Evaluation of the efficiency and economic feasibility of an indirect solar dehydrator and its comparison with an affordable electric dehydrator

IF 5.1 3区工程技术 Q2 ENERGY & FUELS

Thermal Science and Engineering Progress Pub Date : 2025-03-20 DOI:10.1016/j.tsep.2025.103505

Juan Antonio Jimenez-Garcia , Daniel Aguilar-Torres , Guillermo Luque-Zuñiga , José Luis Camacho-Martínez , Omar Jiménez-Ramírez , Rubén Vázquez-Medina

{"title":"Evaluation of the efficiency and economic feasibility of an indirect solar dehydrator and its comparison with an affordable electric dehydrator","authors":"Juan Antonio Jimenez-Garcia , Daniel Aguilar-Torres , Guillermo Luque-Zuñiga , José Luis Camacho-Martínez , Omar Jiménez-Ramírez , Rubén Vázquez-Medina","doi":"10.1016/j.tsep.2025.103505","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study evaluates the development and effectiveness of an active-mode indirect solar dehydrator, comparing its performance and economic feasibility with that of a commercial electric dehydrator for dehydrating apples. The performance comparison focuses on dehydration time, final moisture content, and thermal efficiency. The solar dehydrator achieved 13% moisture content in 6 h, while the electric dehydrator took 9-13 h at various temperatures (40 °C, 50 °C, and 60 °C) to achieve similar results. The solar system also provided significant energy savings, up to 4.377 MWh at 40 °C and 10.946 MWh at 60 °C, over a 20-year lifespan. Despite its higher initial cost (12 times more than the electric dehydrator), the solar system proves more cost-effective in the long run due to lower operating and maintenance costs, particularly with a larger capacity dehydration chamber. Life cycle savings and payback period analysis showed a favorable payback period of 2.4 years for 150 days of operation per year, decreasing to 1.25 years for 260 days. These findings emphasize the importance of optimizing operating conditions and system capacity for renewable energy-based food dehydration. This study highlights the need for continued innovation in cost-effective, energy-efficient, and sustainable food processing technologies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23062,"journal":{"name":"Thermal Science and Engineering Progress","volume":"61 ","pages":"Article 103505"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Thermal Science and Engineering Progress","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451904925002951","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study evaluates the development and effectiveness of an active-mode indirect solar dehydrator, comparing its performance and economic feasibility with that of a commercial electric dehydrator for dehydrating apples. The performance comparison focuses on dehydration time, final moisture content, and thermal efficiency. The solar dehydrator achieved 13% moisture content in 6 h, while the electric dehydrator took 9-13 h at various temperatures (40 °C, 50 °C, and 60 °C) to achieve similar results. The solar system also provided significant energy savings, up to 4.377 MWh at 40 °C and 10.946 MWh at 60 °C, over a 20-year lifespan. Despite its higher initial cost (12 times more than the electric dehydrator), the solar system proves more cost-effective in the long run due to lower operating and maintenance costs, particularly with a larger capacity dehydration chamber. Life cycle savings and payback period analysis showed a favorable payback period of 2.4 years for 150 days of operation per year, decreasing to 1.25 years for 260 days. These findings emphasize the importance of optimizing operating conditions and system capacity for renewable energy-based food dehydration. This study highlights the need for continued innovation in cost-effective, energy-efficient, and sustainable food processing technologies.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Thermal Science and Engineering Progress Chemical Engineering-Fluid Flow and Transfer Processes

CiteScore

7.20

自引率

10.40%

发文量

327

审稿时长

41 days

期刊介绍： Thermal Science and Engineering Progress (TSEP) publishes original, high-quality research articles that span activities ranging from fundamental scientific research and discussion of the more controversial thermodynamic theories, to developments in thermal engineering that are in many instances examples of the way scientists and engineers are addressing the challenges facing a growing population – smart cities and global warming – maximising thermodynamic efficiencies and minimising all heat losses. It is intended that these will be of current relevance and interest to industry, academia and other practitioners. It is evident that many specialised journals in thermal and, to some extent, in fluid disciplines tend to focus on topics that can be classified as fundamental in nature, or are ‘applied’ and near-market. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress will bridge the gap between these two areas, allowing authors to make an easy choice, should they or a journal editor feel that their papers are ‘out of scope’ when considering other journals. The range of topics covered by Thermal Science and Engineering Progress addresses the rapid rate of development being made in thermal transfer processes as they affect traditional fields, and important growth in the topical research areas of aerospace, thermal biological and medical systems, electronics and nano-technologies, renewable energy systems, food production (including agriculture), and the need to minimise man-made thermal impacts on climate change. Review articles on appropriate topics for TSEP are encouraged, although until TSEP is fully established, these will be limited in number. Before submitting such articles, please contact one of the Editors, or a member of the Editorial Advisory Board with an outline of your proposal and your expertise in the area of your review.