Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2 Ultrasound Treatment
5
a
6 Department of Food Technology, Vocational School of Higher Education in Nizip, Gaziantep University,
8
b
9 Department of Food Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Gaziantep University, 27310, Gaziantep,
10 TURKEY
11
13
*
14 Corresponding author:
16 Department of Food Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Gaziantep University, 27310, Gaziantep, TURKEY
20
21 Abstract
22 Fick’s model together with Arrhenius relationship were successfully used to evaluate
23 water absorption of chickpea during soaking at a temperature range of 20-97 oC with 25 kHz
24 100 W, 40 kHz 100 W and 25 kHz 300 W ultrasound treatments. Use of ultrasound, increase
25 in ultrasound power and soaking temperature significantly (P<0.05) increased the water
1
27 chickpea was found as 61.47 oC. Activation energy (Ea) values of chickpea for below and
28 above gelatinization temperature were found to be 28.69 and 9.34 kJ mol-1, respectively.
30
32
33 ABBREVIATIONS
39 (Adana, Turkey)
40
41 1. Introduction
42 Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is one of the oldest and most widely consumed legumes in
43 the world, particularly in tropical and subtropical areas. Major chickpea producer and exporter
44 countries are India, Turkey, Pakistan, Iran Islamic Republic, and Australia. Chickpea is an
45 important source of proteins, carbohydrates, B-group vitamins and certain minerals (Chavan
46 et al., 1986; Christodoulou et al., 2006a). Food legumes decreased incidence of several
47 diseases, such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, obesity and diabetes (Bhathena &
48 Velasquez, 2002). Legumes are usually cooked before being used in the human diet to
49 improve the protein quality by destruction or inactivation of the heat labile anti-nutritional
50 factors (Wang et al., 1997). Recently, there has been increasing demand for research to
51 improve cooking of chickpeas in developed countries where chickpeas are mainly consumed
2
52 to improve overall nutritional status by replacing animal foods with legumes (Guillon &
53 Champ, 1996). The most common process of pre-soaking usually is not sufficient to decrease
54 overall cooking time of chickpea. Understanding water absorption in legumes during soaking
55 is of practical importance since it affects subsequent processing operations and the quality of
57 Ultrasound is a form of energy generated by sound waves of frequencies that are too high
58 to be detected by human ear, i.e. above 16 kHz (Jayasooriya et al., 2004). Ultrasound
59 cavitations could result in the occurrence of micro streaming which is able to enhance heat
60 and mass transfer. Ultrasonic is a rapidly growing field of research, which is finding
61 increasing use in the food industry (Jayasooriya et al., 2004; Zheng & Sun, 2006). Ultrasound
62 has been used to enhance mass transfer in solid/liquid food systems (Fuente et al., 2004; Riera
64 oligosaccharides in legumes (Han & Baik (2006) and to reduce cooking time of rice
66 In the food industry, chickpea is pre-processed in the factories to produce humus (as
67 arabic food), canned products, blended powder products. To produce these products, chickpea
68 is soaked and cooked. Therefore, this study supplies important information and ultrasonic
69 technique to process it easily. In addition, it is known that chickpea is a hard legume to cook.
70 Therefore, ultrasonic technique supply a new solution to decrease soaking and cooking time.
71 These studies show that thermosonication can be used to increase the water absorption
72 during soaking operation. The objective of this study was to determine the applicability of
73 Fick’s second law of diffusion in modeling the water diffusion characteristics of ultrasound
75
76
3
77 2. Materials and Methods
79 Certified chickpeas (inci-2003) with initial moisture content of 11.58 % (d.b.) and an
80 average diameter of 8.00 (±0.27) mm (measured with Mutitoyo No. 505–633, Japan, digital
81 micrometer) obtained from Çukurova Agricultural Research Institute (Adana, Turkey), were
82 used throughout this study. After removing foreign materials and damaged seeds, they were
84
86 The soaking of chickpea was performed at 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 87, 92 and 97
o
87 C without, and with 25 kHz 100 W (acoustic energy density (EAD) of 0.025 W cm-3), 40
88 kHz 100 W (EAD of 0.025 W cm-3) and 25 kHz 300 W (EAD of 0.017 W cm-3) ultrasound
89 treatments. One hundred grams of chickpea seeds were immersed in 2000 ml deionized water
90 (1:20); conventional and ultrasonic soaking were both performed in ultrasonic (US) tanks
91 (Intersonik Co., Turkey) until seeds were fully hydrated. Four grams of chickpea and 80 ml
92 soaking water (1:20) were quickly removed from the tanks for the moisture content
93 determination within 30 minutes intervals. Chickpea seeds were gently wiped with clean
94 paper towel to remove excess water and ground for the moisture content determination. The
95 moisture contents of randomly selected grains (5 g) were determined in dry basis at 105 oC for
96 48 h using oven drying method (AOAC, 2002) and used for Fick’s modeling of water
97 diffusion. The experiments were replicated twice and measurements were duplicated.
98
100 Four grams of chickpea and 80 mL of soaking water (1:20 ratio) were removed from the
101 soaking chamber after 3.5 h of soaking operation at 97 oC. Soluble solids content (Brix, g/g%)
4
102 of the soaking water was measured at 25 oC by using Abbe-refractometer (Opton-F.G. Bode
103 and Co., Germany) and was reported as maximum soluble solids loss.
104
106 Birefringence images of the chickpea samples at soaking temperatures of 40, 50, 60 and
107 70 oC were captured in a PC using a polarized light microscope (OLYPOS TX51, Euromex
108 Microscopen, Ed Arnhem, Netherlands) equipped with a video camera (VC 3031, Euromex
110 (cooked chickpea flour/water) samples was prepared. After 30 minutes of mixing, 20 µL of
111 sample solution was spread on lamella, and the birefringence images were captured through
112 the microscope. The gelatinization temperature of the grains is defined as the temperature at
114
115 2.5. Statistical analysis
116 SIGMA PLOT 10 (Jandel Scientific, San Francisco, USA) were used to fit the models
117 and to plot the data. ANOVA and DUNCAN Multiple Range Tests, using SPSS version 16, at
119
122 Food legumes are usually soaked before cooking to provide sufficient amount of moisture
123 for gelatinization of starch and/or gelation of protein. The most important property for
124 soaking of chickpea is the moisture content to achieve the proper cooking operation. It could
125 be achieved either through conditioning below the gelatinization temperature and then
126 cooking above the gelatinization temperature, or through direct cooking above the
127 gelatinization temperature. Mass transfer plays a key role in food processing, like
5
128 humidification and dehumidification, dehydration, distillation, absorption, etc. The driving
129 force for mass diffusion is the concentration difference. In solids, there can obviously be no
130 convection and all movements are by molecular diffusion due to random molecular
131 movements.
132 The water absorption characteristics of chickpea were analyzed using moisture content
133 (%, d.b.) values in this study. The mean moisture contents and the statistical analysis of
134 soaked chickpeas at 20-97 oC without ultrasound, and with 25 kHz 100 W, 40 kHz 100 W and
135 25 kHz 300 W ultrasounds treatment were illustrated in Figures 1-4 and tabulated in Tables 1-
136 4. The moisture contents (%, d.b.) of chickpea during soaking were significantly (P<0.05)
137 increased as the temperature, time and power of ultrasounds increased (Figures 1-4 and
138 Tables 1-4). Chickpea water absorption curves are characterized by an initial phase of rapid
139 water pickup followed by an equilibrium phase, during which the chickpea approaches its full
140 soaking capacity. The rate of water absorption increased with increasing temperature as
141 suggested by the slopes of the absorption curves getting steeper with increased temperature
143
145 Many theoretical, empirical, and semi-empirical models have been employed for
146 modeling, to relate experimental results with physical laws, the water absorption behavior of
147 agricultural products during soaking. The theoretical mechanisms for the kinetics of the
148 diffusion process have been proposed for the Fickian diffusion model by some researchers
149 before (Bello et al., 2004; Kashaninejad et al., 2007; Sabapathy et al., 2005; Seyhan-Gürtaş et
151 Moisture diffusivity is an important transport property necessary for the design and
152 optimization of all the processes that involve internal moisture movement. Diffusion
6
153 coefficient is the factor of proportionality representing the quantity of substance diffusing
154 across a unit area through a unit concentration gradient in unit time. Total amounts of
155 diffusing substance entered a spherical grain of radius r can be obtained from the following
M −Me ∞
6 D eff π 2 2
157 =∑ exp − n t (1)
Mo −Me n =1 n 2π 2 r2
158 Where M, Me, Mo are moisture contents (%, d.b.) at any time, equilibrium and initial,
159 respectively. Deff and r are effective diffusion constant (m2 s-1) and average radius of chickpea
160 (m), respectively. A fit of the experimental data for soaking times leads to the determination
161 of an average diffusion coefficient, Deff, via Eq. 1 which is Fick’s law of diffusion of water in
162 solids of spherical shape. The chickpea seeds may be approximated as spheres with a mean
163 diameter of 0.0040 m (±0.0001). Fick’s laws of diffusion (Eq. 1) and its derived equations
164 account for most of the models used in food science, as can be observed from publications
165 (Garcia-Pascual et al., 2006; Gowen et al., 2007; Sabapathy et al., 2005). Some of the
166 common assumptions and simplifications often made for solving Fick’s second law (Eq. 1)
167 include the following: 1) the moisture transfer is one dimensional, unsteady state in the radial
168 direction, 2) chickpea is considered to be an almost spherical object, 3) the initial temperature
169 and moisture distributions are uniform, 4) there is a moisture gradient in the chickpea with
170 respect to time, 5) the thermal properties are constant, 6) chickpea is considered as a
171 homogeneous isotropic solid, 7) moisture transfer to and from the seed is due to concentration
172 gradient, 8) the quantity of solid loss in the grains during cooking was neglected, 9) for long
173 soaking times, only the first term of series equation was significant.
174 In this study, the effect of loss of soluble solids from chickpea seeds was not taken into
175 account in calculating the moisture content because maximum loss of soluble solids from
176 chickpea at temperatures of 97 oC for 3.5 h soaking was about 2.06 % of the original mass
7
177 which in comparison with the water gain was assumed to be negligible. Other researchers
178 have also reported similar assumption for other seeds (Sayar et al., 2001; Sabapathy et al.,
179 2005). When these assumptions were applied on Fick’s second law, the following equation
6 Deff π 2 t
181 M = M e + ( M o − M e ) 2 exp − (2)
π r 2
182 The Fick’s law of diffusion function is related to diffusion of water and diffusion
183 coefficient (Deff). For mathematical modeling of the variation of moisture content of chickpea
184 during soaking at each temperature without, and with ultrasounds treatment, Fick’s law model
185 was tested. The parameters in this model such as Deff (main parameter), Me, were estimated by
186 using the non-linear regression analysis of equations (2) and presented on Table 5. The
187 performance parameters of the model, the coefficient of determination (R2) and percentage of
188 root mean square error (% RMSE) are given on Table 5. The course of the hydration,
189 adequately fitted by a nonlinear equation (Eq. 2), and reveals the fact that the seed moisture
190 content increases with soaking time, use of ultrasound treatments and increase in used
191 ultrasound power at all temperatures (Figures 1-4 and Tables 1-5). Water absorption ceases
192 when the seed attained the equilibrium water content (Sayar et al., 2001). The diffusion
193 process, which obeys the Fick’s law model, was found to be a thermally activated process and
195 When the temperature was raised from 20 to 97 oC, Deff values were increased from 1.40 x
196 10-10 to 7.72 x 10-10 (m2 s-1), also significant (P<0.05) increase was observed in
197 the equilibrium moisture content (Me) (from 119.82 to 150.05 (%, d.b.)) (Table 5). R2 and %
198 RMSE values were in the range of 0.9894-0.9960 and 2.51-8.03, respectively. The magnitude
199 of diffusion coefficient reported by Sayar et al. (2001) for temperatures ranging from 20 to
200 100 °C were 2.43 x 10-10 to 39.16 x 10-10 m2 s-1 for spring chickpea and 1.99 x 10-10 to 36.94 x
8
201 10-10 m2 s-1 for winter chickpea. The water diffusion coefficient of chickpea ranged from 9.71
202 x 10-11 to 5.98 x 10-10 m2 s-1 in the study of Seyhan-Gürtaş et al. (2001). The diffusion
203 coefficients of chickpeas for temperature range of 45 - 98.7 oC were found as 0.14 x 10-10 -
204 5.51 x 10-10 m2 s-1 in another study (Sabapathy et al., 2005). Diffusivity values reported in this
205 study were similar to the literature results. Moisture absorption at elevated temperatures may
206 induce irreversible changes of the seeds, such as chemical and structural degradation. It was
207 reported that the rate of water absorption by legumes increased with increase in time and
208 temperature of the soaking water. As the process continued, water absorption rate decreased
209 steadily due to water filling into the free capillary and intermicellar spaces, and increasing the
210 extraction rates of soluble solids from grains (Quast & de Silva, 1977; Tang et al., 1994;
212
213 3.3. A general model to describe the water diffusion as a function of soaking time and
214 temperature
215 Previous studies showed that temperature is one of the most important factors affecting
216 the water diffusivity and water absorption of agricultural products (Kashaninejad et al., 2007;
217 Turhan et al., 2002). An Arrhenius type equation (Eq. 3), which had been used previously to
218 describe the temperature dependant hydration kinetics of legumes (Abu-Ghannam &
219 McKenna, 1997; Turhan et al., 2002), were used to evaluate temperature dependency of
Ea 1
221 ln( D eff ) = ln( D ref ) − ( )( ) (3)
R T
222 Where Deff, T, Ea and R are effective diffusion coefficient of the Fick’s model, soaking
223 temperature (in K), activation energy for the hydration process in kJ mol-1 and ideal gas
224 constant in 8.314 x10-3 kJ mol-1 K-1, respectively. Dref is reference diffusion rate constant for
225 the Fick’s model. The rate of water transfer and/or starch gelatinization in whole cereal and
9
226 legume grains were found to be changing linearly with temperature and every curve brake at
227 a specific temperature which is close to gelatinization temperature (Bakshi & Singh, 1980;
228 Sayar et al., 2001; Sağol et al., 2006). Arrhenius plots of the natural logarithm of rate
229 constants versus the inverse of T (K) for chickpeas are superposed in Figure 5. The activation
230 energy, Ea, is related to the slope of this graph, and shows the temperature dependence of Deff.
231 To locate the temperature at which the break in the Arrhenius curve for soaked chickpeas
232 occurred, the estimated natural log of rate constants (Deff) was fitted to a linear model with
233 break point and the break temperature was estimated to be 61.47 oC (R2= 0.9349-0.9954) for
234 the model (Muggeo, 2003). Such a discontinuity in the Arrhenius curve has been observed
235 during the soaking of rice (Bakshi & Singh, 1980) and chickpeas (Sayar et al., 2001), and it
236 has been suggested that the break is linked to the early onset of starch gelatinization. The
237 process of gelatinization is generally thought to occur between 63 and 70 oC for chickpeas
238 (Fernandez & Berry, 1989). However, it has been suggested (Sayar et al., 2001; Turhan et al.,
239 2002) that chickpea gelatinization may actually begin between the lower temperatures of 55
240 and 60 oC. Starch granules of the chickpeas used in this study kept the integrity of Maltese
241 crosses till 61 oC (Figure 6). They noticeably started to decrease in number and distort in
242 shape between 60 and 70 oC (Figure 6) pointing that gelatinization temperature of chickpeas
243 starts between 60 and 70 oC. This observed temperature range is fairly close to the reported
244 gelatinization temperature of 63-70 oC for chickpea (Fernandez & Berry, 1989). It is possible
245 that the break in the Arrhenius curve for soaked chickpeas was due to partial gelatinization
247 Incorporating the temperature break at 61.47 oC for the Fick’s model, time and
248 temperature dependence of moisture content for soaked chickpeas, and dependence of initial
249 and equilibrium moisture contents, the following general models were derived to describe the
10
6 π2 −5 − 3450.79
251 M = M e + (M o − M e ) 2
exp− 2 1⋅ 696×10 exp( )t (≤ 60 oC) (4)
π r T
6 π2 −1123.56
252 M = M e + (M o − M e ) 2 exp− 2 1.613×10−8 exp( )t ( > 60 oC) (5)
π r T
253 Equations 4 and 5 can be used to find the moisture content of chickpea during
254 soaking/cooking at any time (seconds) and temperature (K) providing that Mo and Me are
255 known.
256 The Arrhenius equation has been previously used to describe the temperature dependent
257 hydration kinetics of other grains and seeds (Maskan, 2002; Turhan et al., 2002). The Deff
258 values decreased as temperature increased suggesting a corresponding increase in the initial
259 water absorption rate. As it is evident from Figure 5, the linearity of the curves indicates an
261 When the Arrhenius equation (3) was applied to the Deff values for temperatures below
262 and above break point (61.47 oC) separately, the activation energy values of 28.69
263 (R2=0.9756) and 9.34 (R2=0.9954) kJ mol-1 were calculated, respectively. This value agrees
264 well with the literature value of 19.50 kJ mol-1 for the activation energy of osmotic hydration
265 of chickpeas at 5-50 oC (Pinto and Esin, 2004). The activation energies of chickpea were
266 found as 41.79 kJ mol-1 and 8 kJ mol-1 for 25-37 oC and 37-60 oC temperature ranges by
267 Goven et al. (2007). In another study, the activation energy for chickpea was 48 and 18 kJ
268 mol-1 for temperature bellow and above 55 oC, respectively (Sayar et al., 2001). The lower
269 activation energy for the rate of water transfer above the gelatinization
270 temperature implies that water travels faster in gelatinized chickpea than in ungelatinized
271 chickpea.
272
273
11
274 3.4. Effect of ultrasounds on water diffusion during soaking of chickpeas
275 One emergent application of power ultrasound in food industry is the enhancement of
276 mass transfer in processes where diffusion takes place. Power ultrasound introduces that
277 pressure variation at solid/liquid interfaces, and therefore increases the moisture absorption
278 rate. Acoustic energy also causes oscillating velocities and micro streaming at the interfaces
279 which may affect the diffusion boundary layer (Gallego-Juarez, 1998). Furthermore,
280 ultrasonic waves also produce rapid series of alternative contractions and expansions (sponge
281 effect) of the material in which they are traveling; this alternating stress creates microscopic
282 channels which may make the moisture gain easier. In addition, acoustic waves may produce
283 cavitations of water molecules inside the solid matrix, which may be beneficial for the gain of
285 The effects of ultrasounds on water absorption of chickpeas were illustrated in Figures 2-
286 4. The statistical analysis of moisture contents were tabulated in Tables 1-4. Application of 25
287 kHz 100 W ultrasound significantly (P<0.05) increased the water absorption of chickpea for
288 all temperatures (20-97 oC). The moisture content (%, d.b.) values of chickpea were found to
289 be increased from 76.91 to 85.14 % (d.b), when the 25 kHz 100 W ultrasound was applied at
290 20 oC and 180 min soaking. Increase in power of ultrasounds (from 100 to 300 W) also
291 further significantly (P<0.05) increased the moisture content (from 85.14 to 91.89 %) of
292 chickpea during 20 oC and 180 min soaking. Similarly, increase in power (100 to 300 W)
293 increased the moisture content of soaked chickpea at all other temperatures for a given
294 soaking time. However, 40 kHz 100 W ultrasound applications resulted in slight changes
295 (mostly increases) in moisture values. Increase in ultrasound frequency from 25 to 40 kHz
296 insignificantly (P>0.05) decreased the moisture content (%, d.b.) from 76.91 to 76.55 % at the
12
298 Deff of the Fick's law model was main parameter for the ultrasonic assisted process of
299 diffusion which was compared with the conventional soaking. At all temperatures, Deff values
300 found from the Fick’s model were significantly increased when 25 kHz 100 W ultrasound
301 treatment applied and also when ultrasound power increased to 300 W (Table 5). For soaking
302 at 20 oC, Deff values changed from 1.40x10-10 to 1.70x10-10 and to 2.01x10-10 m2 s-1 for non-
303 ultrasound, 25 kHz 100 W and 25 kHz 300 W ultrasound treatments, respectively. Deff
304 changes at all temperatures were significant (P<0.05) (Table 5). The ultrasound treatment
305 increased the water diffusion of chickpea during soaking due to increasing of mass diffusion
306 rate (Fuente et al., 2004). However, application of high frequency ultrasonic (40 kHz) for all
307 soaking temperatures did not significantly (P>0.05) affect or/and decreased the water
308 absorption rate and the diffusion coefficient of chickpea (Tables 2-5 and Figures 2-4). Change
309 of ultrasound frequency from 25 to 40 kHz decrease Deff value from 1.40x10-10 to 1.28 x10-10
311
312 4. Conclusion
313 Water diffusion rates of chickpea significantly increased (P<0.05) with increasing of
314 soaking time, temperature and power of ultrasound (100 - 300 W). High ultrasound
315 frequencies such as 40 kHz did not significantly (P>0.05) affect the water diffusion of
316 chickpea during soaking. Fick’s diffusion constant (Deff) for a temperature range of 20-97 oC
317 increased from 1.40 x 10-10 to 11.9 x 10-10 (m2 s-1) with ultrasound application.
318 Fick’s second law model where Arrhenius relationship inserted for Deff can be used to
319 determine moisture content of chickpeas as a function of soaking time and temperature.
320 Average gelatinization temperature of chickpea from the water absorption model was found
321 as 61.47 oC. Activation energy (Ea) values of chickpea for below and above gelatinization
13
322 temperature of 61.47 oC were found to be 28.69 and 9.34 kJ mol-1, respectively. Ultrasound
324
325 References
326 Abu-Ghannam, N. & Mckenna, B. (1997). Hydration kinetics of red kidney beans (Phaseolus
328 AOAC. (2002). Official methods of analysis of AOAC International, 17th Ed., Revision I,
330 Bakshi, A.S. & Singh, R.P. (1980). Kinetics of water diffusion and starch gelatinization
332 Bello, M., Tolaba, M.P. & Suarez, C. (2004). Factors affecting water uptake of rice grain
334 Bhathena, S.J. & Velasquez, M.T. (2002). Beneficial role of dietary phytoestrogens in obesity
336 Chavan, J.K., Kadam, S.S. & Salunkhe, D.K. (1986). Biochemistry and technology of
337 chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) seeds. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 25,
338 107–132.
339 Christodoulou, V., Bampidis, V.A., Hucko, B., Iliadis, C. & Mudrik, Z. (2006a). Nutritional
340 value of chickpeas in rations of broiler chickens. Archiv Geflügelk, 70, 112–118.
341 Crank, J. (1975). The mathematics of diffusion (2nd ed). London: Oxford University Press.
342 Fernandez, M.L. & Berry, J.W. (1989). The effect of germination on chickpea starch. Starch,
344 Fuente, S.D.L., Riera, E. & Gallego, J.A. (2004). Effect of Power Ultrasound on Mass
14
346 Gallego-Juarez, J.A. (1998). Some applications of air-borne power ultrasound to food
347 processing, in Povey, M. J. W. and Mason, T.J. (eds). Ultrasound in Food Processing
349 Garcia-Pascual, P., Sanjuan, N., Melis, R. & Mulet, A. (2006). Morchella esculenta (morel)
351 Gowen, A., Abu-Ghannam, N., Frias, J. & Oliveira, J. (2007). Modeling the water absorption
352 process in chickpeas (Cicer arietinum L.)-The effect of blanching pre-treatment on water
353 intake and texture kinetics. Journal of Food Engineering, 78, 810-819.
354 Guillon, F. & Champ, M. (1996). Grain legumes and transit in humans. In Grain Legumes,
356 Han, I.H. & Baik, B.K. (2006). Oligosaccharide Content and Composition of Legumes and
357 Their Reduction by Soaking, Cooking, Ultrasound, and High Hydrostatic Pressure. Cereal
359 Hoseney, R. (1994). Principles of Cereal Science and Technology, 2nd ed. Am. Assoc. Cereal
361 Jayasooriya, S.D., Bhandari, B.R., Torley, P. & D’Arcy, B.R. (2004). Effect of high power
364 Kashaninejad, M., Maghsoudlou, Y., Rafiee, S. & Khomeiri, M. (2007). Study of hydration
365 kinetics and density changes of rice (Tarom Mahali) during hydrothermal processing,
367 Maskan, M. (2002). Effect of processing on hydration kinetics of three wheat products of the
369 Muggeo, V.M. (2003). Estimating regression models with unknown break-points. Statistics in
15
371 Mulet, A., Carcel, J.A., Sanjuan, N. & Bon, J. (2003). New food drying Technologies-use of
373 Quast, D.G. & Silva, S.D. (1977). Temperature dependence of hydration rate and effect of
374 hydration on the cooking rate of dry legumes. Journal of Food Science, 42, 1299-1303.
375 Pinto, G. & Esin, A. (2004). Kinetics of the osmotic hydration of chickpeas. Journal of
377 Riera, E., Golas, Y., Blanco, A., Gallego, J.A., Blasco, M. & Mulet, A. (2004). Mass transfer
380 Sabapathy, N.D., Tabil, L.G. & Baik, O.D. (2005). Moisture Absorption in Kabuli Type
381 Chickpea During Soaking and Cooking. ASAE Annual International Meeting.
382 Sağol, S., Turhan, M. & Sayar, S. (2006). A potential method for determining in situ
383 gelatinization temperature of starch using initial water transfer rate in whole cereals.
385 Sayar, S., Turhan, M. & Gunasekaran, S. (2001). Analysis of chickpea soaking by
386 simultaneous water transfer and water–starch reaction. Journal of Food Engineering, 50,
387 91–98.
388 Seyhan-Gürtaş, F., Mehmet, A.K. & Evranuz, Ö.E. (2001). Water diffusion coefficients of
389 selected legumes grown in Turkey as affected by temperature and variety. Turkey Journal
391 Sopade, P.A. & Obekpa, J.A. (1990). Modeling water absorption soybean, cowpea and
392 peanuts at three temperatures using Peleg’s equation. Journal of Food Science, 55, 1084-
393 1087.
394 Tang, J., Sokhansanj, S. & Sosulski, F.W. (1994). Moisture-absorption characteristics of
395 Laird lentils and hard shell seeds. Cereal Chemistry, 71, 423–428.
16
396 Turhan, M., Sayar, S. & Gunasekaran, S. (2002). Application of Peleg model to study water
397 absorption in chickpea during soaking. Journal of Food Engineering, 53, 153-159.
398 Wambura, P., Yang, W. & Wang, Y. (2008). Power Ultrasound Enhanced One-Step Soaking
399 and Gelatinization for Rough Rice Parboiling. International Journal of Food Engineering,
400 4, 1-12.
401 Wang, N., Lewis, M.J., Brennan, J.G. & Westby, A. (1997). Effect of processing methods on
402 nutrients and anti-nutritional factors in cowpea. Food Chemistry, 58, 59–68.
403 Zheng, L. & Sun, D.W. (2006). Innovative applications of power ultrasound during food
404 freezing processes-a review. Food Science and Technology, 17, 16-23.
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
17
420 Figure 1. Means of experimental and predicted moisture contents (% g/g, d.b.) of chickpeas
422
423 Figure 2. Means of experimental and predicted moisture contents (% g/g, d.b.) of chickpeas
424 during soaking at 20 (A), 30 (B) and 40 (C) oC temperatures without and with ultrasound
425 treatments.
426
427 Figure 3. Means of experimental and predicted moisture contents (% g/g, d.b.) of chickpeas
428 during soaking at 50 (A), 60 (B) and 70 (C) oC temperatures without and with ultrasound
429 treatments.
430
431 Figure 4. Means of experimental and predicted moisture contents (% g/g, d.b.) of chickpeas
432 during soaking at 87 (A), 92 (B) and 97 (C) oC temperatures without and with ultrasound
433 treatments.
434
435 Figure 5. Arrhenius plot of Fick’s law model of diffusion constant, Deff, of chickpea over the
437
438 Figure 6. Effect of soaking temperature on the birefriengence of chickpea starch at 40, 50, 60
440
441
442
443
444
18
160
140 20 oC
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Time (min)
445
446
447 Figure 1. Means of experimental and predicted moisture contents (% g/g, d.b.) of chickpeas
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
19
140
120
80
20 oC (control)
60
20 oC + 25 kHz 100 W US
40 20 oC + 40 kHz 100 W US
20 oC + 25 kHz 300 W US
20 Fick's model
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
458 (A)
140
120
Moisture content (%g/g, d.b.)
100
80
60 30 oC (control)
30 oC + 25 kHz 100 W US
40
30 oC + 40 kHz 100 W US
20 30 oC + 25 kHz 300 W US
Fick's model
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (min)
459
460 (B)
140
120
Moisture content (%g/g, d.b.)
100
80
40 oC (control)
60
40 oC + 25 kHz 100 W US
40 oC + 40 kHz 100 W US
40
40 oC + 25 kHz 300 W US
20 Fick's model
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (min)
461
462 (C)
463
464 Figure 2. Means of experimental and predicted moisture contents (% g/g, d.b.) of chickpeas
465 during soaking at 20 (A), 30 (B) and 40 (C) oC temperatures without and with ultrasound
466 treatments.
20
180
160
120
100
50 oC (control)
80
50 oC + 25 kHz 100 W US
60 50 oC + 40 kHz 100 W US
40 50 oC + 25 kHz 300 W US
20 Fick's model
0
0 100 200 300 400
Time (min)
467
468 (A)
140
120
Moisture content (%g/g, d.b.)
100
80
60 oC (control)
60 60 oC + 25 kHz 100 W US
60 oC + 40 kHz 100 W US
40
60 oC + 25 kHz 300 W US
Fick's model
20
0
0 100 200 300
Time (min)
469
470 (B)
160
140
Moisture content (%g/g, d.b.)
120
100
80 70 oC (control)
70 oC + 25 kHz 100 W US
60
70 oC + 40 kHz 100 W US
40 70 oC + 25 kHz 300 W US
Fick's model
20
0
0 100 200 300 400
Time (min)
471
472 (C)
473
474 Figure 3. Means of experimental and predicted moisture contents (% g/g, d.b.) of chickpeas
475 during soaking at 50 (A), 60 (B) and 70 (C) oC temperatures without and with ultrasound
476 treatments.
21
160
140
100
80 87 oC (control)
87 oC + 25 kHz 100 W US
60
87 oC + 40 kHz 100 W US
40 87 oC + 25 kHz 300 W US
Fick's model
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (min)
477
478 (A)
160
140
Moisture content (%g/g, d.b.)
120
100
80
92 oC (control)
60 92 oC + 25 kHz 100 W US
92 oC + 40 kHz 100 W US
40
92 oC + 25 kHz 300 W US
20 Fick's model
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (min)
479
480 (B)
160
140
Moisture content (%g/g, d.b.)
120
100
97 oC (control)
80 97 oC + 25 kHz 100 W US
60 97 oC + 40 kHz 100 W US
97 oC + 25 kHz 300 W US
40 Fick's model
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (min)
481
482 (C)
483
484 Figure 4. Means of experimental and predicted moisture contents (% g/g, d.b.) of chickpeas
485 during soaking at 87 (A), 92 (B) and 97 (C) oC temperatures without and with ultrasound
486 treatments.
22
-20,5
Experimental (20-60 oC)
o
Experimental (60-97 C)
y= -10.9844- 3450.7955*x (R2=0.9756) (20-60 oC)
-21,0
y= -17.9424-1123.565*x (R2 =0.9954) (60- 97 oC)
ln (Deff, m s )
2 -1
-21,5
-22,0
-22,5
-23,0
0,0026 0,0028 0,0030 0,0032 0,0034 0,0036
1/T (1/K)
487
488
489 Figure 5. Arrhenius plot of Fick’s law model of diffusion constant, Deff, of chickpea over the
491
23
492
494
496
497 Figure 6. Effect of soaking temperature on the birefriengence of chickpea starch at 40, 50, 60
499
500
501
502
24
503 Table 1. Summary of multiple range analysis (Duncan test) on moisture contents (%, d.b.) of
505
507 1-9
Indicate statistical differences between each column at constant temperatures, α=0.05.
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
25
524 Table 2. Summary of multiple range analysis (Duncan test) on moisture contents (%, d.b.) of
525 soaked chickpeas at 20, 30 and 40 oC with and without ultrasound treatments.
526
528
529
530
26
531 Table 3. Summary of multiple range analysis (Duncan test) on moisture contents (%, d.b.) of
532 soaked chickpeas at 50, 60 and 70 oC with and without ultrasound treatments.
533
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
27
542 Table 4. Summary of multiple range analysis (Duncan test) on moisture contents (%, d.b.) of
543 soaked chickpeas at 87, 92 and 97 oC with and without ultrasound treatments.
544
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
28
556 Table 5. Predicted parameters of Fick’s model during soaking of chickpeas at different
558
29