2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.egypro.2019.02.181
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of cover design on moisture removal rate of a cabinet type solar dryer for food drying application

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
10
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
10
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…It was also reported that the solar hot air dryer was less efficient than the electrical thermal drier. Islam, Islam, Tusar, and Limon (2019) have compared three different solar driers on the moisture removal rate from various samples that include bananas. It was observed that the best performance was yielded by the natural draft chamber at 58.9%, followed by chimney type (44.5%) and attic space type (33%) for a time of 6 hr and that the difference was mainly due to reflective loss in attic space solar dryers.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It was also reported that the solar hot air dryer was less efficient than the electrical thermal drier. Islam, Islam, Tusar, and Limon (2019) have compared three different solar driers on the moisture removal rate from various samples that include bananas. It was observed that the best performance was yielded by the natural draft chamber at 58.9%, followed by chimney type (44.5%) and attic space type (33%) for a time of 6 hr and that the difference was mainly due to reflective loss in attic space solar dryers.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It was also found that the maximum dryer efficiency is about 40%. Islam et al (2019) studied three different types of indirect natural convection solar dryers, including induced draft chamber, attic space type chamber and natural draft chamber dryers using experimental methods. It was revealed that the performance of natural draft chamber is better than other two chambers.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The results indicated that the heat pump assisted solar dryers is more energy efficient than the conventional solar dryers. (Abubakar et al, 2018;Akamphon, Sukkasi, & Sedchaicharn, 2018;Akbulut & Durmus, 2010;Atalay, 2019;Benhamoua & Fazouane, 2014;César, Lilia, Octavio, Isaac, & Rogelio, 2020;Demissiea et al, 2019;Ekka, Bala, Muthukumar, & Kanaujiya, 2020;Emetere, Osunlola, & Otoko, 2019;Essalhi, Benchrifa, Tadili, & Bargach, 2018;Ghaffari & Mehdipour, 2015;Hatami, Payehaneh, & Mehrpanahi, 2020;Islam, Islam, Tusar, & Limon, 2019;Kuan et al, 2019;Kumar, Kumar, & Singh, 2015;Lakshmi, Muthukumar, Layek, & Nayak, 2019;Lamrani, Khouya, & Draoui, 2019;Mathew & Thangavel, 2019;Motahayyer, Arabhosseini, & Samimi-Akhijahani, 2019;…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Islam, Islam, Tusar, & Limon [30] evaluated three different passive solar dryers (thin tube chimney type, attic space type, and natural draft chamber) at natural conditions. The experiments were done by drying apple, banana, pineapple and guava from 10 AM to 4 PM for several days in different seasons.…”
Section: Passive Solar Dyermentioning
confidence: 99%