Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Food Science and Technology logoLink to Journal of Food Science and Technology
. 2019 Mar 20;56(4):2213–2223. doi: 10.1007/s13197-019-03707-8

Mass transfer characteristics during ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration of button mushroom (Agaricus bisporus)

Fei Pei 1, KunPeng Xiao 1, Lifu Chen 1, Wenjian Yang 1, Liyan Zhao 2, Yong Fang 1, Ning Ma 1, Alfred Mugambi Mariga 3, Qiuhui Hu 1,✉
PMCID: PMC6443779  PMID: 30996455

Abstract

Button mushroom (Agaricus bisporus) slices were dehydrated using ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration (UOD), and three osmotic agents including sucrose, glucose and sodium chloride were investigated for their effects on the mass transfer characteristics, average density and microstructure. Different mathematical models were selected to describe the osmotic behaviours, and the effective moisture (Dm) as well as solid diffusivities (Ds) during UOD were also calculated. The results showed that, during UOD, button mushrooms had the highest Dm values in the sodium chloride solutions, and they had the highest Ds values in the glucose solutions, which indicated that faster moisture and solid transfers could occur in these two osmotic solutions, respectively. Moreover, the Weibull model provided the best fit for the UOD curves of button mushrooms under the study’s operating conditions, which showed good predictability for the moisture and solid contents of the button mushrooms during UOD. In addition, sucrose agents were suggested for use in the UOD of button mushrooms due to the better microstructure of the products as well as the appropriate rates of effective moisture and solid diffusivities during UOD. This study provides a theoretical basis for the deep processing of mushrooms and other food products.

Keywords: Button mushrooms, Ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration, Mass transfer, Water loss, Solid gain, Microstructure

Introduction

Button mushroom (Agaricus Bisporus) is one of the most popular edible mushrooms around the world due to its high nutritional value (Mattila et al. 2001; Walton et al. 1998). However, the button mushroom has only a short shelf-life of just a few days due to its high moisture content and high respiration rate (Fito et al. 2001; Jiang et al. 2011). Ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration (UOD) is one of the most common pretreatment processes that can effectively enhance the shelf life of fruits and vegetables. Osmosis depends upon the phenomenon of moisture diffusion from food materials by immersion in a hypertonic solution (Ahmed et al. 2016). Meanwhile, the sponge-like effect (Kapturowska et al. 2011) and cavitation effect (Fan et al. 2008; Fernandes et al. 2009), which are caused by ultrasound, can improve the mass transfer efficiency during the osmotic dehydration.

The type of osmotic agent and the concentration of the osmotic solution are two main variables that influence the mass transfer characteristics during UOD (Ertekin and Cakaloz 1996). The osmotic agent should be harmless and have a good taste which could not only reduce the moisture load but also enhance the nutritional value and sensory characteristics after osmotic treatment (Chandra and Kumari 2015). Sucrose, glucose and sodium chloride are the three most commonly used osmotic agents for fruits and vegetables during osmotic treatment. Lenart and Flink (2010) studied the osmosis spatial distribution curves of sucrose and sodium chloride solutions during osmotic treatment, and they found that sucrose accumulated around the surface of the tissue, which hindered the mass transfer during osmotic treatment, but sodium chloride penetrated the tissue to a much greater depth and had less impact on the mass transfer. In general, the rates of water loss and solid gain increased with an increase in the osmotic solution concentration (Ahmed et al. 2016). Nevertheless, an exorbitant concentration of the osmotic solution decreased the rate of mass transfer due to its high viscosity (Ganjloo et al. 2012). According to van’t Hoff’s law, the osmotic pressure difference is proportional to the ion concentrations between the hypertonic solution and cells during osmotic treatment (Zhao et al. 2003). Therefore, the concentration of the solution was usually no more than 60% (sugar) or 25% (salt). For example, Deng and Zhao (2008) and Herman-Lara et al. (2013) studied apple and radish osmotic processes, respectively, and 60% high-fructose corn syrup and 25% sodium chloride solutions, respectively, were applied in their studies.

Osmotic kinetics is typically accustomed to analyzing the microscopic mechanisms of mass transfer during OD. However, many factors might influence osmotic kinetics such as the osmotic methods, conditions and agents. More recently, studies have focused on empirical models to define the proper conditions in osmotic treatment. Corrêa et al. (2016) studied the mass transfer characteristics of tomatoes and demonstrated that the Fito and Chiralt (1997) model provided a better fit to the experimental data of the OD processes, and the mass exchange rate of tomatoes was also improved due to the OD process in a ternary solution. Corzo and Bracho (2008) also investigated the Weibull frequency distribution model for predicting the moisture and salt contents of sardine sheets during vacuum pulse osmotic dehydration using brine at different concentrations. However, there is no information available about the differences among the osmotic agents, which could significantly influence the mass transfer efficiency and quality of food products.

The overall purpose of the study was to investigate and compare the differences among the three most commonly used osmotic agents (sucrose, glucose and sodium chloride) on the mass transfer characteristics, average density and microstructure of button mushrooms during UOD. Several empirical models were selected to describe and predict the water loss (WL) and solid gain (SG) of samples, and the effective diffusivities of samples during UOD were also calculated and compared.

Materials and methods

Sample preparation

Fresh button mushrooms were obtained from a local market (Nanjing, China) with an initial moisture content of 92.93 ± 0.12% (w.b.). Prior to UOD, the button mushrooms were washed, stems removed and sliced to a thickness of 5 mm with a mushroom slicer (MSC International Co., Montreal, Canada).

Osmotic processing

The osmotic solutions were prepared using different concentrations of glucose (40%, 50% and 60% w/w), sucrose (40%, 50%, 60% w/w) and sodium chloride (10%, 15%, 20% w/w) with distilled water, respectively. UOD pretreatments were carried out in an ultrasound generator (SB 25-12 DTDN, Ningbo Xinzhi Ningbo Bio-Technique Co. Ltd., China). For each pretreatment, a 10 g mushroom sample was weighed and placed in osmotic solution at 30 °C for 75 min. The ultrasound frequency was 40 kHz and the ultrasound power was 200 W to avoid increases in the solution temperature. The ratio of mushrooms to osmotic solution was 1:10 (w/w) in order to avoid the influence of the changes in the solution concentration during osmotic treatment. During UOD, samples were randomly removed at 15, 30, 45, 60 and 75 min for analysis after washing the osmotic agents and removing the moisture from the surface with absorbent paper. The water loss (WL) and solid gain (SG) of the samples were evaluated using the following equations:

WL=M0X0-MtXtM0×100% 1
SG=MtSt-M0S0M0×100% 2

where M0 and Mt are the initial weight of the sample (g) and the weight of the sample at time t (g), respectively, X0 and Xt are the initial moisture content (g/100 g) and the moisture content at time t (g/100 g), respectively, and S0 and St are initial solid content (g/100 g) and the solid content at time t (g/100 g), respectively.

Determination of diffusion coefficients

The moisture ratio (MR) and solid ratio (SR) of the button mushroom slices were calculated using Eqs. (3) and (4), respectively (Doymaz and İsmail 2011):

MR=Mt-MeM0-Me=WL-WLeWLe 3
SR=St-SeS0-Se=SG-SGeSGe 4

where Me and Se are the equilibrium moisture and solid content and WLe and SGe are the WL and SG when the UOD processes are in equilibrium.

Azuara et al. (1998) had put forward models for calculating the WLe and SGe, as follows:

WL=S1·t·WLe1+S1·t 5
SG=S2·t·SGe1+S2·t 6

where S1 and S2 are rate constants of Eqs. (5) and (6), respectively, and t is the time of UOD. When taking the reciprocal of both sides, Eqs. (5) and (6) could be expressed as Eqs. (7) and (8), respectively:

1WL=1S1·t·WLe+1WLe 7
1SG=1S2·t·SGe+1SGe 8

It can be seen that the relationship between 1/WL and 1/t is linear and the same as 1/SG and 1/t. This observation indicates that WLe and SGe could be obtained by linear regression.

Mass transfer kinetics during the OD treatment have been successfully and widely modelled using Fick’s second law of diffusion (Chenlo et al. 2006):

MR=8π2∑n=0∞1(2n+1)2exp-(2n+1)2π2Dmt4L2 9
SR=8π2∑n=0∞1(2n+1)2exp-(2n+1)2π2Dst4L2 10

where Dm and Ds are the effective moisture and solid diffusivity (m2 s−1), respectively, n is a positive integer, t is the UOD time (s) and L is the half-thickness of the slab in samples (m). For long osmotic periods, Eqs. (9) and (10) can be written in more simplified forms as Eqs. (11) and (12), respectively:

MR=8π2exp-π2Dmt4L2 11
SR=8π2exp-π2Dst4L2 12

Mathematical modelling

The OD curves were fitted with three well-known mathematical models based on previous studies (İspir and Toğrul 2009; Nuñez-Mancilla et al. 2011), namely, Newton [Eq. (13)], Henderson and Pabis [Eq. (14)], and Weibull [Eq. (15)], respectively:

MR=exp(-k1·t) 13
MR=a·exp(-k2·t) 14
MR=exp-tβα 15

where k1 and k2 are the kinetics parameters, a is the constant parameter of the Henderson and Pabis model, and α and β are the shape and scale parameters of the Weibull model, respectively.

The statistical software, 1stOpt V1.5, was used to conduct a non-linear regression analysis. The coefficient of determination (R2), reduced Chi square (χ2) and root mean square error (RMSE) analyses were used to evaluate the goodness of fit and were calculated in this study by using the following equations:

R2=1-∑i=1NMRexp,i-MRpre,i2∑i=1NMRexp,i-MRpre,i¯2 16
χ2=∑i=1N(MRexp,i-MRpre,i)2N-z 17
RMSE=1N∑i=1N(MRpre,i-MRexp,i)212 18

Average density determination

The average density could reflect the degree of shrinkage of the sample during osmotic processes, and it was determined by means of quartz replacement. The diameters of quartz sand were 0.3–0.7 mm, and the average densities were calculated using Eq. (19).

ρ=mV 19

where ρ is the average density (g/cm3), m is the mass of the sample after osmotic pretreatment (g), and V is the volume of sample after osmotic pretreatment (cm3).

Microstructure

To evaluate the interior structure of the sample during different osmotic processes, the mushroom slices were frozen at -30 °C after the osmotic treatments and freeze-dried by a freeze dryer (Labconco Equipment Co.). Then the dried samples were cut into 5 × 1 × 1 mm and observed by a scanning electron microscope (TM3000, Hitachi Co, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan).

Data analysis

The experimental data were analysed using the statistical software, PASW statistic 18. Comparison between the indices relative to different treatments were conducted by ANOVA, and a significance difference was defined when p < 0.05. The least significant difference was used for multiple range tests and to compare means. All analyses were conducted in triplicate.

Results and discussion

Kinetic characteristics of mass transfer

The OD processes could be influenced by many factors, and different osmotic solutions might play important roles in the kinetic characteristics of mass transfer during the OD processes. Figure 1 shows the changes in water loss and solid gain with different osmotic solutions during UOD. It seems clear that the water loss and solid gain of the mushrooms first significantly increased (p < 0.05) and then levelled out during the OD processes. This finding could be due to the high osmotic pressure between the hypertonic solution and cell, which caused the water and solid to diffuse through the cell (Rastogi et al. 2002). Moreover, for a certain kind of osmotic solution, the rates of water loss and solid gain increased with increasing concentrations of the osmotic solution. Comparable results were also reported by Sareban and Souraki (2016) when working with celery stalks in salt solution during OD. This result was because the higher solution concentration caused higher concentration gradients between, into and out of cells, which might have led to the rates of water loss and solid gain increasing (Jokic et al. 2007). In addition, there were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in the water loss and solid gain of the mushroom during osmotic dehydration between 60 and 75 min. This result showed that the osmotic pressure between the hypertonic solution and cells reached equilibrium at this time.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Water loss (WL) and solid gain (SG) curves of Agaricus bisporus during ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration with different solution concentrations of sucrose (a and d, respectively), glucose (b and e, respectively), and sodium chloride (c and f, respectively)

The statistical software, 1stOpt V1.5, was used to perform the non-linear regression analysis, and the values of S1, S2, WLe, and SGe of samples during UOD with different solutions were obtained, as shown in Table 1. It appears that the values of S1, S2, WLe, and SGe increased when the solution concentration increased which means that a high solution concentration led to faster spreading velocity and more efficient OD processing. It should be noted that higher values of S1 and WLe did not correspond with higher values of S2 and SGe. Specifically, the S1 values of the sodium chloride solutions (1.864–4.680 × 10−3) were highest, followed by the glucose solutions (0.671–0.997 × 10−3), and the lowest S1 values were sucrose (0.588–0.802 × 10−3). This finding meant that the fastest rate of water loss occurred in the sodium chloride solutions, and the slowest rate occurred in the sucrose solution. This phenomenon might likely be due to the ionization of sodium chloride to increase the osmotic pressure between the hypertonic solution and cells (Zhao et al. 2003). However, the S2 values of the glucose solutions (1.299–1.449 × 10−3) were highest, followed by the sodium chloride (0.599–0.644 × 10−3) and sucrose solutions (0.425–0.508 × 10−3), which indicated that the solid gain rates of sucrose and sodium chloride solutions were slower than those of the glucose solutions. This result also indicated that the sample shrinkage that occurred in sodium chloride solutions, caused by a high rate of water loss, might decrease the rate of solid gain (Rastogi et al. 2000). Moreover, it was expected that the microscopic channels in cells, created by the ultrasound treatment would make glucose diffusion into cells easier due to its lower molecular weight (Panagiotou et al. 1999).

Table 1.

S1, S2, WLe, SGe and effective diffusion coefficients of Agaricus bisporus during ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration

Solution Concentration (%) S1 (× 10−3) WL e S2 (× 10−3) SG e Dm × 10−10 (m2/s) Ds × 10−10 (m2/s)
Sucrose 40 0.588 0.708 0.425 0.056 6.41 4.91
50 0.700 0.716 0.463 0.060 7.17 5.11
60 0.802 0.728 0.508 0.061 7.76 5.51
Glucose 40 0.671 0.652 1.299 0.045 7.03 10.38
50 0.739 0.696 1.303 0.052 7.42 10.41
60 0.997 0.704 1.449 0.054 9.08 11.11
Sodium chloride 10 1.864 0.591 0.599 0.043 12.91 6.11
15 2.677 0.633 0.625 0.051 15.46 6.45
20 4.680 0.649 0.644 0.058 19.48 6.67
Open in a new tab

Effects of different osmotic solutions on the effective moisture and solid diffusivities

The effective moisture and solid diffusivities (Dm and Ds, respectively) are dependent on several factors such as the moisture content, temperature, degree of shrinkage of food materials and osmotic environment (Seth and Sarkar 2004). The values of Dm and Ds under different osmotic conditions, obtained by Eqs. (11) and (12), respectively, are presented in Table 1. It can be seen that the Dm and Ds values ranged from 7.03 to 19.48 × 10−10 m2/s and 4.91 to 11.11 × 10−10 m2/s during UOD. These values of diffusivities corresponded with the results of literatures on apples (Ds and Dm were 0.31–0.69 × 10−9 m2/s and 0.35–0.50 × 10−9 m2/s, respectively) (Parniakov et al. 2016) and tomatoes (Ds and Dm were 1.21 × 10−10 m2/s and 4.08 × 10−10 m2/s, respectively) (Corrêa et al. 2016) during OD. As expected, the Dm and Ds values of mushrooms increased as the solution concentration increased, which again seemed to suggest that the higher solution concentration of the UOD had a faster mass transfer efficiency. This phenomenon could be due to an increase in the osmotic pressure gradient, which improved the rate of mass transfer during UOD and changed the porosity and cell permeabilization (İspir and Toğrul 2009; Rastogi and Ksms 1997).

Moreover, the sodium chloride solutions showed the best moisture transfer efficiency during the UOD (12.91–19.48 × 10−10 m2/s for Dm), followed by the glucose solutions (7.03–9.08 × 10−10 m2/s for Dm) and sucrose solutions (6.41–7.76 × 10−10 m2/s for Dm). Thus, the sodium chloride showed a faster rate for deceasing moisture compared to the other osmotic agents. However, the glucose solutions demonstrated the best solid transfer efficiency, and the Ds values (10.38–11.11 × 10−10 m2/s) were much higher than for sodium chloride (6.11–6.67 × 10−10 m2/s) and sucrose solutions (4.91–5.51 × 10−10 m2/s), which indicated that the solid gain rates of the button mushrooms were highest during UOD in the glucose solutions. The trends of Ds and Dm values corresponded with the S1, S2, WLe, and SGe coefficients during UOD with the different solutions.

Statistical analysis of the models

The moisture loss and solid gain data under different UOD conditions were converted to the moisture ratio (MR), and then curves of the MR verses-drying time (t) were fitted with Lewis (Newton), Henderson and Pabis, and Weibull models, respectively, as shown in Table 2. It appears that the Weibull model gave the highest R2 (0.9553–0.9902) as well as lowest RMSE (0.006887–0.02616) and χ2 values (0.001271–0.005148) among these models (Table 2). These results indicated that the Weibull model gave the best fit for describing the water loss of the mushrooms during UOD. Likewise, the Weibull model also provided the best fit for the solid gain changes of the mushrooms during UOD as indicated in Table 2. Figure 2 shows the comparison between the predicted values from Eq. (15) and actual values for the UOD products under the experimental conditions. It could be seen that the actual values were very similar to the predicted values based on the Weibull model. Comparable studies were also reported by Corzo and Bracho (2008) and Nuñez-Mancilla et al. (2011) when the OD processes were performed on sardine sheets and strawberries, respectively, and the Weibull models were found to fit for describing the mass transfer during the OD processes.

Table 2.

Coefficients of different models for moisture transfer and solid transfer of Agaricus bisporus during ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration

Mass transfer Models Coefficients Sucrose Glucose Sodium chloride
40% 50% 60% 40% 50% 60% 10% 15% 20%
Moisture transfer Lewis (Newton) k 0.0003496 0.0003969 0.0004398 0.000385 0.0004129 0.000516 0.0008334 0.001099 0.001642
R2 0.9875 0.9771 0.9523 0.9833 0.9693 0.9829 0.9986 0.9826 0.9493
RMSE 0.0545 0.06519 0.0756 0.06062 0.06927 0.07259 0.07435 0.06791 0.05058
χ2 0.02024 0.03363 0.0518 0.02801 0.03898 0.05734 0.1202 0.1492 0.1561
Henderson and Pabis α 0.8011 0.7515 0.7057 0.7697 0.7328 0.6718 0.5091 0.4177 0.2836
k 0.0002557 0.0002696 0.0002771 0.0002699 0.0002722 0.000316 0.0003909 0.0004318 0.0004815
R2 0.9752 0.9542 0.913 0.9659 0.9433 0.9491 0.9567 0.9713 0.9571
RMSE 0.02143 0.02793 0.03687 0.02467 0.03049 0.02768 0.02015 0.01359 0.01129
χ2 0.00337 0.005901 0.01055 0.004833 0.006696 0.007709 0.006178 0.004420 0.004892
Weibull α 0.6839 0.6372 0.5960 0.6578 0.6204 0.5944 0.5138 0.4719 0.4052
β 2989 2547 2221 2646 2417 1784 892 573 255
R2 0.9902 0.9806 0.9553 0.9856 0.9738 0.9789 0.988 0.9921 0.9833
RMSE 0.01336 0.018 0.02616 0.01589 0.02055 0.01757 0.01041 0.006973 0.006887
χ2 0.001328 0.002429 0.005148 0.002034 0.002928 0.003122 0.001559 0.001271 0.00189
Solid transfer Lewis (Newton) k 0.0002778 0.0002895 0.0003142 0.0006473 0.0006468 0.0006936 0.000353 0.0003665 0.0003752
R2 0.9458 0.9483 0.9613 0.9346 0.953 0.9699 0.8667 0.9156 0.9448
RMSE 0.05463 0.05817 0.06912 0.08468 0.816 0.08016 0.08492 0.07617 0.07133
χ2 0.01812 0.02092 0.0313 0.1106 0.104 0.1101 0.0515 0.04403 0.03908
Henderson and Pabis α 0.8487 0.8284 0.7899 0.5781 0.5868 0.5634 0.7344 0.7486 0.7516
k 0.0002131 0.0002144 0.0002196 0.0003342 0.0003422 0.0003534 0.0002212 0.000241 0.0002505
R2 0.9317 0.9313 0.896 0.8525 0.8776 0.8967 0.8201 0.8781 0.9129
RMSE 0.03519 0.03459 0.04128 0.04217 0.03881 0.03425 0.05249 0.04454 0.03791
χ2 0.007487 0.00732 0.01021 0.01851 0.01738 0.01457 0.01654 0.01337 0.009954
Weibull α 0.7047 0.6784 0.6314 0.5293 0.5395 0.5297 0.5751 0.6070 0.6194
β 4011 3851 3527 1284 1293 1166 3057 2867 2763
R2 0.9534 0.9576 0.9387 0.9147 0.9323 0.9477 0.8855 0.9265 0.9529
RMSE 0.02901 0.02705 0.03153 0.03163 0.02840 0.02397 0.04165 0.03434 0.02766
χ2 0.004971 0.004418 0.005843 0.009962 0.009084 0.00695 0.01011 0.007808 0.005182
Open in a new tab

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Comparison of experimental data and predicted data for moisture and solid ratio (MR and SR, respectively) of Agaricus bisporus during ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration with different solution concentrations of sucrose (a and d, respectively), glucose (b and e, respectively), and sodium chloride (c and f, respectively)

The parameters α and β which could be considered to be the shape and scale parameters of the Weibull model would be helpful to further analyse different UOD processes. The scale parameter β could be defined as the rate of the mass uptake process, and it represents the time required to accomplish approximately 63% of the mass uptake/water loss process and depends on the process mechanism (Moreira et al. 2008). For water loss processes of osmotic solutions, the sucrose solutions gave the highest β values (2221–2989 s), followed by the glucose solutions (1784–2646 s), and the sodium chloride solutions provided the lowest values (255–892 s). This finding implied that the rate of water loss in the sodium chloride was faster than those in the sucrose and glucose solutions. By the same token, compared to sodium chloride and sucrose solutions, the glucose solutions yielded the lowest β values (1166–1293 s) for the solid gain of the osmotic solutions, indicating that a higher velocity of solid gain in the mushrooms could be operated in glucose solutions.

Average density and microstructure

The average densities of samples after the ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration are shown in Fig. 3. With the increase in the osmotic concentration, the average densities of mushrooms increased as well. The average densities of mushrooms in 10% sodium chloride solution, 40% sucrose solution and 40% glucose solution were significantly lower (p < 0.05) than the mushrooms in higher osmotic concentrations. This phenomenon could be due to the higher concentration of osmotic solution causing the solute to easily infiltrate into the tissue during UOD. Moreover, there was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in the average density of mushrooms between 15 and 20% sodium chloride solution, 50% and 60% sucrose solution, 50% and 60% glucose solution, respectively. This finding means that the effect of the average density of mushrooms with a high osmotic concentration showed no difference.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

The average density of mushrooms after the ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration. Values not sharing the same superscript are significant (p < 0.05)

Figure 4 shows the microstructures of the fresh samples and the different osmotic samples. Compared to the fresh samples, the micrographs of samples with osmotic treatments (Fig. 4b–d) showed different degrees of damage in their tissues. This observation could be due to the water loss and solid gain occurring through the cells during UOD (Khin et al. 2007). The samples undergoing osmosis in sodium chloride solutions presented the worst damage. This result conformed to the earlier work performed in this study, which means that the higher rate of water loss that occurred in osmotic treatments with sodium chloride could lead to severe shrinkage and higher average densities. Moreover, there were similar internal pore structures between the glucose (Fig. 4e–g) and sucrose (Fig. 4h–j) treatments, and this further proved that similar deformation happened in these osmotic treatments and resulted in no differences in the average densities among these samples (Fig. 3).

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

The microstructure of mushrooms after the ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration. a non-osmotic treatment; b–d 10%, 15%, 20% w/w concentrations of sodium chloride, respectively; e–g 40%, 50% and 60% w/w concentrations of sucrose, respectively; h–j 40%, 50% and 60% w/w concentrations of sucrose, respectively

Taken together, the sucrose agents were recommended for use in the UOD of button mushrooms, although glucose and sodium chloride displayed better capacities for increasing the solid gain and water loss, respectively, based on the data. The results demonstrated that the samples undergoing osmosis in sodium chloride solutions presented more shrinkage compared to those in the other solutions which might be due to the higher rate of water loss. Meanwhile, the solid gain in sucrose was lower than those in glucose (Fig. 1) which indicated that the solid contents of the final products during UOD in sucrose solutions were lower.

Conclusion

In this study, three osmotic solutions, including sucrose, glucose and sodium chloride, were applied for the button mushroom UOD process, and the mass transfer characteristics, average density and microstructure of the samples were measured and compared. Based on the findings of this experiment, all three osmotic agents (sucrose, glucose and sodium chloride) had a significant effect on the mass transfer of button mushrooms during UOD. According to the statistical tests, the button mushrooms had the highest effective moisture and solid diffusivities in the sodium chloride and glucose solutions during UOD, respectively. Meanwhile, the Weibull model provided the best fit for the button mushroom dehydration during UOD due to its higher coefficient of determination (R2), lower reduced Chi square (χ2) and root mean square error (RMSE) values. Moreover, due to appropriate rates of effective moisture and solid diffusivities, better microstructure and relatively lower solid gain, the sucrose agents were considered and recommended for use in the UOD of button mushrooms, which can be widely applied industrially.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 31601482), the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (Grant No. BK20159086), the Qing Lan project of Jiangsu province and the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD).

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. Ahmed I, Qazi IM, Jamal S. Developments in osmotic dehydration technique for the preservation of fruits and vegetables. Innov Food Sci Emerg. 2016;34:29–43. doi: 10.1016/j.ifset.2016.01.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Azuara E, Beristain CI, Gutiérrez GF. A method for continuous kinetic evaluation of osmotic dehydration. Lwt Food Sci Technol. 1998;31:317–321. doi: 10.1006/fstl.1997.0364. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Chandra S, Kumari D. Recent development in osmotic dehydration of fruit and vegetables: a review. Crit Rev Food Sci. 2015;55:552–561. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2012.664830. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chenlo F, Moreira R, Fernández-Herrero C, Vázquez G. Mass transfer during osmotic dehydration of chestnut using sodium chloride solutions. J Food Eng. 2006;73:164–173. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.01.017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Corrêa JLG, Ernesto DB, de Mendonça KS. Pulsed vacuum osmotic dehydration of tomatoes: sodium incorporation reduction and kinetics modeling. Lwt Food Sci Technol. 2016;71:17–24. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2016.01.046. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Corzo O, Bracho N. Application of Weibull distribution model to describe the vacuum pulse osmotic dehydration of sardine sheets. Lwt Food Sci Technol. 2008;41:1108–1115. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2007.06.018. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Deng Y, Zhao Y. Effects of pulsed-vacuum and ultrasound on the osmodehydration kinetics and microstructure of apples (Fuji) J Food Eng. 2008;85:84–93. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2007.07.016. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Doymaz İ, İsmail O. Drying characteristics of sweet cherry. Food Bioprod Process. 2011;89:31–38. doi: 10.1016/j.fbp.2010.03.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Ertekin FK, Cakaloz T. Osmotic dehydration of peas: I. Influence of process variable on mass transfer. J Food Process Preserv. 1996;20:87–104. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-4549.1996.tb00848.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Fan F, Gallão MI, Rodrigues S. Effect of osmotic dehydration and ultrasound pre-treatment on cell structure: melon dehydration. Lwt Food Sci Technol. 2008;41:604–610. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2007.05.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Fernandes FAN, Gallão MI, Rodrigues S. Effect of osmosis and ultrasound on pineapple cell tissue structure during dehydration. J Food Eng. 2009;90:186–190. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2008.06.021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Fito P, Chiralt A. Osmotic dehydration: an approach to the modeling of solid food-liquid operations. Food Eng. 1997 doi: 10.1007/978-1-4615-6057-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Fito P, Chiralt A, Betoret N, et al. Vacuum impregnation and osmotic dehydration in matrix engineering: application in functional fresh food development. J Food Eng. 2001;49:175–183. doi: 10.1016/S0260-8774(00)00220-X. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Ganjloo A, Rahman RA, Bakar J, Osman A, Bimakr M. Kinetics modeling of mass transfer using Peleg’s equation during osmotic dehydration of seedless guava (Psidium guajava L.): effect of process parameters. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2012;5:2151–2159. doi: 10.1007/s11947-011-0546-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Herman-Lara E, Martínez-Sánchez CE, Pacheco-Angulo H, Carmona-García R, Ruiz-Espinosa H, Ruiz-López II. Mass transfer modeling of equilibrium and dynamic periods during osmotic dehydration of radish in NaCl solutions. Food Bioprod Process. 2013;91:216–224. doi: 10.1016/j.fbp.2012.10.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. İspir A, Toğrul İT. Osmotic dehydration of apricot: kinetics and the effect of process parameters. Chem Eng Res Des. 2009;87:166–180. doi: 10.1016/j.cherd.2008.07.011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Jiang T, Zheng X, Li J, Jing G, Cai L, Ying T. Integrated application of nitric oxide and modified atmosphere packaging to improve quality retention of button mushroom (Agaricus bisporus) Food Chem. 2011;126:1693–1699. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.12.060. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Jokic A, Gyura J, Levic L, Zavargo Z. Osmotic dehydration of sugar beet in combined aqueous solutions of sucrose and sodium chloride. J Food Eng. 2007;78:47–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.09.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Kapturowska A, Stolarzewicz I, Chmielewska I, Bialecka F. Ultrasounds-a tool to inactivate yeast and to extract intracellular protein. Zywn-Nauk Technol Jakosc. 2011;18:160–171. [Google Scholar]
  20. Khin MM, Zhou W, Perera CO. Impact of process conditions and coatings on the dehydration efficiency and cellular structure of apple tissue during osmotic dehydration. J Food Eng. 2007;79:817–827. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2006.02.046. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Lenart A, Flink MJ. Osmotic concentration of potato. II. Spatial distribution of the osmotic effect. Int J Food Sci Technol. 2010;19:65–89. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.1984.tb00327.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Mattila P, Könkö K, Eurola M, et al. Contents of vitamins, mineral elements, and some phenolic compounds in cultivated mushrooms. J Agric Food Chem. 2001;49:2343–2348. doi: 10.1021/jf001525d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Moreira R, Chenlo F, Chaguri L, Fernandes C. Water absorption, texture, and color kinetics of air-dried chestnuts during rehydration. J Food Eng. 2008;86:584–594. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2007.11.012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Nuñez-Mancilla Y, et al. Modeling mass transfer during osmotic dehydration of strawberries under high hydrostatic pressure conditions. Innov Food Sci Emerg. 2011;12:338–343. doi: 10.1016/j.ifset.2011.03.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Panagiotou NM, Karathanos VT, Maroulis ZB. Effect of osmotic agent on osmotic dehydration of fruits. Dry Technol. 1999;17:175–189. doi: 10.1080/07373939908917524. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Parniakov O, Bals O, Lebovka N, Vorobiev E. Effects of pulsed electric fields assisted osmotic dehydration on freezing-thawing and texture of apple tissue. J Food Eng. 2016;183:32–38. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2016.03.013. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Rastogi NK, Ksms R. Water and solute diffusion coefficients of carrot as a function of temperature and concentration during osmotic dehydration. J Food Eng. 1997;34:429–440. doi: 10.1016/S0260-8774(98)80034-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Rastogi NK, Angersbach A, Knorr D. Synergistic effect of high hydrostatic pressure pretreatment and osmotic stress on mass transfer during osmotic dehydratio. J Food Eng. 2000;45:25–31. doi: 10.1016/S0260-8774(00)00037-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Rastogi NK, Ksms R, Niranjan K, Knorr D. Recent developments in osmotic dehydration: methods to enhance mass transfer. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2002;13:48–59. doi: 10.1016/S0924-2244(02)00032-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Sareban M, Souraki BA. Anisotropic diffusion during osmotic dehydration of celery stalks in salt solution. Food Bioprod Process. 2016;98:161–172. doi: 10.1016/j.fbp.2016.01.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Seth D, Sarkar A. A lumped parameter model for effective moisture diffusivity in air drying of foods. Food Bioprod Process. 2004;82:183–192. doi: 10.1205/fbio.82.3.183.44181. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Walton K, Walker R, Ioannides C. Effect of baking and freeze-drying on the direct and indirect mutagenicity of extracts from the edible mushroom Agaricus bisporus. Food Chem Toxicol. 1998;36:315–320. doi: 10.1016/S0278-6915(97)00161-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Zhao SL, Liu QH, Ouyang ZC. Apex shift of circular biconcave vesicles. Int J Mod Phys B. 2003;17:4661–4665. doi: 10.1142/S0217979203022969. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Food Science and Technology are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES