakarta-Indonesia, 4-5th December 2007 Chemical Engineering Department , Gadjah Mada University