LWT - Food Science and Technology 162 (2022) 113432

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

LWT
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lwt

Comparison of drying behavior and product quality of coconut chips

treated with different osmotic agents
M. Pravitha a, *, M.R. Manikantan b, **, V. Ajesh Kumar c, ***, P.P. Shameena Beegum b,
R. Pandiselvam b
a
Agro Produce Processing Division, ICAR- Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Nabibagh, Berasia Road, Bhopal, India
b
Physiology, Biochemistry and Post-Harvest Technology Division, ICAR- Central Plantation Crops Research Institute (CPCRI), Kudlu.P.O, Kasaragod, India
c
Centre of Excellence for Soybean Processing and Utilization, ICAR-Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Nabibagh, Berasia Road, Bhopal, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The feasibility of using non-conventional osmotic agents such as coconut sugar, and jaggery in coconut chips
Coconut chips production was evaluated, and compared with sucrose treated chips in terms of quality and sensory attributes.
Coconut sugar Samples were processed at the identical condition of 0.60 mm slice thickness, 45 oBrix solution concentration,
Jaggery
and 65 ◦ C drying temperature. Osmotic dehydration ability of different osmotic agents on coconut slices was
Osmotic dehydration
found to be comparable in terms of water loss and solute gain. Pretreatment significantly enhances mass transfer
Drying kinetics
rate of water during convective drying. However, sucrose treated samples shown slightly higher effective
diffusivity values during both osmotic dehydration and hot air drying due to the inherent nature of solution.
Introduction of new osmotic agents was positively reflected in the sensory attributes. Other important quality
indices like rehydration ratio, solute gain, textural parameters and hygroscopicity also came under an acceptable
range for all samples. Thin-layer drying behavior of slices was analyzed with six widely used drying models.
According to the model fittings, the drying behavior of sucrose and jaggery-treated slices can be well described
by the modified Henderson and Pabis equation, and the logarithmic equation was best suited to coconut sugar-
based chip samples.

1. Introduction allowed to immerse in a hypertonic solution of one or more solute. The

development of osmotic pressure-gradient induced driving force caused
Coconut (Cocos nucifera L.) is an important tropical plant popularly the diffusion of water out of the product and solute inside the product
known as the “Tree of Heaven” owing to its versatile uses (Beegum et al., (Bera & Ro, 2015; Kowalski & Lechtanska, 2015). However, coconut
2019; Manikantan et al., 2018). This extensively utilized nuts cultiva­ chips available in the market are processed by sucrose-assisted osmotic
tion is practiced in over 97 countries worldwide, with an annual pro­ dehydration followed by convective drying. Presently, consumers are
duction of 62.45 million tons (FAO, 2019). concerned about the non-nutritive calorie-rich composition of sucrose.
Traditionally known value-added products from coconut include Hence, to improve the consumer acceptability of coconut chips, novel
coconut oil, grated coconuts, virgin coconut oil, and coconut milk. osmotic agents with excellent nutritive value need to be explored. One
Nowadays, coconut-based snacks like coconut chips are also gaining such study was conducted previously by replacing sucrose with jaggery
popularity due to their unique texture and taste. Coconut chips are in coconut chips production (Pravitha et al., 2021). Jaggery is consid­
processed by osmo-convective drying. Osmo-convective drying is one of ered as healthiest sugar in the world due to the rich presence of minerals
the effective methods of drying in which a significant reduction in (calcium, magnesium, potassium, phosphorus, sodium, iron, manga­
drying cost and time with better product quality is achieved by the nese, zinc, and copper) and vitamins (A, B1, B2, B5, B6, C, D2, and E) as
initial osmotic dehydration pre-treatment followed by convective drying compared to sucrose (Table .1) (Hebbar et al., 2015; Solís-Fuentes et al.,
(Kumari et al., 2020). During osmotic dehydration, food products were 2019). Coconut sugar is another attractive sweetener made from the

* Corresponding author. ICAR- Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Nabibagh, Berasia Road, Bhopal, India.
** Corresponding author. ICAR- Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, Kudlu.P.O, Kasaragod, India.
*** Corresponding author. ICAR- Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Nabibagh, Berasia Road, Bhopal, India.
E-mail addresses: pravithamp22@gmail.com (M. Pravitha), manicpcri@gmail.com (M.R. Manikantan), ajeshmtr@gmail.com (V. Ajesh Kumar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2022.113432
Received 15 September 2021; Received in revised form 30 March 2022; Accepted 5 April 2022
Available online 8 April 2022
0023-6438/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
M. Pravitha et al. LWT 162 (2022) 113432

Table 1 operations such as dehusking, deshelling, and testa removal with the
Comparison of composition of different osmotic agents. machinery developed in the ICAR-CPCRI (dehusker- 350 coconuts/hour
Jaggery Coconut Commercial sucrose (Refined capacity and 2 hp power input, desheller- 150 coconuts/hour and 0.5 hp
sugar sugar) power input, testa removal machine- 100 coconuts/hour capacity and
Moisture g/100 3.0–10.0 1.33–3.44 0.2–0.4 0.5 hp power input). The final white-colored kernel was further sliced
g into a thickness of 0.60 ± 0.04 mm with an average breadth and length
Sucrose, g/100 g 65.0–85.0 86.86 99.5 of 11.8 ± 0.30 mm and 40.22 ± 10 mm using a multi-commodity slicer
Protein, g/100 g 0.4 0.3 – (capacity of 60 coconuts/hour and 0.5 hp power input) developed by
Fats, g/100 g 0.1
ICAR-CPCRI. This thickness level was finalized based on the previous
– –
Macro-minerals (mg/100 g dry wt)
Nitrogen 10 202 0 studies conducted by Pravitha et al. (2021) and Manikantan et al.
Potassium 65 1030 2.5 (2016). Those studies revealed that lower thickness makes the products
Phosphorous 3 79 0.07 more susceptible to breakage during handling and packaging; on the
Calcium 24 6 6.0
other hand, thickly sliced kernels yield a product with a hard leathery
Magnesium 7 29 1.0
Sodium 2 45 1.0 texture.
Sulphur 13 26 2.0 Washed slices then undergo immersion blanching for 2 min at a
Micro-minerals (μg/100 g dry wt) temperature range of 90–95 ◦ C to achieve a final product with crisper
Boron 0 30 0 texture and pleasant appearance by enzyme inactivation (Elfnesh et al.,
Zinc 200 2100 120
Manganese 200 130 0
2011). Blanched samples were osmotically dehydrated with solutions of
Iron 1260 2190 120 sucrose, jaggery, and coconut sugar, which were maintained at a con­
Copper 60 230 6 centration of 45 oBrix to ensure chips with the desired sweetness and
(Hebbar et al., 2015; Solís-Fuentes et al., 2019).
textural parameters. Concentration was finalized based on the previous
study conducted by Pravitha et al. (2021). Results of the study shown
that higher concentration levels lead to the development of products
phloem sap of unopened coconut inflorescence. Like jaggery, coconut
with a more hygroscopic nature due to the presence of hygroscopic
sugar is also considered a healthier alternative to conventional sucrose
solutes. Therefore, they concluded that the concentration of 45 oBrix
due to the presence of minerals, vitamins, and antioxidants with a lower
was sufficient to obtain a product with the desired sweetness and
glycemic index (35–42) than jaggery (84.1) and sucrose (82) (Wrage
texture. During the osmotic dehydration process, slices were immersed
et al., 2019).
in beakers containing different osmotic solutions at 1: 5 sample to so­
Despite nutritional benefits, the type of sugar used for osmotic
lution (w/w) ratio with a constant temperature of 40 ◦ C maintained by a
dehydration strongly influences osmotic dehydration parameters like
rotary shaker water bath (Rivotek TC 344, Rivera, India). Samples were
water loss, solute gain, and subsequent convective drying operations
withdrawn from the solution after 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 min of
(Korsrilabut et al., 2010). Fitting experimental data to the various
immersion and gently blotted with tissue paper to remove excess solu­
empirical and semi-empirical equations is required to understand the
tion from the surface to determine variations in water loss and solute
mass transfer kinetics of coconut slices with different osmotic agents
gain with time and type of solute. Considerable changes in water loss
(Ayetigbo et al., 2019). Osmotic dehydration and convective drying
and solute gain were observed until 30 min of immersion; hence, co­
behavior of coconut slices treated with sucrose were well documented in
conut slices that were osmotically dehydrated for 30 min were used for
the literature (Bellary et al., 2011; da Silva et al., 2013). However, to the
further hot air drying and chips production.
best of our knowledge, reported literature is not available to study how
Convective drying of these slices was performed in a hot air dryer
the novel osmotic agents (jaggery, coconut sugar) influence coconut
(Jyoti Scientific Industries, India) at a temperature of 65 ◦ C and an air
slice’s osmotic dehydration and hot air drying ability. Hence, it becomes
velocity of 2 m/s by uniformly distributing slices in a single layer on
imperative to consider the influence of different sugar-based osmotic
perforated trays (Garcia-Noguera et al., 2010; Manikantan et al., 2016).
agents on coconut slices’ osmotic dehydration. Therefore, the specific
During drying operation, samples were weighed at every 15 min inter­
objective of the work was to evaluate the effect of novel osmotic agents
val, and drying was continued until the difference of the two consecutive
on quality parameters and drying kinetics of coconut chips processed by
readings attains less than 0.01g (Chandra et al., 2020). After drying,
osmo-convective drying.
samples were packed in aluminum foil laminated LDPE pouches (100
μm) for further analysis. Final developed products (Fig. 1) were
2. Materials and methods analyzed and compared by the following parameters.

2.1. Materials 2.3. Experimental analysis

Coconuts (West Coast tall cultivar) with 11–12 months of maturity 2.3.1. Moisture content and water activity determination
were procured from ICAR-Central Plantation Crops Research Institute The moisture content of slices at various processing stages (fresh,
Kerala, India (ICAR-CPCRI) farm. The coconut sugar used for the after osmotic dehydration, and after convective drying) was determined
experiment was prepared at ICAR-CPCRI following the standard pro­ by the standard hot air oven method (AOAC, 2005). Water activity
cedure given by Beegum et al. (2021), in which freshly harvested co­ values of osmotic solutions, slices before and after osmotic dehydration,
conut inflorescence sap with a total soluble solids of 14–15 oBrix was and final dried products were determined with a LabMaster AW NEO
concentrated in an open pan at 115 ◦ C to convert it into powder form, (Novasina®, Lachen, Germany) instrument.
which was then cooled down, sieved, and dried to reach a moisture
content of less than 2% (w.b). Sugarcane-based jaggery and sucrose 2.3.2. Rehydration ratio
were procured from the local market (Kasaragod, Kerala, India). The rehydration capacity of the final chips was assessed using the
Chemicals 2, 2- diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) and sodium chloride procedure described by Zou et al. (2013) with minor modifications.
(NaCl) were purchased from HiMedia, Mumbai, India.
Dried chip samples weighing about 5 g were rehydrated entirely for 3 h
in a 250 ml beaker filled with water. Then the well-rehydrated samples
2.2. Sample preparation were taken out and weighed after removing surface water by blotting.

Fresh coconuts were converted to coconut kernels by performing unit

2
M. Pravitha et al. LWT 162 (2022) 113432

Fig. 1. Coconut chips obtained after osmotic dehydration with a.) Jaggery b.) Coconut sugar c.) Sucrose.

Mr following the standard method of AOAC (2016) with the use of 2,

Rehydration Ratio (RR) = (1)
Md 2′ -diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) dye. In which 3 ml of DPPH (0.1
mM in methanol) was mixed with 0.5 ml of methanolic extract of the
where: Mr is the mass of chips after rehydration (g), Md is the mass of the sample. The absorbance of this solution was noted at 517 nm (UV–Vi­
chips before rehydration (g). sible, Model Shimadzu, UV-160A, Japan) after keeping it in the dark at
ambient conditions for 30 min. The DPPH scavenging activity of the
2.3.3. Hygroscopicity chips in percentage was calculated by Eqn. (3).
The moisture affinity property of chips samples was compared by
determining the hygroscopicity value of individual chips samples with ADPPH − AS
DPPH Scavanging activity (%) = × 100 (3)
the protocol given by Tonon et al. (2008) with a few modifications. Five ADPPH
grams of chips samples were taken for the analysis, kept at the controlled
where: ADPPH is the absorbance of DPPH methanol solution, and As is the
temperature and relative humidity of 25 ◦ C and 75.2%, respectively. The
absorbance of sample solution.
humidity condition was maintained by placing the sample on an airtight
desiccator containing saturated NaCl solution. The weight of the chips
2.3.7. Sensory analysis
was noted after one week, and the result was reported as g of water
Important sensory attributes of osmo-convective dried coconut chips
gained per 100 g of dry matter.
samples with different osmotic agents were evaluated by conducting a
sensory analysis with a team of panelists constituted of 30 members.
2.3.4. Color measurement
Parameters considered include appearance, crispness, taste, and overall
Color comparison of chips samples was made by measuring L*, a*,
acceptability. Before the analysis, brief descriptions regarding each
and b* of the individual samples with a colorimeter (LabScan XE
attribute were given to panelists with a special mention of crispness,
HunterLab, USA). Instrument calibration was done before the experi­
which was evaluated by taking into account the total quantity and
ment using a white and black plate. From these values, L* indicates the
quality of the sound, deformability, and hardness of the product expe­
sample lightness, which varies from 0 (dark) to 100 (light), a* reveals
rienced by the panelist during mastication (Salvador et al., 2009). Each
the chromaticity with ‘+’ for red and ‘-’ for the green axis, and b* in­
chips sample was kept separately in plastic dishes, assigned with unique
dicates the color of the sample either yellowish (+) or bluish (− ). The
numbers for easy identification. Drinking water was provided to pan­
deviation of the color of final chips from fresh coconut slices was
elists to clean their mouths before proceeding to the next sample. At­
measured by calculating the total color difference (ΔE) as Eqn. (2).
tributes were evaluated on 9 points hedonic scale with a score ranging
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
( * )2 ( )2 from 1 to 9 respectively, implying dislike extremely and like extremely.
L2 − L*1 + (a*2 − a*1 ) + b*2 − b*1 (2)
2
ΔE =

where: L2*, a2*, and b2* corresponds to color parameters for fresh co­ 2.4. Mathematical modeling of osmotic dehydration and convective
conut slices while L1*, a1* and b1* represent the values for osmo- drying data
convective dried coconut chips samples.
Variation in drying characteristics of samples with the nature of the
2.3.5. Texture analysis osmotic agent was investigated by plotting the curves of water loss (WL)
The textural attributes of the samples were instrumentally measured and solute gain (SG) with immersion time for osmotic dehydration and
with a TA.XT Plus Texture Analyzer (Stable Micro Systems, UK) attached moisture ratio with time for convective drying. The equations below
with a Crisp Fracture Rig (HDP/CFS) and a 25 kg load cell. Prior to the were used to determine the WL and SG of samples osmotically dehy­
experiment, test speed and travel distance were set in the instrument at drated with different osmotic agents (Shi et al., 1995).
1.00 mm/s and 5.00 mm, respectively (Xu & Kerr, 2012). During the
test, randomly selected samples from the freshly opened chips packets WL =
M0 Xm0 − Mt Xmt
(4)
were centrally positioned on the sample holder. Hardness and rupture M0
time values were obtained from the resulting force-distance graph of the
Mt Xst − M0 Xso
analysis. Hardness corresponds to the maximum force recorded in the SG = (5)
curve, and rupture time corresponds to the time taken by the probe from M0
the sample contact point to the fracture point. An average of six repli­
where: M0 and Mt are the mass of the slices before and after osmotic
cates was considered for the analysis.
dehydration (g), respectively; Xm0 and Xmt are moisture fractions of the
fresh and osmotically dehydrated samples (g water/100 g), respectively;
2.3.6. Antioxidant activity
and Xs0 and Xst are total solid content in the sample before and after
The antioxidant activity of the dried sample was determined by
osmotic dehydration (g solute/100 g). Dynamic viscosity of solutions

3
M. Pravitha et al. LWT 162 (2022) 113432

was measured before the analysis by a viscometer (Brookfield model: water or solute content in the slab at osmotic dehydration time t as:
DVNext Rheometer, spindle no: 61) at 25 ◦ C with a speed of 30 rpm. ( )
8 ∑∞
1 − (2n + 1)2 π2 Deff t
Moisture ratio (MR) at any time can be obtained by Eqn. (6) Mr or Sr = 2 exp (12)
π n=0 (2n + 1)2 4L2
M − Me
MR = (6) wt − w∞
M0 − Me Mr = (13)
w0 − w∞
where: M, M0 and Me represents moisture content (% d.b) at any time t,
st − s∞
initial condition, and equilibrium condition, respectively. Sr = (14)
s0 − s∞
MR mentioned in Eqn. (6) can be further simplified as Eqn. (7). The
term Me can be ignored in Eqn. (6) because Me is very small compared to where: Mr and Sr denotes the moisture and solute ratio respectively, the
M and Mo. Hence, the MR can be written as: subscripts o, t and ∞ denotes the concentration at initial, any time and
M equilibrium condition respectively, Deff effective diffusivities of water or
MR = (7) solutes and L the half-thickness of the slab.
M0
Similarly, mass transfer of water during convective drying was
Modeling of mass transfer that occurred during osmotic dehydration calculated by determining moisture diffusivity (Deff) using Fick’s second
was performed by fitting the data in Fick’s second law of diffusion. law of diffusion as recommended by Crank for infinite slab geometry
Effective moisture diffusivity was calculated by considering the sample (Demiray et al., 2017), which describes moisture migration during
as an infinite slab with a thickness of 2L being dehydrated from both thin-layer drying of food materials. The diffusion equation developed for
sides (thickness is less than or equal to 1/10th of length and breadth), slab can be used based on the assumption that moisture distribution is
and having uniform initial solute and moisture distribution (Nieto et al., uniform throughout the product, the mass transfer occurs in a unidi­
2001). The material is immersed in a solution with a constant concen­ rectional mode, and moisture diffusivity is constant. Hence,
tration and temperature at time zero (t = 0). During osmotic dehydra­ ( )
tion, the temperature and concentration of the solution are assumed to 8 ∑∞
1 − (2n + 1)2 π2 Deff t
MR = 2 exp (15)
remain constant. A high solution to solid mass ratio could be used to π n=0 (2n + 1)2 4L2
achieve this condition. Other conditions considered are constant equi­
librium moisture and solute concentrations at the material’s surface where: L is half of the slice thickness (m), t is air-drying time (s), and n is
with negligible external resistance to mass transfer and shrinkage during the positive integer. Eqns. (12) and (15) can be simplified by taking only
the process. The following general equation (Crank, 1975) can be used the first terms in their series expansion as follows (Jazini & Hatamipour,
to describe the unsteady-state one-dimensional mass transfer in the solid 2010; Souraki et al., 2014):
material under these conditions: ( )2 )
(
8 − Deff t 2Lπ
∂C ∂2 C Mr or Sr = MR = 2 e (16)
= Deff (8) π
∂t ∂x2
Initial and boundary conditions are taken as follows: By taking natural log on both side, this equation further simplified as:
( π )2
C (x, 0) = C0 ​ at ​ t = 0 (9) 8
ln(Mr or Sr ) = ln(MR) = ln 2 − Deff t (17)
π 2L
∂C
= 0 at ​ x = 0 (10) The Deff value for water loss during osmotic dehydration can be ob­
∂x tained by taking the slope of ln (Mr) versus immersion time. Similarly,
Deff for solute uptake during osmotic dehydration and water removal
C (L, t) = Ce at ​ x = L (11)
during convective drying can be calculated by taking the slope of ln (Sr)
versus immersion time and ln (MR) versus drying time respectively.
where: x is the spatial coordinate, as illustrated in Fig. 2, and C = C(x, t).
The moisture ratio experimentally obtained during coconut slice
The analytical solution of Eqn. (8) can be written in terms of the mean
drying is further fitted in six widely used thin-layer drying equations for
understanding the hot air drying characteristics of coconut slices
(Table .2). In the models, a, b, c, g, h, n are constants, k is the drying rate
constant, and t is the drying time (minutes). The non-linear regression
analysis was accomplished with MATLAB (R2020a, The MathWorks,
Inc, US) software. The coefficient of determination (R2) is the most
critical factor when choosing the correct equation to describe any
sample’s drying behavior. Higher values of R2 and lower values of chi-
square and RMSE are set as the criteria for the goodness of fit (Goyal
et al., 2007). These statistical parameters are determined by Eqns (18)
and (19).

Table 2
Thin layer drying models used for experimental curve fitting.
Model Name Model equation

Newton MR = exp( − kt)

Page MR = exp( − ktn )
Henderson and Pabis MR = a exp( − kt)
Logarithmic MR = a exp( − kt) + c
Wang and Singh MR = 1 + at + bt2
Modified Henderson and Pabis MR = a exp( − kt) + b exp( − gt) + c exp( − ht)
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of mass transfer through an infinite slab with a
thickness 2L. MR: Moisture ratio; a, b, c, g, h, k and n drying constants; t drying time (min).

4
M. Pravitha et al. LWT 162 (2022) 113432

∑N ( )2
Table 3
MR(exp, i) − MR(pred, i)
χ2 = i=1
(18) Comparison of coconut chips treated with different osmotic agents.
N− z
Properties Jaggery based Coconut sugar Sucrose based
[ ]1/2 coconut chips based coconut coconut chips
1 ∑N
( )2
chips
RMSE = MR(pred, i) − MR(exp, i) (19)
N i=1
Moisture content (%wb) 2.85 ± 0.09 b 3.52 ± 0.04 a 2.89 ± 0.07 b
Water loss (g of water/100 17.54 ± 0.98 16.94 ± 1.30 ns 18.41 ± 1.28
where: MRexp,i and MRpred,i are actual and model predicted values of g) ns ns

moisture ratios, respectively; N is number of observations; z is number of Solute gain (g of solute/ 13.37 ± 0.76 12.32 ± 0.54 ns 14.14 ± 0.02
ns ns
drying constants. 100 g)
Rehydration ratio 1.55 ± 0.02 a 1.50 ± 0.02 b 1.59 ± 0.04 a
Hygroscopicity (g of water 10.30 ± 0.01 a 7.03 ± 0.21 b 5.55 ± 0.33 c
2.5. Statistical analysis gained/100 g of dry
matter)
All tests were done in triplicate, and data were given as mean ± L* 61.92 ± 1.42 c 66.06 ± 2.11 b 78.40 ± 1.87 a
a* − 7.14 ± 0.11 − 0.63 ± 0.02 a − 2.70 ± 0.01
standard deviation (SD). Data analysis was performed with SAS (SAS c b

9.3, USA), the confidence level for statistical significance was set at a b* 45.71 ± 0.71 48.14 ± 0.32 a 5.79 ± 0.53 c
probability value of 0.05. b

ΔE 42.02 ± 0.87 a 43.05 ± 0.56 a 5.10 ± 0.95 b

Hardness (N) 2.08 ± 0.01 a 1.45 ± 0.03 b 1.39 ± 0.02 b
3. Results and discussion
Rupture time (s) 3.8 ± 0.14 a 1.2 ± 0.14 b 1.04 ± 0.08 b
Antioxidant activity (%) 24.49 ± 0.39 a 26.2 ± 1.42 a 19.77 ± 0.90
3.1. Moisture content and water activity b

Appearance 7.66 ± 0.66 a 7.73 ± 0.82 a 7.13 ± 0.89 b

Taste 7.73 ± 0.63 a 7.96 ± 0.66 a 7.06 ± 0.94 b
Moisture content and water activity values were decreased signifi­
Crispness 7.03 ± 0.76 c 7.43 ± 0.56 b 7.83 ± 0.53 a
cantly due to osmotic dehydration treatment. Fresh slices had a water Overall acceptability 7.76 ± 0.67 a 7.90 ± 0.80 a 7.23 ± 0.85 b
activity of 0.97 before osmotic dehydration treatment, which reduced to
0.90, 0.91, and 0.93 after 30 min of osmotic dehydration with jaggery, Mean value ± standard deviation of triplicate experiments. Different letters in
the same row are significantly different (p < 0.05) according to Tukey’s test.
coconut sugar, and sucrose, respectively. Likewise, the moisture content
of fresh slices was reduced from 52.43 (%w.b) to a range of 28.50–35.26
(%w.b) after osmotic dehydration. However, slices treated with which is particularly caused by the presence of reducing sugars,
different osmotic agents were shown to have similar ranges of aw and dextrose, and higher mineral contents (Kumar et al., 2013). All these
moisture content after osmotic dehydration. This similar osmotic components combined make the product more susceptible to moisture
dehydration effect of different solutions could be explained by the absorption than the other two solutes. Additionally, coconut sugar is
similar values of water activity of all three solutions (jaggery: 0.93, rich in minerals than sucrose; hence, the water adsorption of coconut
coconut sugar: 0.94, and sucrose: 0.94). After hot air drying, water ac­ sugar treated samples was slightly higher than sucrose contained ones
tivity and final moisture content (%w.b) for coconut sugar treated chips (Zdiniakova & de la Calle, 2020).
were significantly higher (aw - 0.37, moisture content-3.52%) than other
chips samples. This slightly higher value of water activity and moisture 3.4. Color parameters
content could be due to coconut sugar’s higher equilibrium moisture
content, which eventually makes the moisture content of the final The color of the final product is an essential quality index that affects
product also high. consumer acceptance. The chromaticity values L*, a*, and b* for fresh
coconut slices before osmotic dehydration were 73.54, - 0.49, and 6.72,
respectively. The osmo-convective drying treatment significantly varied
3.2. Rehydration ratio
all color parameters. As visible from the images (Fig. 1), sucrose based
osmotic dehydration treatment yielded a final product with whitish
The rehydration ratio quantifies the ability of the sample to regain
color, which was considerably reflected in the L* value of those prod­
the water without disintegration, which can be considered an important
ucts. Zhao et al. (2014) already demonstrated this lightness enhance­
quality parameter in dried food products (Kaushal & Sharma, 2016). The
ment by sucrose-like osmotic agent accumulation. It was also visible that
extent of physical and chemical changes occurring in food greatly affects
the other two samples were possessed with darker color predominantly
the rehydration ratio of the final product (Seremet et al., 2016). Higher
contributed by respective osmotic agents; hence they were measured
rehydration ratio (RR) was recorded for sucrose treated chips followed
with a lower value of L*. Variation of the osmotic agent was also caused
by jaggery-based chips, which also exhibited similar RR (1.55) without
considerable influence on a* values of different samples. Comparatively
any significant difference (Table .3). However, the RR value for coconut
higher a* was displayed for coconut sugar-based samples. This higher a*
sugar-based chips was slightly lower, which could be attributed to the
value in coconut sugar compared with jaggery and sucrose due to the
higher final moisture content of the sample (Kumar et al., 2019).
presence of compounds from oxidation of phenolic substances and car­
amelization of sugar, which was also reported in previous studies
3.3. Hygroscopicity
(Kongkaew et al., 2014). A similar result was also observed for b* value
with a significantly higher value for samples with jaggery and coconut
Hygroscopicity is an essential property in dried snacks products,
sugar, which indicated the yellowish nature of the final product. Sig­
which determines the crispness of the final product (Sette et al., 2016).
nificant variation in L*, a*, and b* value, particularly for jaggery and
Usually, moisture absorption of the product during its exposure to
coconut sugar-assisted osmo dried products, resulted in higher ΔE.
ambient conditions is not desirable, especially for dried snacks. Ac­
However, sucrose-treated samples were recorded with lower color
cording to the calculated values of hygroscopicity, the type of osmotic
variation, implying the resemblance with fresh coconut slices than
agent had a predominant influence on the water affinity property of the
jaggery treated samples.
final coconut-based chips samples (Table .3). The highest hygroscopicity
was obtained for jaggery treated samples, followed by coconut
sugar-treated, and the least value corresponds to sucrose treated sam­
ples. Previous researchers mentioned this hygroscopic nature of jaggery,

5
M. Pravitha et al. LWT 162 (2022) 113432

3.5. Texture crispness. As expected, taste-wise also, coconut sugar and jaggery added
chips were superior to sucrose pre-concentrated samples. The members
Texture is a key sensory characteristic in snack products that in­ highly appreciated replacing monotonous sucrose osmotic agents with
fluences consumer acceptance (Liu et al., 2018). Osmotic healthy and tasty alternatives, so they preferred coconut sugar and
solution-dependent textural property variations of coconut chips were jaggery-treated samples due to their unique taste. These combined fac­
compared in terms of hardness and rupture time as given in Table.3. The tors determined the overall acceptability score with higher values cor­
sucrose-treated sample gave the minimum hardness value, and the responding to novel osmotic agent-treated chips samples.
maximum hardness was exhibited by the jaggery-treated sample.
Interestingly, coconut sugar-treated samples were shown to have
3.8. Drying kinetics and mathematical modeling of osmotic dehydration
textural properties very close to conventional ones. Variation in textural
and convective drying
properties based on the type of solute is closely related to other
important properties of the dried products, like rehydration ratio,
The effect of the type of osmotic agent on coconut slice’s water loss
moisture content, and hygroscopicity (Jia et al., 2019). As hygroscop­
and solute gain kinetics during osmotic dehydration treatment is shown
icity was higher for jaggery-treated samples, those samples resulted in
in Fig. (3) and (4). The values of water loss and solute gain are higher at
higher hardness (lower crispness) than the other two. In addition, these
the initial stage of the process, decrease with the advancement of im­
characteristics were also influenced the rupture time of the samples.
mersion time, and finally reach the equilibrium condition. Based on
Jaggery-based samples took more time (3.80 s) for the fracture during
experimental observations depicted in Figures (3) and (4), the duration
the test. This higher hardness and greater rupture time of this sample
of osmotic dehydration was set at 30 min for final product development,
indicate that the jaggery-based sample’s textural property is inferior to
where maximum WL and SG were recorded. The mass transfer rate was
the other two. However, this slightly higher value of hardness is desir­
higher in sucrose-treated slices than in the other two. This difference in
able to minimize the breakage of products during packaging and
mass transfer rate could be due to the less viscous nature of sucrose
handling.
(8.31 cP) solution than coconut sugar (18.54 cP) and jaggery solutions
(16.73 cP). The range of viscosity obtained was in line with the values
3.6. Antioxidant activity
reported in the literature (Alarcón et al., 2020; Galmarini et al., 2011). A
counteracting effect of viscosity on WL and SG was also reported in
The antioxidant value of the final product varied considerably with
previous studies (Khoyi & Hesari, 2007; Peng et al., 2018). In addition,
the type of solute used in the initial osmotic dehydration process. Among
experimental results revealed that the WL was higher than SG irre­
all the samples, DPPH scavenging activity was higher for coconut sugar-
spective of treatments and immersion time. The difference in WL and SG
contained samples (26.20%), followed by jaggery-treated samples
rate could be due to the lower molecular weight of water than the solutes
(24.49%). This variation in antioxidant activity between the samples is
used for osmotic dehydration (Peng et al., 2018). Effective diffusivity
caused by the difference in antioxidant activity of solutes used for the
values for moisture and solutes estimated by Fick’s second law of
pretreatment. Jaggery had the highest antioxidant activity (55.67%),
diffusion for samples treated with different osmotic agents are given in
followed by coconut sugar (42.27%) and sucrose (15.55%). The pres­
Table .4. Values of effective moisture diffusivity were in line with the
ence of higher phenolic compounds in jaggery and coconut sugar is well
previously reported values of coconut slices (Bellary et al., 2011; da
documented in the literature, which is the main reason contributing to
Silva et al., 2013). It can be seen from Table .4 that effective moisture
the elevated antioxidant activity in those samples. In jaggery, enzymatic
diffusivity values for both solute and water were lower for novel osmotic
browning due to polyphenol oxidase, glucosidases, and Maillard reac­
agent-treated samples. It could result from the higher viscosity of
tion products mainly generates these phenolic compounds (Jaffé, 2015).
jaggery and coconut sugar solution than sucrose solution. The fitting of
Similarly, in coconut sugar as well, by-products of the Maillard reaction
experimental data to Fick’s second law for calculating effective diffu­
are considered as a major antioxidant activity-contributing component
sivity values was adequate for all treatments as the coefficients of
(Karseno et al., 2017).
determination were higher than 0.90 for both water and solutes.
Fig. 5 shows the change in MR of osmotically dehydrated coconut
3.7. Sensory analysis
slices and control with time by hot air drying at 65 ◦ C. From the plot, it is
All the samples were considered acceptable since the score for each
attribute corresponding to individual samples was more than six. Both
coconut sugar-treated and jaggery-treated chips were observed to be
more visually appealing than sucrose-based samples. The golden
yellowish color of jaggery and reddish-yellow color of coconut sugar
substantially impart an attractive color to the final product. Hence, those
samples were scored high for the attribute appearance. Most of the
panelists did not like the plain white color of sucrose chips. In addition,
the lesser hardness value of sucrose treated sample caused more
breakage of product during packaging and handling. This more dis­
integrated nature of the product also influenced the panelist to give a
lower score for sucrose-treated samples. However, those samples were
highly appreciated for their crispness. Additionally, sucrose-contained
samples maintained their crispness for a certain period even after tak­
ing out from the packet. Conversely, jaggery treated chips were highly
susceptible to moisture absorption once it was opened to ambient con­
ditions. This could be contributed by the hygroscopic nature of jaggery,
which was already reported in the previous section. At the same time,
panelists observed that all samples exhibited similar crispness immedi­
ately after the opening of packets. Further loss in crispness is closely Fig. 3. Changes in water loss (g of water/100 g) of coconut slices with im­
related to the inherent nature of osmotic agents. Coconut sugar osmosed mersion time for jaggery (JA), coconut sugar (CS), and sucrose (RS)
samples lie in between jaggery and sucrose-treated chips in terms of treated samples.

6
M. Pravitha et al. LWT 162 (2022) 113432

moist content of 8.08 (%d.b). At the same time, osmotically dehydrated

samples have a moisture content of 35.82, 36.03, and 34.95 (%d.b)
respectively for jaggery, coconut sugar, and sucrose treated slices before
the commencement of convective drying. The influence of the type of
osmotic agent was also reflected in the moisture content value of the
final product. Sucrose treated and jaggery treated samples were shown
lower moisture content of 2.97 and 2.93 (% d.b), respectively. At the
same time, coconut sugar contained samples exhibited a significantly
higher moisture content of 3.65 (% d.b). Effective moisture diffusivities
of hot air-dried samples at a temperature of 65 ◦ C pre-concentrated with
different solutes and without osmotic dehydration are given in Table .4.
The regression analysis obtained correlation coefficients (R2) of 0.942,
0.936, and 0.944, respectively, for jaggery, coconut sugar, and sucrose-
based samples, indicating an excellent linear relationship of the equa­
tion. The effective moisture diffusivity of coconut chips osmosed by
different solutes was determined as 1.29 × 10− 11, 1.25 × 10− 11, and
1.35 × 10− 11 m2/s, respectively, for jaggery, coconut sugar, and sucrose
treated convective drying. However, a significantly lower value of
Fig. 4. Changes in solute gain (g of solute/100 g) of coconut slices with im­ 1.010 × 10− 11 m2/s was obtained for the control sample, indicating that
mersion time for jaggery (JA), coconut sugar (CS), and sucrose (RS)
osmotic dehydration treatment considerably enhances water removal
treated samples.
during hot air drying. All these values fall within the range of values
(10− 9-10− 12) reported for common food materials (Chong et al., 2008).
Table 4 The slightly higher value for the sucrose-treated sample indicates that
Values of effective diffusivity for coconut slices during osmotic dehydration and moisture diffusion from those slices occurs more rapidly than the other
convective drying. two.
Sample Deff (m2/s) R2 The experimental results of moisture ratio versus time were fitted in
− 11
various thin layer-drying equations. The suitability of the drying models
Solute during osmotic dehydration Jaggery 3.56 × 10 0.9422
11 was analyzed by correlation analyses, chi-square (χ 2) test, and root mean
Coconut sugar 3.28 × 10− 0.9279
Sucrose 4.01 × 10− 11
0.9447 square error (RMSE) values. Statistical parameters obtained from the
Water during osmotic dehydration Jaggery 2.55 × 10− 11
0.9299 model fitting of drying curves of coconut chips are given in Table 5. It
11
Coconut sugar 2.19 × 10− 0.9106 was observed that all models had good fitness to the experimental data
11
Sucrose 3.65 × 10− 0.9845
11 of osmotically dehydrated coconut slice drying. The comparison criteria
Water during convective drying Jaggery 1.29 × 10− 0.9428
Coconut sugar 1.25 × 10− 11
0.9368 used to evaluate the goodness of fit of drying models are the higher
Sucrose 1.35 × 10− 11
0.9446 coefficient of determination (R2), reduced chi-square (χ 2), and lower
Control 1.01 × 10− 11
0.9548 root mean square error (RMSE) values.
For all the models, R2 values range from 0.9075 to 0.9991, indicating
an excellent fit to the experimental drying data. For the jaggery-based
coconut chips and sucrose-based samples, Modified Henderson and
Pabis model was found to have the highest R2 (>0.99). The corre­
sponding values for χ 2 and RMSE are also low. Therefore, the Modified
Henderson and Pabis model is the best-suited model for representing the
drying kinetics of jaggery solution and sucrose solution osmosed sam­
ples in a tray dryer. Hence, this model can be used to predict the drying
process of those two samples. For coconut sugar-treated slices, the
highest value of R2 (0.996) was obtained for the Logarithmic model with
χ 2 and RMSE values of 0.00037 and 0.0193, respectively. As a result, a
Logarithmic model can accurately predict the relationship between
moisture ratio and drying time for coconut sugar-treated samples.

4. Conclusion

Replacement of conventional osmotic agents with novel solutes like

coconut sugar and jaggery is a promising option to reduce the intake of
unhealthy sucrose. Substitution of these osmotic agents did not cause
much variation in the final product quality of coconut chips samples.
Even though the mass transfer of solute and water during osmotic
dehydration and convective drying were comparatively higher for
sucrose-contained samples, the other samples also exhibited comparable
Fig. 5. Moisture ratio with drying time for coconut slices osmotically treated
values. The introduction of new osmotic agents caused a considerable
with jaggery (JA), coconut sugar (CS), and sucrose (RS) and control (CN).
impact on the sensory properties of samples. All the panelists liked the
peculiar taste of coconut chips with jaggery or coconut sugar more than
clear that the MR value continuously decreases with time. The drying the conventional one. From the curve fitting of drying data, it was
curves for osmo-convective dried coconut slices showed a great devia­ observed that thin layer drying behavior of jaggery treated and sucrose
tion from the drying curve of control samples. Apparently, the drying treated coconut slices can be predicted well with Modified Henderson
time required for the untreated sample was higher due to more water and Pabis drying equation and Logarithmic equation was more apt for
removal from the initial moisture content of 52.43 (%d.b) to a final coconut sugar treated sample’s drying behavior prediction. Future

7
M. Pravitha et al. LWT 162 (2022) 113432

Table 5 Validation.
Statistical parameters of various drying kinetics models for convectively dried
coconut chips osmotically dehydrated with different osmotic agents. Declaration of competing interest
Model Constants R2 RMSE χ2
Jaggery based coconut chips
The following authors have declared that there is no conflict of in­
Newton k = 0.02206 0.9694 0.04742 0.002248 terest in publishing manuscript entitled “Comparison of drying behavior
Page k = 0.006492 0.9982 0.01231 0.00015 and product quality of coconut chips treated with different osmotic agents”.
n = 1.307
Henderson and Pabis a = 1.199 0.9907 0.02792 0.00644
Acknowledgment
k = 0.02608
Logarithmic a = 1.19 0.9955 0.02099 0.00044
c = -0.05944 The authors wish to acknowledge Dr.Hebbar K. B for providing
k = 0.02181 laboratory facilities at ICAR-CPCRI. The authors also wish to acknowl­
Wang and Singh a = − 0.01618 0.9977 0.01378 0.00019 edge the AICRP on PHET for extending their research facilities. The
b=
0.00006695
authors are grateful to the Indian Council of Agricultural Research for
Modified Henderson a = -1.442 0.9990 0.01426 0.0002 providing other facilities under the “Professional Attachment Training”
and Pabis b = 2.207 program.
c = 0.5652
g = 0.03443
References
h = 0.798
k = 0.06607
Alarcón, A. L., Orjuela, A., Narváez, P. C., & Camacho, E. C. (2020). Thermal and
Sucrose based coconut chips
rheological properties of juices and syrups during non-centrifugal sugar cane
Newton k = 0.03329 0.9957 0.01303 0.000169899
(jaggery) production. Food and Bioproducts Processing, 121, 76–90. https://doi.org/
Page k = 0.04205 0.9986 0.0083 6.278E-05 10.1016/j.fbp.2020.01.016
n = 0.9357 AOAC. (2005). In Official methods of analysis (18th ed.). Arlington, VA: U.S.A: Association
Henderson and Pabis a = 0.9381 0.9980 0.00899 0.000847 of Official Analytical Chemists.
k = 0.03131 AOAC. (2016). In Official methods of analysis of the AOAC International (20th ed.) USA.
Logarithmic a = 0.9404 0.9983 0.00998 0.000896 Ayetigbo, O., Latif, S., Abass, A., & Müller, J. (2019). Osmotic dehydration kinetics of
c = 0.003162 biofortified yellow-flesh cassava in contrast to white-flesh cassava (Manihot
k = 0.03176 esculenta). Journal of Food Science & Technology, 56(9), 4251–4265. https://doi.org/
Wang and Singh a = − 0.02331 0.9075 0.06657 0.0044309 10.1007/s13197-019-03895-3
b= Beegum, P. P. S., Manikantan, M. R., Sharma, M., Pandiselvam, R., Gupta, R. K., &
0.0001393 Hebbar, K. B. (2019). Optimization of processing variables for the development of
Modified Henderson a = 0.955 0.9991 0.01503 0.000226 virgin coconut oil cake based extruded snacks. Journal of Food Process Engineering, 42
(4), Article e13048. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpe.13048
and Pabis b = 0.2652
Beegum, P. P. S., Nair, J. P., Manikantan, M. R., Pandiselvam, R., Shill, S., Neenu, S., &
c = 0.8691
Hebbar, K. B. (2021). Effect of coconut milk, tender coconut and coconut sugar on
g = 0.9502
the physico-chemical and sensory attributes in ice cream. Journal of Food Science &
h = 0.02976 Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-021-05279-y
k = 0.2199 Bellary, A. N., Sowbhagya, H. B., & Rastogi, N. K. (2011). Osmotic dehydration assisted
Coconut sugar based coconut chips impregnation of curcuminoids in coconut slices. Journal of Food Engineering, 105(3),
Newton k = 0.02603 0.9811 0.0341 0.001163 453–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2011.03.002
Page k = 0.01378 0.9931 0.02256 0.00051 Bera, D., & Ro, L. (2015). Osmotic dehydration of litchi using sucrose solution: Effect of
n = 1.166 mass transfer. Journal of Food Processing & Technology, 6, 462–466. https://doi.org/
Henderson and Pabis a = 1.098 0.9874 0.03055 0.00093 10.4172/2157-7110.1000462
k = 0.02843 Chandra, A., Kumar, S., Tarafdar, A., & Nema, P. (2020). Ultrasonic and osmotic
Logarithmic a = 1.107 0.9960 0.0193 0.00037 pretreatments followed by convective and vacuum drying of papaya slices. Journal of
c = -0.1044 the Science of Food and Agriculture. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.10847
Chong, C. H., Law, C. L., Cloke, M., Hii, C. L., Abdullah, L. C., & Daud, W. R. W. (2008).
k = 0.02107
Drying kinetics and product quality of dried Chempedak. Journal of Food Engineering,
Wang and Singh a = − 0.01937 0.9947 0.01988 0.01073
88(4), 522–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2008.03.013
b=
Crank, J. (1975). In The mathematics of diffusion (2nd ed.). London: Oxford University
0.00009789 Press.
Modified Henderson and a = 1.098 0.9874 0.06832 0.03987 Demiray, E., Seker, A., & Tulek, Y. (2017). Drying kinetics of onion (Allium cepa L.) slices
Pabis b = 0.8165 with convective and microwave drying. Heat and Mass Transfer, 53, 1817–1827.
c = 0.3714 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00231-016-1943-x
g = 0.9346 Elfnesh, F., Tekalign, T., & Solomon, W. (2011). Processing quality of improved potato
h = 0.8054 (Solanum tuberosum L.) cultivars as influenced by growing environment and
k = 0.02842 blanching. African Journal of Food Science, 5(6), 324–332.
FAO. (2019). Available http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC/visualize. (Accessed
22 March 2021).
Galmarini, M. V., Baeza, R., Sanchez, V., Zamora, M. C., & Chirife, J. (2011). Comparison
research needs to address the higher hygroscopicity of new products
of the viscosity of trehalose and sucrose solutions at various temperatures: Effect of
while comparing them with sucrose-treated chips samples. Additionally, guar gum addition. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft und -Technologie- Food Science and
the compatibility of these novel osmotic agents with other fruits to yield Technology, 44(1), 186–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2010.04.021
Garcia-Noguera, J., Oliveira, F. I. P., Gallão, M. I., Weller, C. L., Rodrigues, S., &
excellent snack food also needs to be validated.
Fernandes, F. A. N. (2010). Ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration of strawberries:
Effect of pretreatment time and ultrasonic frequency. Drying Technology, 28(2),
CRediT authorship contribution statement 294–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/07373930903530402
Goyal, R. K., Kingsly, A. R. P., Manikantan, M. R., & Ilyas, S. M. (2007). Mathematical
modelling of thin layer drying kinetics of plum in a tunnel dryer. Journal of Food
M. Pravitha: Performed experiments, Conceptualization, Writing – Engineering, 79(1), 176–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2006.01.041
original draft, Writing – review & editing. M.R. Manikantan: Concep­ Hebbar, K. B., Arivalagan, M., Manikantan, M. R., Mathew, A. C., Thamban, C.,
tualization, Methodology, Validation, Resources, Writing – original Thomas, G. V., & Chowdappa, P. (2015). Coconut inflorescence sap and its value
addition as sugar–collection techniques, yield, properties and market perspective.
draft, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project administration, Current Science, 1411–1417.
Funding acquisition. V. Ajesh Kumar: Writing – original draft, Writing – Jaffé, W. R. (2015). Nutritional and functional components of non centrifugal cane sugar:
review & editing, Validation. P.P. Shameena Beegum: Assisted in ex­ A compilation of the data from the analytical literature. Journal of Food Composition
and Analysis, 43, 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2015.06.007
periments, Conceptualization, Validation, Writing – original draft. R.
Pandiselvam: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing,

8
M. Pravitha et al. LWT 162 (2022) 113432

Jazini, M. H., & Hatamipour, M. S. (2010). A new physical pretreatment of plum for Pravitha, M., Manikantan, M. R., Ajesh Kumar, V., Beegum, S., & Pandiselvam, R. (2021).
drying. Food and Bioproducts Processing, 88(2–3), 133–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Optimization of process parameters for the production of jaggery infused osmo-
j.fbp.2009.06.002 dehydrated coconut chips. LWT- Food Science and Technology, 146, Article 111441.
Jia, Y., Khalifa, I., Hu, L., Zhu, W., Li, J., Li, K., & Li, C. (2019). Influence of three https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2021.111441
different drying techniques on persimmon chips’ characteristics: A comparison study Salvador, A., Varela, P., Sanz, T., & Fiszman, S. M. (2009). Understanding potato chips
among hot-air, combined hot-air-microwave, and vacuum-freeze drying techniques. crispy texture by simultaneous fracture and acoustic measurements, and sensory
Food and Bioproducts Processing, 118, 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. analysis. LWT- Food Science and Technology, 42(3), 763–767. https://doi.org/
fbp.2019.08.018 10.1016/j.lwt.2008.09.016
Karseno, E., Yanto, T., Setyawati, R., & Haryanti, P. (2017). Effect of pH and temperature Seremet, L., Botez, E., Nistor, O.-V., Andronoiu, D. G., & Mocanu, G.-D. (2016). Effect of
on browning intensity of coconut sugar and its antioxidant activity. Food Research, 2 different drying methods on moisture ratio and rehydration of pumpkin slices. Food
(1), 32–38. https://doi.org/10.26656/fr.2017.2(1).175 Chemistry, 195, 104–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.03.125
Kaushal, P., & Sharma, H. K. (2016). Osmo-convective dehydration kinetics of jackfruit Sette, P., Salvatori, D., & Schebor, C. (2016). Physical and mechanical properties of
(Artocarpus heterophyllus). Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences, 15(2), raspberries subjected to osmotic dehydration and further dehydration by air- and
118–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssas.2014.08.001 freeze-drying. Food and Bioproducts Processing, 100, 156–171. https://doi.org/
Khoyi, M. R., & Hesari, J. (2007). Osmotic dehydration kinetics of apricot using sucrose 10.1016/j.fbp.2016.06.018
solution. Journal of Food Engineering, 78(4), 1355–1360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Shi, X. Q., Fito, P., & Chiralt, A. (1995). Influence of vacuum treatment on mass transfer
jfoodeng.2006.01.007 during osmotic dehydration of fruits. Food Research International, 28(5), 445–454.
Kongkaew, S., Chaijan, M., & Riebroy, S. (2014). Some characteristics and antioxidant https://doi.org/10.1016/0963-9969(96)81391-3
activity of commercial sugars produced in Thailand. Current Applied Science and da Silva, W. P., do Amaral, D. S., Duarte, M. E. M., Mata, M. E. R. M. C., e
Technology, 14(1), 1–9. Silva, C. M. D. P. S., Pinheiro, R. M. M., & Pessoa, T. (2013). Description of the
Korsrilabut, J., Borompichaichartkul, C., & Duangmal, K. (2010). Effect of invert sugar osmotic dehydration and convective drying of coconut (Cocos nucifera L.) pieces: A
on the drying kinetics and water mobility of osmosed-air dried cantaloupe: Effect of three-dimensional approach. Journal of Food Engineering, 115(1), 121–131. https://
osmotic solutes on cantaloupe drying. International Journal of Food Science and doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2012.10.007
Technology, 45(7), 1524–1531. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2010.02301.x Solís-Fuentes, J. A., Hernández-Ceja, Y., del Rosario Hernández-Medel, M., García-
Kowalski, S. J., & Lechtanska, J. M. (2015). Drying of red beetroot after osmotic Gómez, R. S., Bernal-González, M., Mendoza-Pérez, S., & del Carmen Durán-
pretreatment: Kinetics and quality considerations. Chemical and Process Engineering, Domínguez-de, M. (2019). Quality improvement of jaggery, a traditional sweetener,
36(3), 345–354. using bagasse activated carbon. Food Bioscience, 32, Article 100444. https://doi.org/
Kumari, V., Yadav, B. S., Yadav, R. B., & Nema, P. K. (2020). Effect of osmotic agents and 10.1016/j.fbio.2019.100444
ultasonication on osmo-convective drying of sweet lime (Citrus limetta) peel. Journal Souraki, B. A., Ghavami, M., & Tondro, H. (2014). Correction of moisture and sucrose
of Food Process Engineering, 43(4), Article e13371. effective diffusivities for shrinkage during osmotic dehydration of apple in sucrose
Kumar, D., Singh, J., Rai, D. R., Kumar, M., & Bhatia, S. (2013). Effect of modified solution. Food and Bioproducts Processing, 92(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
atmosphere packaging on keeping quality of jaggery. Sugar Tech, 15(2), 203–208. fbp.2013.07.002
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-012-0197-2 Tonon, R. V., Brabet, C., & Hubinger, M. D. (2008). Influence of process conditions on the
Kumar, D., Tarafdar, A., Kumar, Y., & Badgujar, P. C. (2019). Intelligent modeling and physicochemical properties of açai (Euterpe oleraceae Mart.) powder produced by
detailed analysis of drying, hydration, thermal, and spectral characteristics for spray drying. Journal Of Food Engineering, 88(3), 411–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/
convective drying of chicken breast slices. Journal of Food Process Engineering, 42(5), j.jfoodeng.2008.02.029
Article e13087. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpe.13087 Wrage, J., Burmester, S., Kuballa, J., & Rohn, S. (2019). Coconut sugar (Cocos nucifera
Liu, L., Zhang, H., Li, X., Han, X., Qu, X., Chen, P., Wang, H., & Wang, L. (2018). Effect of L.): Production process, chemical characterization, and sensory properties.
waxy rice starch on textural and microstructural properties of microwave-puffed Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft und -Technologie- Food Science and Technology, 112, Article
cheese chips. International Journal of Dairy Technology, 71(2), 501–511. https://doi. 108227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2019.05.125
org/10.1111/1471-0307.12437 Xu, S., & Kerr, W. L. (2012). Comparative study of physical and sensory properties of
Manikantan, M. R., Mathew, A. C., Madhavan, K., Arumuganathan, T., Arivalagan, M., corn chips made by continuous vacuum drying and deep fat frying. Lebensmittel-
Shameena Beegum, P. P., & Hebbar, K. B. (2016). Coconut Chips –Entrepreneurship Wissenschaft und -Technologie- Food Science and Technology, 48(1), 96–101. https://
driven ICAR-CPCRI technology for healthy alternative non-fried snack food. Technical doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2012.02.019
bulletin No. 107. Kasaragod. Kerala, India: ICAR- Central Plantation Crops Research Zdiniakova, T., & de la Calle, M. B. (2020). Feasibility study about the use of element
Institute. profiles determined by ED-XRF as screening method to authenticate coconut sugar
Manikantan, M. R., Pandiselvam, R., Beegum, S., & Mathew, A. C. (2018). Harvest and commercially available. European Food Research and Technology, 246(10),
postharvest technology. In The coconut palm (Cocos nucifera L.)-Research and 2101–2109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-020-03559-z
Development perspectives (pp. 635–722). Singapore: Springer. Zhao, J.-H., Hu, R., Xiao, H.-W., Yang, Y., Liu, F., Gan, Z.-L., & Ni, Y.-Y. (2014). Osmotic
Nieto, A., Castro, M. A., & Alzamora, S. M. (2001). Kinetics of moisture transfer during dehydration pretreatment for improving the quality attributes of frozen mango:
air drying of blanched and/or osmotically dehydrated mango. Journal of Food Effects of different osmotic solutes and concentrations on the samples. International
Engineering, 12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0260-8774(01)00026-7 Journal of Food Science and Technology, 49(4), 960–968. https://doi.org/10.1111/
Peng, J., Bi, J., Yi, J., Wu, X., Zhou, M., Lyu, J., & Liu, J. (2018). Engineering texture ijfs.12388
properties of instant controlled pressure drop (DIC) dried carrot chips via Zou, K., Teng, J., Huang, L., Dai, X., & Wei, B. (2013). Effect of osmotic pretreatment on
modulating osmotic conditions. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 11(9), 1674–1685. quality of mango chips by explosion puffing drying. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft und
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-018-2133-2 -Technologie- Food Science and Technology, 51(1), 253–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.lwt.2012.11.005