Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38192715›Full record

ArticleJournal of food science and technology2024

Modelling of electrohydrodynamic drying kinetics for carrot at varying electrode distance.

Shivmurti Srivastav, Monarch Shah, Pravin M Ganorkar, Kshitiz Kumar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of food science and technology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Shivmurti SrivastavDepartment of Food Processing Technology, A. D. Patel Institute of Technology, CVM University, Vallabh Vidynagar, Gujarat India.
Monarch ShahDepartment of Food Processing Technology, A. D. Patel Institute of Technology, CVM University, Vallabh Vidynagar, Gujarat India.
Pravin M GanorkarDepartment of Food Processing Technology, A. D. Patel Institute of Technology, CVM University, Vallabh Vidynagar, Gujarat India.
Kshitiz KumarDepartment of Food Processing Technology, A. D. Patel Institute of Technology, CVM University, Vallabh Vidynagar, Gujarat India.ORCID 0000-0003-2728-2493

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study was conducted to analyze the drying kinetics of carrot slices in electrohydrodynamic (EHD) dryer at different electrode distances. Higher drying rate was observed up to about 70% (w.b.) moisture content, which has been noted as first falling rate period. The time taken to dry the carrot slices to the safe moisture content of 2.5% (wb) was about 9, 8.5 and 6.8 h at a distance of 7, 5 and 3 cm respectively. Five empirical models, Page Model, Newton model, Henderson and Pabis model, logarithmic model and two term model, were tested for the best fit. The drying rate constant (k) increased in all the empirical models as the distance between the electrode decreased. For 7 cm electrode distance, the Page model fitted best whereas the Logarithmic model was found to be the best fit for 5 and 3 cm electrode distance. There is no significant difference found in shrinkage of dried carrot slices at different electrode distance. Rehydration ratio increased as the distance between electrodes decreased. Moisture diffusivity increased as the distance between the electrode decreased. No significant difference in colour, β-carotene and sensory attributes were found between fresh and EHD dried carrot slices at 3 cm electrode distance. Specific energy consumption was significantly influenced by the electrode distance.

Indexed as

CarrotElectrode distanceElectrohydrodynamic dryingModelling

Identifiers

PMID38192715
PMCPMC10771403

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.