Abstract
Abstract The effect of steam blanching (SB) and ethanol pretreatment (EP) (75–95% [v/v], 10–25 min) on the drying characteristics and quality attributes of apple slices with hot air drying (HD) (60°C, 1.5 m/s) was evaluated. The drying time was reduced by 10.71% and 19.64–47.32% with SB and various EPs compared with fresh; the drying rate and effective moisture diffusion coefficient significantly accelerated. EP resulted in a higher water loss and solid loss of the apple samples. Furthermore, EP greatly affected the rehydration rate and microstructure of dried apple slices. In addition, SB and EP played a positive role in improving the quality of dried apple slices, particularly a higher phytochemical concentration, and antioxidant activities compared with fresh, and EP groups exhibited higher retention of phenolic compounds. Besides, all the dried apple slices with SB and EPs showed a brighter color than the fresh. Therefore, SB and EP can be used as appropriate pretreatment methods for the HD of apples. This combination of the two pretreatment methods provides a theoretical basis for the pretreatment technology before drying of apple and broadens the train of thought in the selection of osmotic media. Novelty impact statement Steam blanching and ethanol pretreatments contribute to the drying rate and quality of apple slices. The pretreatments of E85T25 and E95T25 significantly shorten the drying time, E95T25 shows the highest retention of phenolic compounds, and E85T25 shows the highest phytochemical concentration. E85T25 and E95T25 are suitable pretreatment methods for the HD of apple slices.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 13
Claim · model-written summary
Steam blanching reduced apple drying time by 10.71%.
- Taxon
- apple
Malus domesticat0 - Treatment
- SBe0
- Outcome
- drying timee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 10.71%e0
- Comparator
- freshe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The drying time was reduced by 10.71% and 19.64–47.32% with SB and various EPs compared with fresh”
t0“apple”
Claim · model-written summary
Ethanol pretreatments reduced apple drying time by 19.64–47.32%.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- various EPse0
- Outcome
- drying timee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 19.64–47.32%e0
- Comparator
- freshe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The drying time was reduced by 10.71% and 19.64–47.32% with SB and various EPs compared with fresh”
t0“apple”
Claim · model-written summary
Pretreatments accelerated drying rate and moisture diffusion significantly.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Outcome
- drying rate and effective moisture diffusion coefficiente0
- Direction
- acceleratede0
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the drying rate and effective moisture diffusion coefficient significantly accelerated”
t0“apple”
Claim · model-written summary
Ethanol pretreatment increased apple water loss.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- EPe0
- Outcome
- water losse0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“EP resulted in a higher water loss and solid loss of the apple samples”
Claim · model-written summary
Ethanol pretreatment increased apple solid loss.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- EPe0
- Outcome
- solid losse0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“EP resulted in a higher water loss and solid loss of the apple samples”
Claim · model-written summary
Ethanol pretreatment greatly affected rehydration rate and microstructure.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- EPe0
- Outcome
- rehydration rate and microstructuree0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“EP greatly affected the rehydration rate and microstructure of dried apple slices”
Claim · model-written summary
Blanching and ethanol pretreatment increased phytochemical concentration and antioxidant activity versus fresh.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- SB and EPe0
- Outcome
- phytochemical concentration, and antioxidant activitiese0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- freshe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SB and EP played a positive role in improving the quality of dried apple slices, particularly a higher phytochemical concentration, and antioxidant activities compared with fresh”
Claim · model-written summary
Ethanol groups retained more phenolic compounds.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- EPe0
- Outcome
- retention of phenolic compoundse0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“EP groups exhibited higher retention of phenolic compounds”
t0“apple”
Claim · model-written summary
Blanched and ethanol-pretreated dried slices were brighter than fresh slices.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“all the dried apple slices with SB and EPs showed a brighter color than the fresh”
Claim · model-written summary
E85T25 and E95T25 significantly shortened drying time.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- E85T25 and E95T25e0
- Outcome
- drying timee0
- Direction
- shortene0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The pretreatments of E85T25 and E95T25 significantly shorten the drying time”
t0“apple”
Claim · model-written summary
E95T25 had the highest phenolic retention.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- E95T25e0
- Outcome
- retention of phenolic compoundse0
- Direction
- higheste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“E95T25 shows the highest retention of phenolic compounds”
t0“apple”
Claim · model-written summary
E85T25 had the highest phytochemical concentration.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- E85T25e0
- Outcome
- phytochemical concentratione0
- Direction
- higheste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“E85T25 shows the highest phytochemical concentration”
t0“apple”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend E85T25 and E95T25 pretreatments for hot-air drying apple slices.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae0
- Outcome
- suitable pretreatment methods for the HD of apple slicese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“E85T25 and E95T25 are suitable pretreatment methods for the HD of apple slices”
The same questions in other papers
ethanol · quality: phytochemicals · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
ethanol · molecular: metabolites · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
processing · molecular: metabolites · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
21 papers more in this group
See all 25 papers →processing · quality: postharvest · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
31 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- no effect
34 papers more in this group
See all 38 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.