English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This article compares diffusion models used to describe seedless grape drying at low temperature. The models were analyzed, assuming the following characteristics of the drying process: boundary conditions of the first and the third kind; constant and variable volume, V; constant and variable effective mass diffusivity, D; constant convective mass transfer coefficient, h. Solutions of the diffusion equation (analytical and numerical) were used to determine D and h for experimental data of seedless grape drying. Comparison of simulations of drying kinetics indicates that the best model should consider: 1) shrinkage; 2) convective boundary condition; 3) variable effective mass diffusivity. For the analyzed experimental dataset, the best function to represent the effective mass diffusivity is a hyperbolic cosine. In this case, the statistical indicators of the simulation can be considered excellent (the determination coefficient is R2 = 0.9999 and the chi-square is χ2 = 3.241 × 10–4)

Diffusion models for the description of seedless grape drying using analytical and numerical solutions