Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 52 (2019) 8–16

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ifset

Dehydration of salmon (Atlantic salmon), beef, and apple (Granny Smith) T

using Refractance window™: Effect on diffusion behavior, texture, and color
changes
⁎
S. Francoa, A. Jaquesa, M. Pintoa, M. Fardellaa, P. Valenciaa, H. Núñeza, C. Ramíreza,b, ,
R. Simpsona,b
a
Departamento de Ingeniería Química y Ambiental, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, P.O. Box 110-V, Valparaíso, Chile
b
Alimentos y Salud (CREAS) Conicyt-Regional GORE Valparaíso Project R17A10001, Avenida Universidad 330, Curauma, Valparaíso, Chile

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The aim of this research was to study the use of Refractance window™ (RW™) in the dehydration of salmon
Refractance window™ (Atlantic salmon), beef (lean), and apples (Granny Smith) through the analysis of the effective diffusivity de-
Fick's second law termined through the Fick's model and the anomalous model.
Anomalous diffusion Salmon, beef, and apple slices were dried at 55 and 95 °C, using either a conventional drying process or RW™.
Color change
Water activity (aw) was measured periodically by drying, and the effective diffusion (Deff) was measured using
Food matrices
Fick's second law and an anomalous model. Color changes (ΔE) and firmness were also measured.
The results showed that mass transfer in salmon and beef was not improved by RW™. In contrast, in apple
slices dehydrated using RW™, the Deff and processing times were significantly (p < 0.05) affected, reflecting a
reduced drying time required to attain an aw of 0.6.
RW™ is a powerful tool that allows for the dehydration of fruit using temperatures of 95 °C and provides a
50% reduction in drying time.

1. Introduction production of meat and yoghurt powders (Raghavi, Moses, &

Consumers around the world are demanding products with high
nutritional value and quality, that do not require the addition of che-
mical compounds or intensive treatments to extend shelf life. The food
industry has been investigating innovative technologies to meet this
increasing demand. One of the most common processes used to extend
the shelf life of food materials is dehydration, whose main objective is
to prevent microorganism spoilage and biochemical reactions that
could affect the quality of the products by significantly reducing water
activity (Ortiz et al., 2013; Simpson et al., 2015).
Refractance window™ (RW™) is a technology patented by Magoon
(1986) and developed by MCD Technologies Inc. (Tacoma, Washington,
USA). It is known for its ability to provide higher quality of dehydrated
foods compared with the conventional drying process (i.e. a convection
oven). Thus, RW™ improves color, flavor, vitamin retention, and anti-
oxidant retention (Nindo, Sun, Wang, Tang, & Powers, 2003; Ortiz-
Jerez, Gulati, Datta, & Ochoa-Martínez, 2015; Pavan, Schmidt, & Feng,
2012). Several studies have reported the use of the RW™ technique for
juice concentration, fruit and vegetable dehydration, and even for the
Anadharamakrishnan, 2018; Tontul, Ergin, Eroğlu, Küçükçetin, &
Topuz, 2018). However, the use of RW™ dehydration for fish, beef, or
apple slices has not been studied yet. The concentration of juices
(strawberry, blueberry, mango, and pomegranate) and purees (carrot,
tomato, asparagus, and paprika) using RW™ has been investigated, and
has resulted in the common conclusion that thermally sensitive com-
pounds such as bioactive compounds are maintained through this
process (Abonyi et al., 2002; Baeghbali, Niakousari, & Farahnaky,
2016; Bernaert, Van Droogenbroeck, Van Pamel, & De Ruyck, 2018;
Caparino et al., 2012; Caparino, Sablani, Tang, Syamaladevi, & Nindo,
2013; Castoldi, Zotarelli, Durigon, Carciofi, & Laurindo, 2015; Celli,
Khattab, Ghanem, & Brooks, 2016; Kaur, Saha, Kumari, & Datta, 2017;
Nindo et al., 2003; Nindo & Tang, 2007; Trivedia, D'costa, Shitut, &
Srivastav, 2017). Other studies have shown that RW™ allows for a
50 min reduction in the drying time of tomato slices dehydrated at 90 °C
compared with hot-air drying. Also, this process significantly improves
some of the physical and chemical properties of foods such as color and
polyphenol content (Abbasid, Niakousari, & Yasini Ardekani, 2015).
Tontul et al. (2018) compared the RW™ dehydration of yoghurt with a

⁎
Corresponding author at: Departamento de Ingeniería Química y Ambiental, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, P.O. Box 110-V, Valparaíso, Chile.
E-mail address: cristian.ramirez@usm.cl (C. Ramírez).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2018.12.001
Received 25 June 2018; Received in revised form 28 November 2018; Accepted 2 December 2018
Available online 11 December 2018
1466-8564/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Franco et al.
freeze-drying process and found that the physical properties obtained
using RW™ were better than those obtained through freeze drying.
However, the levels of bacteria present in the yoghurt were significantly
reduced by the RW™ method compared to freeze drying.
The dehydration of animal tissues, such as beef or fish, using the
RW™ technique, has been less reported. Rostami, Dehnad, Jafari, and
Tavakoli (2017) performed a dehydration of meat powder with RW™,
concluding that the optimal temperature conditions to get a product
with desirable physical, rheological, microbial, and sensory properties
was 100 °C (sample thickness of 2 mm).
Dehydration through the RW™ technique usually uses hot water at a
temperature of around 90 °C as an energy source and an infrared
transparent plastic film (Mylar™), as a drying contact-surface (Abonyi
et al., 2002; Nindo et al., 2003; Ochoa-Martínez, Quintero, Ayala, &
Ortiz, 2012). When there is no product to be dehydrated, energy
transfer through the radiation mechanism is slow; however, if there is a
fresh product (with a high moisture content), the amount of energy
transferred by the radiation mechanism increases, allowing the food to
be dehydrated in a short time; this is known as RW™ (Ortiz-Jerez et al.,
2015).
The food materials can be pre-treated in various ways to improve
mass transfer during the drying process. Freezing and thawing (F-T) can
be used as pre-treatment to enhance the mass transfer rate because
there is damage to the food microstructure, and furthermore water
movement through the cell membrane and wall is facilitated. Ramírez,
Troncoso, Muñoz, and Aguilera (2011) have evaluated the effect of F-T
as a pre-treatment for the dehydration of apple samples, and the results
demonstrated that there was an increase in the mass transfer rate
compared with other pre-treatments such as compression or immersion
in boiling water, due to the formation of extracellular spaces, inter-
cellular channels, and new pathways in the apple structure. On the
other hand, freezing-thawing has been used in muscle-based foods such
as fish and beef to extend their shelf life and this treatment damages the
food microstructure (Cheng, Sun, Han, & Zeng, 2014). For example, in
salmon tissue, previous research has reported that a slow F-T treatment
(between −5 and −20 °C with a freezing rate of 0.5–1.0 °C/min) pro-
duces large extracellular gaps and cell wall rupture because the ice
crystals formed are bigger when compared to a faster F-T treatment
(freezing temperature between −30 and −80 °C with a freezing rate of
−20 °C/min), so this can be considered as an advantage when the
process is used as a pre-treatment (Alizadeh, Chapleau, de-Lamballerie,
& Le-Lebail, 2007, 2009; Faridnia et al., 2015; Hughes, Oiseth, Purslow,
& Warner, 2014; O'Dowd, Arimi, Noci, Cronin, & Lyng, 2013; Vieira,
Diaz, Martinez, & Garcia-Cachan, 2009).
Fick's second law, and its solution proposed by Crank (1975), have
been widely used to give a phenomenological representation of the
dehydration process. It has been used for several kinds of tissues and for
different drying methods. For example, it has been used in fish samples
dried using hot air (Djendoubi, Boudhrioua, Bonazzi, & Kechaou, 2009;
Ortiz et al., 2013; Vega-Gálvez et al., 2011), by osmotic dehydration
(Gallart-Jornet et al., 2007; Uribe et al., 2011), and by sun dehydration
(Jain & Pathare, 2007); in beef dried through hot-air dehydration
(Trujillo, Wiangkaew, & Pham, 2007) and osmotic dehydration
(Dimakopoulou-Papazoglou & Katsanidis, 2016); and in apple samples
dried by hot-air dehydration (Ramírez et al., 2011; Ramírez, Astorga,
Nuñez, Jaques, & Simpson, 2017), by osmotic dehydration (Simpson
et al., 2015), and by freeze dehydration (Ben Haj Said, Bellagha, &
Allaf, 2015). However, independently of the dehydration, these kinds of
tissues are not well represented by Fick's second law because there are
several phenomena that are not included in this model, such as
shrinkage, volume changes, moisture loss, and protein denaturation;
these can produce water movement that can be faster or slower than
predicted by Fick's second law. Faster or slower diffusion movements
than predicted by Fick's second law are known as anomalous diffusion
(Simpson, Jaques, Nuñez, Ramirez, & Almonacid, 2013).
Simpson et al. (2013) has proposed a mathematical tool based on
9
Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 52 (2019) 8–16
fractional calculus, which can be applied to give a phenomenological
representation of these drying processes with non-Fickean diffusion
processes. Basically, the fractional calculus model applied to diffusional
process contains a parameter termed the “fractional order” α, which
defines that the dehydration process has a sub-diffusive (0 < α < 1)
or super-diffusive mechanism (α > 1) in comparison to Fick's second
law (α = 1). Simpson et al. (2015) and Ramírez et al. (2017) have de-
monstrated that α value has a relationship with the microstructure of
the food material. For example, the application of a moderate electric
field in the apple osmotic dehydration produces an electroporation
phenomenon. This produces a more open structure, with clearer paths
for solute diffusion, thereby changing the diffusion process. As a result,
the fractional order of time (α) decreased from 1.35 (without electro-
poration) to close to 1 (with electroporation), representing a transition
to Fick's diffusion in the latter case (Simpson et al., 2015). It is worth
noting that through fractional calculus Simpson, Ramírez, Nuñez,
Jaques, and Almonacid (2017) established that the well-known Page's
model can be obtained from fractional calculus, which can be con-
sidered as the first phenomenological approach of Page's model and
validates the power of fractional calculus as a tool to model mass
transfer phenomena beyond Fickean behavior.
Nowadays, dehydrated products from beef meat (beef jerky) or
apple (apple chips) are commonly found in the market place. The de-
hydration processes used to create these products are salting, hot-air
drying, or freeze drying. Considering the advantages of RW™ reported
over the last years, exploring the production of dehydrated salmon,
beef, (beef jerky), and apple foods through RW™ appears to be an in-
teresting opportunity.
The aim of this research was to study the application of Refractance
window™ (RW™), compared with a conventional drying method for the
dehydration of salmon (Atlantic salmon), beef (lean), and apples
(Granny Smith) through an analysis of the effective diffusivity (obtained
by either Fick's law or an anomalous model based on fractional calculus
tool), processing time, and quality of the final products.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
Salmon (Atlantic salmon), beef (lean), and apples (Granny Smith)
were acquired from a local market in the city of Valparaíso, Chile, and
were immediately transferred to the laboratory and stored at 4 °C. The
three types of tissues were cut into slab shape pieces of
50 × 35 × 5 mm. For apples, the cut samples were immediately im-
mersed in a 1% w/w ascorbic acid solution and a 2% w/w citric acid
solution to prevent enzymatic browning.
The weights of the resulting samples of salmon, beef, and apples
ranged between 10.382 ± 0.663 g, 9.944 ± 1.243 g, and
6.070 ± 0.508 g, respectively.
For the salmon and beef tissues, the initial moisture content was
0.78 g of water/g of sample and 0.77 g of water/g of sample, respec-
tively. Both were determined according to the Association of Official
Analytical Chemist by drying at 105 °C for 24 h (AOAC, 1996). For the
apple tissue, the initial moisture was 0.90 g of water/g of sample and
was determined according to the Association of Official Analytical
Chemist by drying fresh apple at 60 °C under vacuum conditions for
24 h until the samples reached a constant weight (AOAC, 2000).
2.2. Freezing-thawing pre-treatment
The freezing-thawing pre-treatment of the salmon, beef, and apple
samples was carried out in a freezer (General Electric, RGE1436, USA)
at −5 °C for 48 h. Following this, the thawing process was carried out at
5 °C, 24 h before the drying process.
S. Franco et al. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 52 (2019) 8–16

Fig. 1. Experimental setup of the Refractance window™ system.

2 2
2.3. Drying processes ∞ ⎛ −(2i − 1) π Deff t ⎞
W − We 8 1 ⎜ 4L2 ⎟
MRt = t = 2 ∑ e⎝ ⎠
2.3.1. Conventional drying W0 − We π i=1
(2i − 1)2 (1)
The conventional drying of the salmon, beef, and apple slices was
where W(t) is the moisture content at any time t (g water/g dry basis),
performed in a convection oven at 55 °C and 95 °C (MEMMERT, HCP-
We is the moisture content at equilibrium (g water/g dry basis), and W0
108, Germany) until a constant weight was attained.
is the initial moisture content (g water/g dry basis). The value of We
was obtained by checking the asymptotic value of the moisture profile.
For a long time (MR < 0.6), Eq. (1) could be simplified into Eq. (2),
2.3.2. Refractance window™ drying
using only the first term of the series:
Fig. 1 shows a schematic representation of the experimental setup
2
for RW™. This experimental setup consisted of a thermos-regulated bath ⎛ −Deff π t ⎞
with a 60 L capacity (MERMMERT, WNB22 model, Germany) filled 8 ⎜ 4L 2 ⎟
MRt = 2 e⎝ ⎠
with distilled water at a temperature of either 55 ± 0.5 °C or π (2)
95 ± 0.5 °C. These temperatures were chosen based on preliminary where Deff is the effective moisture diffusion coefficient (m2/s), t is the
tests. A plastic film sheet (MYLAR™, polyethylene terephthalate) of drying time (s), and L is the half-thickness of the slice (m).
2 mm thickness was placed in contact with the water in the thermo-
regulated bath allowing for a drying surface of 150 × 470 mm2. A
2.4.2. Anomalous diffusion model
distance of 4 cm between the thermoregulated bath boundaries and the
Traditionally diffusion is represented by the Fick's laws of diffusion.
MYLAR™ sheet was used to purge air bubbles produced as a result of
These are well known to describe molecular transport processes.
heating. An automatic water level control system was used to keep a
However, their applicability is restricted to homogeneous, isotropic,
permanent contact between the water and the MYLAR™ sheet. The
media. In the case of biological materials, the presence of preferential
samples were put on the Mylar™ without turning them during the ex-
paths could produce a deviation in traditional diffusion. This is referred
periment, and at each sampling time a sample was removed for weight
to as anomalous diffusion (Klafter & Sokolov, 2005). This requires that
and water activity measurements.
alternative models be used to deal with this deviation from traditional
diffusion.
Simpson et al. (2013) have implemented an anomalous diffusion
2.3.3. Data collection from the drying processes
model for some food matrices based on a fractional calculus approach.
During the conventional and RW™ drying processes, weight changes
Fractional calculus is an extension of traditional calculus, where the
were measured with a precision of ± 0.001 g using a digital balance
order of differentiation can be different than an integer. This can re-
(Precisa Gravimetric AG, XB620M model, Switzerland) and water ac-
present diffusion processes where the diffusant does not have a
tivity was determined using a 4T AQUALab (Decagon Devices Inc.
homogeneous media and has a high diffusion path. This model is given
Pullman, Washington, USA). Both measures were recorded along with
by Eq. (3):
the drying time. Drying experiments were performed in triplicate
(n = 3) and the results were expressed as the mean ± standard de- ∂αW ∂ βW
= Deff
viation. ∂t α ∂x β (3)

where W corresponds to the food water concentration (g water/g dry

basis), Deff corresponds to the effective diffusion coefficient (m2/sα),
2.4. Mathematical models
where α is related to the anomalous waiting times between jumps, and
the fractional differentiation order β is related to the anomalous jump
2.4.1. Fick's second law
lengths.
From the analytical solution of Fick's second law proposed by Crank
It has been demonstrated that in food matrices, the space compo-
(1975) and experimental considerations, the following assumptions
nent converges to 2, and the temporal component has a fractional order
were considered: a) the tissue sheet is considered as an infinite slab, b)
(Simpson et al., 2013). Thus, Eq. (3) can be represented according to:
the ambient temperature is constant, c) the diffusion coefficient is
constant, and d) other diffusion mechanisms and shrinkage of the ∂αW ∂ 2W
= Deff
sample are neglected. The model is given by Eq. (1). ∂t α ∂x 2 (4)

10
S. Franco et al. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 52 (2019) 8–16

Fig. 2. Drying curves for the control and pre-treated samples dehydrated using conventional drying and RW™ drying methods at 55 and 95 °C for: A) salmon, B) beef,
and C) apple.

Then, the solution for anomalous diffusion model is shown in Eq. (5) 2.5.2. Firmness
∞ 2
To characterize the texture of the dehydrated samples, firmness was
8 1 (2i − 1) π ⎞ α ⎞
MRt =
π2
∑ (2i − 1)2 Eα ⎛−Deff ⎛ ⎜
2L
t ⎟ measured according to Ortiz et al. (2013) with some modifications. This
i=1 ⎝ ⎝ ⎠ ⎠ (5) physical property was measured using a texture analyzer (Brookfield,
CT, USA). For salmon and beef samples, a column formed by 10 slices
where Eα corresponds to a Mittag-Leffler function (Simpson et al.,
(salmon final height = 43 ± 1 mm; beef meat final height = 30 ±
2013). Considering the long drying time, the Eq. (5) can be simplified
1 mm) was used to perform a puncture test using a puncture probe of
to:
2 mm diameter, adjusted with a trigger force of 0.1 N at a test speed of
8 π 2 1.7 mm/s until 40% of the sample height was attained.
MRt = Eα ⎛−Deff ⎛ ⎞ t α ⎞
⎜ ⎟

π 2
⎝ ⎝ 2L ⎠ ⎠ (6) For apple samples, the test was performed using a puncture probe of
5 mm diameter with a trigger force of 0.1 N and a test speed of 1.0 mm/
If the parameter over time, α, converges to a unit value, the Mittag- s and the maximal force attained at 50% of the distance of five dehy-
Leffler function converges to the exponential function. Thus, if the long drated slices (apple final height = 24 ± 1 mm) was obtained (Huang,
drying time conditions are met, Eq. (6) can be represented by Eq. (7) Zhang, Wang, Mujumdar, & Sun, 2012; Velickova, Winkelhausen, &
(Ramírez et al., 2017; Simpson et al., 2013, 2015, 2017): Kuzmanova, 2014). The test was conducted in triplicate. The mean
2 value of firmness for each treatment was then calculated and expressed
8 ⎛−Deff ( 2πL )
⎜ t α ⎞⎟
MRt = e⎝ ⎠ in N/mm.
π2 (7)

The α value indicates that the transport mechanism dominates the

2.6. Statistical analysis
mass transfer process. Then, if 0 < α < 1, the diffusion mechanisms
can be assumed to be sub-diffusive, while the mechanisms can be
Tests of the significance of the results were performed using an
considered to be super-diffusive for α > 1. If α converges to the unit
analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Duncan's multiple range tests with a
value, the anomalous diffusion model tends to Fick's second law.
significance of 95% using STATGRAPHIC Centurion XVI software
(Statistical Graphic Corporation, version 16.0.07, Rockville, MD, USA).
2.5. Quality attributes

2.5.1. Color change measurements (ΔE) 3. Results and discussion

Color parameters were measured using a colorimeter (Minolta, CR-
400 model, Tokyo, Japan) equipped with illuminant D65 and based on
the CIELab color space after white standard calibration. ΔE was cal-
culated with the three CIELab parameters: lightness (L*), greenness-
redness (a*), and blueness-yellowness (b*). ΔE was obtained between
the fresh and dried samples according to Eq. (8) (Gnanasekharan,
Shewfelt, & Chinn, 1992). The color measurement was carried out when
the samples achieved a water activity below 0.6.
ΔE = ΔL2 + Δa2 + Δb2
3.1. Drying analysis of conventional and RW™
The drying curves for the control and pre-treated samples of the
three kinds of tissues dried using conventional and RW™ drying
methods and performed at 55 °C and 95 °C, are shown in Fig. 2A
(salmon), Fig. 2B (beef), and Fig. 2C (apple).
As was expected for these three kinds of tissues, it was possible to
observe a significant difference in drying time when the drying tem-
(8) perature was changed from 55 to 95 °C for both drying methods. For

11
S. Franco et al. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 52 (2019) 8–16

Table 1
Effective diffusion coefficient obtained from Fick's second law for the conventional and RW™ drying processes used to dry control and pre-treated samples of salmon,
beef, and apple at 55 °C and 95 °C.
Drying temperature °C Conventional drying Refractance windows™

Control Pre-treated Control Pre-treated

Deff (10−10 m2/s) SSE R2 Deff (10−10 m2/s) SSE R2 Deff (10−10 m2/s) SSE R2 Deff (10−10 m2/s) SSE R2

Salmon tissue
55 1.37 ± 0.03a 0.011 0.958 1.64 ± 0.06a 0.0016 0.993 1.43 ± 0.04a 0.0042 0.971 1.24 ± 0.11a 0.006 0.999
95 3.54 ± 0.31b 0.003 0.980 3.58 ± 0.48b 0.006 0.978 2.96 ± 0.38c 0.008 0.981 3.09 ± 0.28b,c 0.006 0.997

Beef
55 1.50 ± 0.20a 0.013 0.963 1.82 ± 0.22a 0.006 0.962 1.25 ± 0.09a 0.0059 0.967 1.41 ± 0.04a 0.011 0.985
95 4.66 ± 0.56b 0.011 0.934 5.34 ± 0.12c 0.005 0.918 3.86 ± 0.14d 0.025 0.954 3.62 ± 0.43b 0.018 0.947

Apple tissue
55 0.61 ± 0.06a 0.039 0.987 0.77 ± 0.09a 0.054 0.960 2.65 ± 0.4a 0.01 0.987 1.25 ± 0.16a 0.004 0.999
95 4.57 ± 0.29b 0.017 0.973 7.32 ± 0.45c 0.003 0.991 14.3 ± 2.80d 0.002 0.954 14.06 ± 0.90d 0.007 0.987

Different superscripts in the same row and column indicate that the mean values differ significantly (p < 0.05).

example, a drying time of 21 h at 55 °C for the control and pre-treated
samples was required to achieve an MR of 0.1 for both the conventional
and RW™ drying of salmon tissue, whereas at 95 °C, the drying time was
close to 7 h for both methods. These results are in accordance with
other fish drying studies (Corzo & Bracho, 2007; Djendoubi et al., 2009;
Jain & Pathare, 2007; Ortiz et al., 2013; Vega-Gálvez et al., 2011).
However, based on the drying curves obtained for the drying methods
at 55 and 95 °C, salmon tissue did not show an enhancement in the mass
transfer rate between control and pre-treated samples, or in a com-
parison of both the conventional and RW™ drying methods.
The time for beef drying (Fig. 2B) varied when the temperature was
increased from 55 to 95 °C. For example, conventional drying of control
and pre-treated samples at 55 °C required 12 h to achieve an MR of 0.1,
whereas the drying time was reduced to 4 h for both the control and
pre-treated samples at 95 °C. In the case of the RW™ there were not
differences with respect to the conventional drying method. Similar to
salmon tissue, the beef samples did not show an enhanced mass transfer
between the control and pre-treated experiments or by using RW™.
Previous studies have reported that there is no significant difference
(p > 0.05) between the control and pre-treated samples in a cooking
loss test because the water loss that occurs during cooking corresponds
to constitutive water from melting fat during thermal treatment
(Faridnia et al., 2015; Leygonie, Britz, & Hoffman, 2012; Vieira et al.,
2009). Another key factor is treatment temperature. Temperature in-
duced protein denaturation modifies the isoelectric point of muscle
(Delgado & Sun, 2002; Vieira et al., 2009) and causes shrinkage of the
muscle fibers (Hughes et al., 2014) affecting their water binding ca-
pacity. Therefore, pre-treatment could damage beef tissue, but unlike
the temperature used during drying this was not an important factor.
Apple samples showed a significant increase in mass transfer when
the samples were pre-treated or when RW™ was used. For example, for
the control and pre-treated samples conventionally dried at 55 °C, a
processing time of 12.5 h was needed to achieve an MR of 0.1, but only
3 h was required at 95 °C. In the case of pre-treated samples, the time
required at 55 °C was close to 12.5 h, and it was approximately 2 h at
95 °C. As observed in Fig. 2C, there were no significant differences in
drying time between control and pre-treated samples when the drying
temperature was 55 °C; however, there were differences at 95 °C,
especially during the first 2 h of drying. Other workers such as Ramírez
et al. (2011) have reported that freezing-thawing pre-treatment im-
proves the mass transfer rate, which was not observed in the present
work, and could be attributed to the conventional drying being per-
formed in a convection oven in our study, whereas in the Ramirez study
it was performed in a hot-air drying tunnel, where the air current is an
important factor during drying. The results obtained for apple tissue
dried with RW™ showed that that there was an important reduction in
drying time compared with conventional drying. For example, for RW™
at 55 °C, the drying time required to achieve MR = 0.1 was 5 h, whereas
only 1 h was required at 95 °C.
Based on the processing time required to get an aw value of 0.6,
salmon slices dried by the conventional drying method required a
processing time of 15 h at 55 °C, and 3 h for samples dried at 95 °C.
When the samples were dried by the RW™ method the processing time
was 14 h at 55 °C, and 4 h at 95 °C. In the case of beef slices dried with
the conventional method, the processing time was 17 h at 55 °C, and 5 h
at 95 °C, whereas the times for RW™ were 17 h at 55 °C, and 9 h at 95 °C.
The results demonstrate that for both salmon and beef, the time needed
to get a water activity value of 0.6 was not reduced by using RW™.
For apple tissue, the process times for conventionally dried samples
were 14 h at 55 °C and 3 h at 95 °C. The time required to attain an aw of
0.6 using RW™, was however significantly lower, being 3 h at 55 °C and
1.5 h at 95 °C. When the sample was pre-treated and dried at 95 °C, the
time was reduced to 0.5 h.
Previous studies have reported that the net isosteric heat at low
moisture levels increased up to 35 kJ mol−1 for apple tissue (Kaymak-
Ertekin & Gedik, 2004), whereas for fish and beef muscle it increased
up to 70–75 kJ mol−1 (Djendoubi et al., 2009; Hadrich, Boudhrioua, &
Kechaou, 2008; Iglesias & Chirife, 1976). Specifically, apple tissue re-
quires half the amount of energy to remove water molecules that had
some form of interaction with the tissue, such as through dipole-dipole
or ion-dipole interactions (Fennema, Damodaran, & Parkin, 2017). In
contrast, salmon and beef have highly polar or active sites that inhibit
water movement and its migration (Delgado & Sun, 2002; Iglesias &
Chirife, 1976).
Clearly, RW™ is a drying technique that is more suitable for vege-
tables than for muscle-based foods such as fish and meat. The main
reason for this could be attributed to water content, which is higher in
apple (approximately 90%), whereas the water content in muscle-based
foods was 76% for salmon and 78% for meat.
3.2. Mathematical modeling of water diffusion in the conventional and
RW™ drying processes
The effective diffusion coefficient (Deff) was obtained by fitting the
drying data for salmon, beef, and apple slices dried using either con-
ventional drying or RW™ at 55 and 95 °C, to Fick's second law (Table 1).
According to the data in Table 1, Deff was increased as the temperature
increased from 55 to 95 °C for both the control and pre-treated samples
dried either conventionally or with RW™.
In general, the values of Deff ranged from between
0.61 × 10−10 m2/s for apple dried at 55 °C using the conventional
method, to 14.3 × 10−10 m2/s for apple dried at 95 °C using the RW™

12
S. Franco et al. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 52 (2019) 8–16

Effective diffusion and time coefficients obtained from an anomalous model based on fractional calculus for the conventional and RW™ processes used to dry control and pre-treated samples of salmon, beef, and apple at
method. In more specific terms, the Deff for salmon ranged from be-

0.999
0.995

0.963
0.968

0.999
0.898
tween 1.37 × 10−10 and 3.58 × 10−10 m2/s, representing the values

R2
control samples using conventional drying at 55 °C and 95 °C, respec-

0.0002
0.0006

0.0001
0.0028
0.009
0.004
tively. For beef, the Deff ranged from between 1.25 and

SSE
5.34 × 10−10 m2/s, representing values for the control samples dried at
55 °C using RW™ and samples that were pre-treated and dried at 95 °C

0.73 ± 0.05

0.82 ± 0.10

0.74 ± 0.01
using a conventional method, respectively. The values obtained within
an order of magnitude of range reported in the literature for salmon and
beef drying (Ortiz et al., 2013; Trujillo et al., 2007). For apple, the
α

values ranged from 0.61 × 10−10 m2/s to 14.3 × 10−10 m2/s, re-
Deff (10−10 m2/sα)

14.97 ± 0.11e
1.86 ± 0.19d
3.98 ± 0.40b

2.04 ± 0.61a
5.06 ± 0.85c
presenting samples obtained using conventional drying at 55 °C and
1.93 ± 0.1a

RW™ at 95 °C, respectively. The Deff obtained are in concordance with

Pre-treated

those obtained by Ramírez et al. (2011, 2017) and Simpson et al.

(2015).
Focusing on the Deff values obtained using conventional drying, the
0.987
0.981

0.971
0.988

0.980
0.95

results showed that for salmon and beef, pre-treatment did not have a
R2

significant effect on Deff. However, for apple tissue, especially at 95 °C

(the Deff values for 55 °C increased from 0.61 to 0.77 × 10−10 m2/s,
0.004
0.003

0.017
0.005

0.003
0.003
SSE

which was not significant), there was a significant increase the Deff
comparing the control (4.75 × 10−10 m2/s) with the pre-treated sample
0.85 ± 0.14

0.57 ± 0.09

1.23 ± 0.40

(7.32 × 10−10 m2/s), which is in agreement with the literature. In the

case of pre-treatment, studies have been performed to determine the
effect of freezing on salmon tissue, and it has been reported that with a
Refractance windows™

slow freezing process over a range of −5 to −20 °C, ice crystals are
Deff (10−10 m2/sα)

mainly formed in the extracellular space and cannot rupture cell walls
15.30 ± 2.70e
3.83 ± 0.82b

2.88 ± 1.15d
1.95 ± 0.48a

2.59 ± 0.15a
4.98 ± 0.60c

(Alizadeh et al., 2007, 2009; Kaale & Eikevik, 2013). Another factor
that could affect mass transfer is the content and distribution of fat and
Control

oil, due to the energetic interactions that can occur between water
molecules and polar sites present in fats and oils (Alizadeh et al., 2009;
Djendoubi et al., 2009; Hadrich et al., 2008). Moreover, a freezing-
0.995
0.978

0.993
0.880

0.940
0.985

thawing pre-treatment produces a high degree of structural damage

R2

Different superscripts in the same row and column indicate that the mean values differ significantly (p < 0.05).

because apple tissue has a rigid cell wall, unlike salmon and beef muscle
0.002
0.002

0.045
0.006
0.0018
0.0033

which have an elastic structure and so the freezing-thawing effect is

SSE

minimized (Smith, 2011).

Analyzing the values of Deff obtained for RW™, the first thing that
1.04 ± 0.05

0.86 ± 0.03

1.34 ± 0.12

can be observed in Table 1 is that for both the salmon and beef samples,
the application of RW™ on control and pre-treated samples did result in
any significant changes compared with the Deff values obtained using
α

conventional drying. For example, at 95 °C, for the control salmon

Deff (10−10 m2/sα)

samples dried conventionally, the Deff was 3.54 × 10−10 m2/s, whereas
6.40 ± 0.30b
2.09 ± 0.08a

0.32 ± 0.10a
7.16 ± 0.73c
3.18 ± 0.1b
1.54 ± 0.1a

the Deff value was 3.09 × 10−10 m2/s for RW™ drying. However, in the
Pre-treated

case of apple dried by the RW™ method, the Deff values increased sig-
nificantly with respect to conventional drying. At the same temperature
of 95 °C, the Deff for the control apple sample dried conventionally was
0.61 × 10−10 m2/s, whereas this value increased to 14.3 × 10−10 m2/s
0.958
0.980

0.920
0.937

0.987
0.993

when the samples were dried using the RW™ method. Based on the data
R2

obtained for the control and pre-treated samples dried using RW™, we
0.010
0.003

0.013
0.006

0.006
0.001

can conclude that pre-treatment did not have a significant effect on

SSE

improving the mass rate transfer. This result could be attributed to the
0.89 ± 0.03

0.76 ± 0.13

1.86 ± 0.03

fact that for RW™, the main aspect that controls the drying process is
the water content rather than food structure. This can be a key aspect
when comparing Deff or drying times obtained from muscle tissues dried
under using the conventional method or samples dried using the RW™
α
Conventional drying

method; for both muscle tissues, the water content was below 0.8 g
Deff (10−10 m2/sα)

5.43 ± 0.01b,c
3.85 ± 0.41b

3.01 ± 0.27b
1.60 ± 0.10a

2.07 ± 0.68a

0.14 ± 0.02a

water/g of sample, and no significant differences were observed be-

tween the two drying methods.
In addition, Fick's second law was shown to be a good approxima-
Control

tion for the three tissues studied, salmon, beef meat, and apple, because
R2 was within a range of 0.918 to 0.999, as well as for control and pre-
Drying temperature °C

treated samples dried using either the conventional and RW™ methods
at 55 and 95 °C. However, our experience has demonstrated that in
55 °C and 95 °C.

order to improve data fitting and also to include a phenomenological

Salmon tissue
55
95

55
95

55
95
Apple tissue

description of the process, the anomalous diffusion model can provide a

more adequate representation of the drying process in food materials.
Table 2

Beef

Accordingly, the drying data for salmon, beef, and apple slices were
fitted to the anomalous diffusion model, and the effective diffusion

13
S. Franco et al.
coefficient (Deff) and α parameter were obtained and analyzed
(Table 2).
The results showed that in general, both salmon and beef tissues,
dried using either the conventional or RW™ methods, had a sub-diffu-
sive mechanism (α < 1) and tended to have Fickean behavior for the
control and pre-treated samples. For example, for salmon samples dried
using the conventional method, the α value was 0.89 ± 0.03 for the
control and 1.04 ± 0.05 for the pre-treated samples (fractional order
time was not significantly different of 1 with a 95% degree of con-
fidence), which correspond to a sub-diffusive and Fickean mechanism,
respectively.
In case of RW™, the α values were 0.85 ± 0.14 for the control and
0.73 ± 0.05 for the pre-treated samples. This sub-diffusive behavior
could be explained by damage to the fish matrix, which produces a
leakage of fat and oil that can affect water mobility due to an energetic
interaction (Alizadeh et al., 2009; Djendoubi et al., 2009).
In the case beef samples dried using either the conventional or RW™
methods, the behavior of the diffusive mechanism was similar to that
obtained for salmon slices. The α values was approximately
0.57 ± 0.09 for the control samples dried using RW™ and 0.86 ± 0.03
for the pre-treated samples dried using conventional drying.
Apple tissue, unlike the salmon and beef samples, showed a super-
diffusive mechanism, but in some cases also had clear Fickean behavior.
For example, for conventional drying, the control samples had an α
value of 1.86 ± 0.03, which is similar to the value reported by
Simpson et al. (2015) for osmotic dehydration. In contrast, the pre-
treated samples had an α value of 1.34 ± 0.12. For the pre-treated
samples, the lowest value of α could be explained by damage to the
apple cell walls, changing their microstructure and turning the diffusion
mechanism close to Fickean behavior instead of anomalous diffusion
(Simpson et al., 2015). For RW™, it was shown that the mechanism was
super diffusive for the control samples (α = 1.23 ± 0.4), and sub-dif-
fusive for the pre-treated samples (α = 0.74 ± 0.01), which could be
explained by microstructural changes in the sample due to pre-treat-
ment.
3.3. Quality of salmon, beef, and apple dehydrated using the conventional
and RW™ methods
3.3.1. Color change (ΔE)
The ΔE values for the control and pre-treated salmon, beef, and
apple samples dehydrated at 55 °C and 95 °C using the conventional and
RW™ methods, are presented in Table 3. For salmon slices, the data
showed that for the conventional drying process, ΔE was not sig-
nificantly affected by pre-treatment at the same temperature. For ex-
ample, at 55 °C, ΔE was 14.85 ± 1.99 for the control and
16.45 ± 2.36 for the pre-treated sample. However, the temperature
had a significant effect on ΔE, especially for the control samples. For
example, for the control samples, ΔE was increased from 14.85 ± 1.99
to 17.45 ± 2.33 when the temperature increased from 55 to 95 °C. In
the case of the pre-treated samples, ΔE did not show any significant
Table 3
Color changes obtained for control and pre-treated samples of salmon, beef, and apple, dried at 55 °C and 95 °C using conventional and RW™ drying processes.
Color change, ΔE
Conventional drying
Sample Temperature Control
Salmon 55 14.85 ± 1.99a
95 17.45 ± 2.33b
Beef 55 26.24 ± 1.33a
95 27.06 ± 1.47a
Apple 55 14.18 ± 1.91a
95 17.12 ± 1.43a
Different superscripts in the same row and column indicate that the mean values differ significantly (p < 0.05).
14
Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 52 (2019) 8–16
differences. For samples dehydrated using RW™, there were no sig-
nificant differences between the control and pre-treated samples at the
same temperature. In general, the behavior of ΔE was similar for con-
ventional drying and RW™ drying.
For the beef slices, the ΔE values were higher than those obtained
for salmon tissue, showing a range of data of 20.41 ± 0.92 obtained
for the control samples dehydrated at 95 °C using RW™ to
27.06 ± 1.47 for samples dehydrated at 95 °C using the conventional
method. For samples dehydrated using conventional drying, the main
differences in color were obtained at 95 °C for the control and pre-
treated samples. In the case of the RW™ method, the control samples
had a lower ΔE value than samples dried using conventional drying,
having ΔE values between 20.41 and 22.70. For the pre-treated sam-
ples, the values were higher, being in the range of 24.39 to 25.81,
which could be caused by the structural damage that facilitates he-
moglobin oxidation and browning. It is worth noting that the lowest ΔE
values were obtained in samples dehydrated using RW™, which could
be considered to be an advantage for this drying technology.
For apples, the drying process performed using RW™ clearly showed
a better result in terms of ΔE when compared with the conventional
drying process, especially at 95 °C. For example, for the RW™ method
the ΔE values were not significantly different at 55 or 95 °C, with values
of ΔE of 14.60 ± 1.52 and 14.84 ± 0.98, respectively. For the pre-
treated samples, the values of ΔE were higher, but not significantly
different at both temperatures. For the conventional drying method,
both the temperature and pre-treatment were determinant for the ΔE
values, being higher when the temperature was increased, and when
the samples were pre-treated.
The results obtained are in accordance with other investigations
examining drying using the RW™ method, because this technique al-
lows for the dehydration of fruits at temperatures higher than 55 °C,
over a short period of time, with the same damage or impact on the
final quality at different temperature levels (Abonyi et al., 2002;
Caparino et al., 2012; Nindo & Tang, 2007; Pavan et al., 2012).
3.3.2. Firmness
Firmness (N/mm) values obtained from the puncture test for control
and pre-treated salmon, beef, and apple slices are shown in Table 4. The
results showed that in general firmness was highly dependent on the
kind of sample and the drying method. For example, for salmon tissue,
the range of firmness was from 0.08 N/mm for pre-treated samples
dehydrated at 95 °C using RW™ to 0.38 N/mm for samples con-
ventionally dehydrated at 55 °C. Based on Table 4, the higher firmness
values were obtained in conventionally dehydrated samples, whereas
for RW™, the firmness values were lower, which could be related to the
fact that the samples were observed to be more brittle following de-
hydration with RW™ compared with conventional drying. Additionally,
at the highest temperature a large muscle separation around the con-
nective tissue was observed which reduced the penetration force. For
example, for the control samples dried using conventional drying, the
firmness was 0.38 N/mm, and 0.29 N/mm when the samples were
Refractance Window™
Pre-treated Control Pre-treated
16.45 ± 2.36b 12.40 ± 1.51c 16.40 ± 1.99b
16.95 ± 2.98b 17.33 ± 2.09b 15.88 ± 1.38a,b
21.45 ± 1.88b 22.70 ± 1.40b 25.81 ± 1.11c,d
26.12 ± 1.82a,d 20.41 ± 0.92b 24.39 ± 1.92c
22.82 ± 1.63b 14.60 ± 1.52b 19.87 ± 0.87a,c
30.36 ± 1.96a 14.84 ± 0.98b 22.27 ± 1.38c
S. Franco et al. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 52 (2019) 8–16

Table 4
Firmness obtained from a puncture test for control and pre-treated samples of salmon, beef, and apple, dried at 55 °C and 95 °C using conventional and RW™ drying
processes.
Firmness, N/mm

Conventional drying Refractance Window™

Sample Temperature Control Pre-treated Control Pre-treated

a c,i,k e,l
Salmon 55 0.38 ± 0.05 0.26 ± 0.01 0.14 ± 0.02 0.14 ± 0.03g,l
95 0.29 ± 0.01b,i 0.21 ± 0.05d 0.28 ± 0.02f,j 0.08 ± 0.01h
Beef 55 3.27 ± 0.33a 4.12 ± 0.36a 1.70 ± 0.28b 3.80 ± 0.60a
95 4.09 ± 0.06a 3.95 ± 0.06a 7.37 ± 0.57c 7.06 ± 0.46c
Apple 55 0.59 ± 0.01a 0.83 ± 0.06c,h 0.15 ± 0.05e,i 0.47 ± 0.09a,b
95 0.40 ± 0.02b 0.92 ± 0.09d,h 0.19 ± 0.05f,i,j 0.29 ± 0.01g,b,h

Different superscripts in the same row and column indicate that the mean values differ significantly (p < 0.05).

dehydrated at 55 and 95 °C, respectively. For the control samples de-
hydrated using the RW™ method at 55 °C, the firmness was 0.14 N/mm,
whereas at 95 °C the penetration force increased to 0.21 N/mm. The
difference in this case is due to the presence of connective tissue, which
in some cases facilitates probe movement through the sample.
For the beef slices, firmness values (1.70 to 7.37 N/mm) were higher
than those of salmon or apple tissues. Visually, the beef slices appeared
to be more intact and had muscle cohesion. As shown in Table 4, the
firmness values for the control and pre-treated samples dried using
conventional drying at 55 °C and 95 °C, showed less variability (even
when there were significant differences) with a range from between
3.27 ± 0.33 N/mm and 4.12 ± 0.36 N/mm, compared with the
firmness obtained using the RW™ method, which showed significant
increases in firmness values with drying temperature, attaining values
of 7.37 N/mm and 7.059 N/mm for the control and pre-treated samples
dehydrated at 95 °C, respectively.
For apple, the data showed that pre-treatment, drying temperature,
and drying method were all significant in the firmness obtained. For
example, for samples dehydrated using the conventional method, the
values ranged from 0.40 ± 0.02 to 0.94 ± 0.27 N/mm, whereas for
RW™, the data ranged from 0.18 ± 0.06 to 0.47 ± 0.09 N/mm, which
indicates that apples dehydrated using the RW™ method had lower
firmness values, which could be due to their brittle structure.
4. Conclusions
Refractance window™ is a powerful tool that allows for the dehy-
dration of fruit and muscle-based foods such as fish or lean beef.
The data presented here allow to conclude that, based on fractional
calculus, the drying curves obtained for salmon, beef, and apples de-
hydrated using the RW™ drying method were better modeled by an
anomalous diffusion model than by Fick's model, showing a sub-diffu-
sive behavior for both salmon and beef, and super-diffusive behavior in
apple tissue.
However, the result of this RW™ process is strongly affected by the
kind of tissue being used. For apples, the RW™ method allowed for a
reduction of 50% in the drying time compared to conventional hot-air
drying. Also, compared with the traditional drying method, the RW™
method further reduced color changes and the firmness of the product.
In contrast, for foods such as salmon and beef, there were no differences
in drying time between the conventional and RW™ drying methods. In
terms of quality, the differences depended on the kind of muscle tissue,
since RW™ reduced the firmness of salmon and color change in lean
beef. Therefore, the data obtained suggest that drying by the RW™
method is more appropriate for vegetable-based foods than for muscle-
based foods, but further research is required to explore this in more
detail.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for the financial support provided by
CONICYT through FONDECYT project nos. 1181270 (Ricardo Simpson)
and 1160811 (Cristian Ramírez). Also, author Sebastián Franco is
grateful for the financial support provided by Programa de Incentivo a la
iniciación Científica (PIIC) de la Dirección de Postgrado y Programas de la
Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María.
References
Abbasid, A., Niakousari, M., & Yasini Ardekani, S. A. (2015). The advantages of the re-
fractance window method of dehydrating fresh tomato slices and the relevant char-
acteristics thereof. Journal of Applied Environmental and Biological Sciences, 4, 6–13.
Abonyi, B. I., Feng, H., Tang, J., Edwards, C. G., Chew, B. P., Mattinson, D. S., & Fellman,
J. K. (2002). Quality retention in strawberry and carrot purees dried with Refractance
Window™ system. Journal of Food Science, 67, 1051–1056.
Alizadeh, E., Chapleau, N., de-Lamballerie, M., & Le-Bail, A. (2007). Effects of freezing
and thawing processes on the quality of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) fillets. Journal
of Food Science, 72(5), E279–E284.
Alizadeh, E., Chapleau, N., de-Lamballerie, M., & Le-Bail, A. (2009). Impact of freezing
process on salt diffusivity of seafood: Application to salmon (Salmo salar) using
conventional and pressure shift freezing. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 2(3),
257–262.
Association of Official Analytical Chemist (AOAC) (1996). Official methods of analysis (3rd
ed.). Washington, DC: AOAC.
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) (2000). Moisture in fruits. An adap-
tation of method 934.06. Official methods of analysis of Association of Official Analytical
Chemists International, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA(16th ed.). .
Baeghbali, V., Niakousari, M., & Farahnaky, A. (2016). Refractance Window drying of
pomegranate juice: Quality retention and energy efficiency. LWT - Food Science and
Technology, 66, 34–40.
Ben Haj Said, L., Bellagha, S., & Allaf, K. (2015). Measurements of texture, sorption
isotherms and drying/rehydration kinetics of dehydrofrozen-textured apple. Journal
of Food Engineering, 165, 22–33.
Bernaert, N., Van Droogenbroeck, B., Van Pamel, E., & De Ruyck, H. (2018). Innovative
Refractance window drying technology to keep nutrient value during processing.
Trends in Food Science & Technology (In Press, Corrected Proof).
Caparino, O. A., Sablani, S. S., Tang, J., Syamaladevi, R. M., & Nindo, C. I. (2013). Water
sorption, glass transition, and microstructures of Refractance window – And freeze-
dried mango (Philippine “Carabao” var.) powder. Drying Technology, 31(16),
1969–1978.
Caparino, O. A., Tang, J., Nindo, C. I., Sablani, S. S., Powers, J. R., & Fellman, J. K.
(2012). Effect of drying methods on the physical properties and microstructures of
mango (Philippine ‘Carabao’ var.) powder. Journal of Food Engineering, 111(1),
135–148.
Castoldi, M., Zotarelli, M. F., Durigon, A., Carciofi, B. A. M., & Laurindo, J. B. (2015).
Production of tomato powder by Refractance window drying. Drying Technology,
33(12), 1463–1473.
Celli, G. B., Khattab, R., Ghanem, A., & Brooks, M. S.-L. (2016). Refractance Window
drying of haskap berry—preliminary results on anthocyanin retention and physico-
chemical properties. Food Chemistry, 194, 218–221.
Cheng, J.-H., Sun, D.-W., Han, Z., & Zeng, X.-A. (2014). Texture and structure measure-
ments and analyses for evaluation of fish and fillet freshness quality: A review.
Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 13(1), 52–61.
Corzo, O., & Bracho, N. (2007). Determination of water effective diffusion coefficient of
sardine sheets during vacuum pulse osmotic dehydration. LWT - Food Science and
Technology, 40(8), 1452–1458.
Crank, J. (1975). The mathematics of diffusion (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press47–53.
Delgado, A. E., & Sun, D.-W. (2002). Desorption isotherms for cooked and cured beef and
pork. Journal of Food Engineering, 51(2), 163–170.
Dimakopoulou-Papazoglou, D., & Katsanidis, E. (2016). Mass transfer kinetics during

15
S. Franco et al.
osmotic processing of beef meat using ternary solutions. Food and Bioproducts
Processing, 100(part B), 560–569.
Djendoubi, N., Boudhrioua, N., Bonazzi, C., & Kechaou, N. (2009). Drying of sardine
muscles: Experimental and mathematical investigations. Food and Bioproducts
Processing, 87(2), 115–123.
Faridnia, F., Ma, Q. L., Bremer, P. J., Burritt, D. J., Hamid, N., & Oey, I. (2015). Effect of
freezing as pre-treatment prior to pulsed electric field processing on quality traits of
beef muscles. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 29, 31–40.
Fennema, O. R., Damodaran, S., & Parkin, K. L. (2017). Fennema's food chemistry (5th ed.).
Boca Raton: CRC Press (pages cm).
Gallart-Jornet, L., Barat, J. M., Rustad, T., Erikson, U., Escriche, I., & Fito, P. (2007).
Influence of brine concentration on Atlantic salmon fillet salting. Journal of Food
Engineering, 80(1), 267–275.
Gnanasekharan, V., Shewfelt, R. L., & Chinn, M. S. (1992). Detection of color changes in
green vegetables. Journal of Food Science, 57, 149–154.
Hadrich, B., Boudhrioua, N., & Kechaou, N. (2008). Experimental and mathematical study
of desorption isotherms of Tunisian Sardine (Sardinella aurita). Food and Bioproducts
Processing, 86(4), 242–247.
Huang, L., Zhang, M., Wang, L. P., Mujumdar, A. S., & Sun, D. (2012). Influence of
combination drying methods on composition, texture, aroma and microstructure of
apple slices. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 47(1), 183–188.
Hughes, J. M., Oiseth, S. K., Purslow, P. P., & Warner, R. D. (2014). A structural approach
to understanding the interactions between colour, water-holding capacity and ten-
derness. Meat Science, 98(3), 520–532.
Iglesias, H. A., & Chirife, J. (1976). Equilibrium moisture contents of air-dried beef.
Dependence on drying temperature. International Journal of Food Science and
Technology, 11(6), 565–573.
Jain, D., & Pathare, P. B. (2007). Study the drying kinetics of open sun drying of fish.
Journal of Food Engineering, 78(4), 1315–1319.
Kaale, L. D., & Eikevik, T. M. (2013). A histological study of the microstructure sizes of
the red and white muscles of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) fillets during superchilling
process and storage. Journal of Food Engineering, 114(2), 242–248.
Kaur, G., Saha, S., Kumari, K., & Datta, A. K. (2017). Mango pulp drying by Refractance
window method. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal, 19, 145–151.
Kaymak-Ertekin, F., & Gedik, A. (2004). Sorption isotherms and isosteric heat of sorption
for grapes, apricots, apples and potatoes. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 37(4),
429–438.
Klafter, J., & Sokolov, I. (2005). Anomalous diffusion spread its wings. Physics World, 18,
29–32.
Leygonie, C., Britz, T. J., & Hoffman, L. C. (2012). Meat quality comparison between fresh
and frozen/thawed ostrich M. iliofibularis. Meat Science, 91(3), 364–368.
Magoon, R.E., (1986). Method and apparatus for drying fruit pulp and the like. US Patent
4,631,837.
Nindo, C., Sun, T., Wang, S., Tang, J., & Powers, J. (2003). Evaluation of drying tech-
nologies for retention of physical quality and antioxidants in asparagus (Asparagus
officinalis, L.). LWT - Food Science and Technology, 36(5), 507–516.
Nindo, C. I., & Tang, J. (2007). Refractance window dehydration technology: A novel
contact drying method. Drying Technology, 25(1), 37–48.
Ochoa-Martínez, C. I., Quintero, P. T., Ayala, A. A., & Ortiz, M. J. (2012). Drying char-
acteristics of mango slices using the Refractance Window™ technique. Journal of Food
Engineering, 109(1), 69–75.
O'Dowd, L. P., Arimi, J. M., Noci, F., Cronin, D. A., & Lyng, J. G. (2013). An assessment of
the effect of pulsed electrical fields on tenderness and selected quality attributes of
post rigour beef muscle. Meat Science, 93(2), 303–309.
Ortiz, J., Lemus-Mondaca, R., Vega-Galvez, A., Ah-Hen, K., Puente-Diaz, L., Zura-Bravo,
L., & Aubourg, S. (2013). Influence of air-drying temperature on drying kinetics,
16
Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 52 (2019) 8–16
colour, firmness and biochemical characteristics of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.)
fillets. Food Chemistry, 139(1–4), 162–169.
Ortiz-Jerez, M. J., Gulati, T., Datta, A. K., & Ochoa-Martínez, C. I. (2015). Quantitative
understanding of Refractance Window™ drying. Food and Bioproducts Processing, 95,
237–253.
Pavan, M. A., Schmidt, S. J., & Feng, H. (2012). Water sorption behavior and thermal
analysis of freeze-dried, Refractance Window-dried and hot-air dried açaí (Euterpe
oleracea Martius) juice. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 48(1), 75–81.
Raghavi, L. M., Moses, J. A., & Anadharamakrishnan, C. (2018). Refractance sx drying of
foods: A review. Journal of Food Engineering, 222, 267–275.
Ramírez, C., Astorga, V., Nuñez, H., Jaques, A., & Simpson, R. (2017). Anomalous dif-
fusion based on fractional calculus approach applied to drying analysis of apple
slices: The effects of relative humidity and temperature. Journal of Food Process
Engineering, 44(5), e12549.
Ramírez, C., Troncoso, E., Muñoz, J., & Aguilera, J. M. (2011). Microstructure analysis on
pre-treated apple slices and its effect on water release during air drying. Journal of
Food Engineering, 106(3), 253–261.
Rostami, H., Dehnad, D., Jafari, S. M., & Tavakoli, H. R. (2017). Evaluation of physical,
rheological, microbial, and organoleptic properties of meat powder produced by
Refractance Window drying. Drying Technology, 36, 1076–1085.
Simpson, R., Jaques, A., Nuñez, H., Ramirez, C., & Almonacid, A. (2013). Fractional
calculus as a mathematical tool to improve the modeling of mass transfer phenomena
in food processing. Food Engineering Reviews, 5(1), 45–55.
Simpson, R., Ramírez, C., Birchmeier, V., Almonacid, A., Moreno, J., Nuñez, H., & Jaques,
A. (2015). Diffusion mechanisms during the osmotic dehydration of Granny Smith
apples subjected to a moderate electric field. Journal of Food Engineering, 166,
204–211.
Simpson, R., Ramírez, C., Nuñez, H., Jaques, A., & Almonacid, S. (2017). Understanding
the success of Page's model and related empirical equations in fitting experimental
data of diffusion phenomena in food matrices. Trends in Food Science & Technology,
62, 194–201.
Smith, P. (2011). Introduction to food process engineering (2nd ed.). US: Springer (529 pp.).
Tontul, I., Ergin, F., Eroğlu, E., Küçükçetin, A., & Topuz, A. (2018). Physical and mi-
crobiological properties of yoghurt powder produced by Refractance window drying.
International Dairy Journal, 85, 169–176.
Trivedia, M., D'costa, V., Shitut, J., & Srivastav, S. (2017). Refractance window tech-
nology - A promising drying technique for the food industry. International Journal of
Innovative and Emerging Research in Engineering, 4, 6–16.
Trujillo, F. J., Wiangkaew, C., & Pham, Q. T. (2007). Drying modeling and water diffu-
sivity in beef meat. Journal of Food Engineering, 78(1), 74–85.
Uribe, E., Miranda, M., Vega-Gálvez, A., Quispe, I., Clavería, R., & Di Scala, K. (2011).
Mass transfer modelling during osmotic dehydration of jumbo squid (Dosidicus gigas):
Influence of temperature on diffusion coefficients and kinetic parameters. Food and
Bioprocess Technology, 4(2), 320–326.
Vega-Gálvez, A., Miranda, M., Clavería, R., Quispe, I., Vergara, J., Uribe, E., ... Di Scala, K.
(2011). Effect of air temperature on drying kinetics and quality characteristics of
osmo-treated jumbo squid (Dosidicus gigas). LWT - Food Science and Technology, 44(1),
16–23.
Velickova, E., Winkelhausen, E., & Kuzmanova, S. (2014). Physical and sensory properties
of ready to eat apple chips produced by osmo-convective drying. Journal of Food
Science and Technology, 51(12), 3691–3701.
Vieira, C., Diaz, M. T., Martinez, B., & Garcia-Cachan, M. D. (2009). Effect of frozen
storage conditions (temperature and length of storage) on microbiological and sen-
sory quality of rustic crossbred beef at different states of ageing. Meat Science, 83(3),
398–404.