ArticleScientific reports2025
Performance evaluation of a solar hybrid collector with dryer experimental and machine learning approach.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates the drying efficiency of mint leaves using three methods—open sun drying, natural convection, and forced convection in a solar hybrid collector with a dryer—achieving average drying efficiencies of 12.4%, 18.7%, and 24.5%, respectively. Additionally, machine learning models—support vector regression (SVR) and random forest (RF)—were employed to evaluate the drying process. Across all three methods, a significant reduction in mass was observed. The electrical and thermal performance of the solar hybrid collector with a dryer was also analyzed on the basis of sustainable practices. The mass loss of mint leaves during natural and forced convection drying was approximately 51% and 82%, respectively. Drying experiments were conducted using four aluminum trays arranged from bottom to top (Tray 1 to Tray 4) within the solar hybrid collector. The highest moisture removal rate of 78.23% was recorded in Tray 1, with a decreasing trend in Trays 2, 3, and 4, achieving 76.48%, 75.32%, and 72.13%, respectively. Among the three drying methods, forced convection proved to be the most effective, while open sun drying was the least efficient. The predictive performance of RF and SVR models was evaluated, yielding R² values of 0.8723 and 0.8611, respectively, with RMSE values of 0.8125 and 0.7845.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.