American Journal of Food Science and Technology
ISSN (Print): 2333-4827 ISSN (Online): 2333-4835 Website: http://www.sciepub.com/journal/ajfst Editor-in-chief: Hyo Choi
Open Access
Journal Browser
Go
American Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2019, 7(6), 189-194
DOI: 10.12691/ajfst-7-6-4
Open AccessArticle

Comparative Analysis of Thermal Properties of Two Varieties of Periwinkle Relevant to Its Processing Equipment Design

Inemesit Edem Ekop1, , Kayode Joshua Simonyan2 and Udochukwu Nelson Onwuka2

1Department of Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Akwa Ibom State University, Ikot Akpaden, P.M.B. 1167, Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria.

2Department of Agricultural and Bioresources Engineering, College of Engineering and Engineering Technology, Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike, P.M.B 7262,Umuahia, Abia State, Nigeria

Pub. Date: August 09, 2019

Cite this paper:
Inemesit Edem Ekop, Kayode Joshua Simonyan and Udochukwu Nelson Onwuka. Comparative Analysis of Thermal Properties of Two Varieties of Periwinkle Relevant to Its Processing Equipment Design. American Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2019; 7(6):189-194. doi: 10.12691/ajfst-7-6-4

Abstract

This study was conducted to investigate and compare the thermal properties of two varieties: Tympanotonus fuscatus and Pachymelania aurita of Periwinkle in Nigeria. The thermal properties, namely; specific heat capacity,Cp, thermal conductivity, k, thermal diffusity,α, thermal absorptivity, γ and thermal effusivity, ∈ of Periwinkle samples were determined. The mean thermal conductivity of T. fuscatus was found to be 0.085±0.00015 W/m.K at temperatures of 308 – 373 K, while that of P. aurita was 0.0952±0.00056 W/m.K at the same temperature range.The average specific heat capacity value of T. fuscatus was found to be 2403.663±3.4379 J/kg.K at temperature of 308 – 373 K lower than that of P. aurita having a mean value of 2832.314±1.7385 J/kg.K at the same temperature. The mean thermal diffisivity of T. fuscatus was found to be 2.6553×10-8 m2/s while that of P. aurita was found to be 5.6790×10-8 m2/s. The average values for thermal absorptivity and effusivity of T. fuscatus and P. aurita were obtained as 81.085m-1; 525.084 W.s1/2/m2K and 55.441 m-1; 396.952 W.s1/2/m2K, respectively. The results shown that average thermal absorptivity and effusivity values were higher in T. fuscatus than P. aurita. A Tukey pairwise comparison analysis carried out on the mean values of these thermal properties of T. fuscatus and P. aurita revealed that there is statistically significant difference at α<5% between the thermal properties of the two varieties of periwinkle samples. These data would help us in predicting and controlling the heat flux during the design of periwinkle processing equipment.

Keywords:
periwinkle varieties T. fuscatus P. aurita specific heat capacity thermal conductivity thermal diffusivity thermal properties

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]  Kiin-kabari DB, Hart AD, Nyeche PT. Nutritional composition of selected shellfish consumed in River State, Nigeria. Amer. J. Food Nutr. 2017; 5(4):142-146.
 
[2]  Ekanem AP, Job BE. Nutritional status of two periwinkle species from a tropical creek in Nigeria. African Journal of Environmental Pollution and Health 2010; 8(1): 41-44.
 
[3]  Arularasan S, Lyla PS, Kesavan K, Khan SA. Recipes for the Mesogastropods – Strombus canavium. Adv. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2009; 2(1): 31-35.
 
[4]  Ariahu CC, Ilori MO. Use of Periwinkles as sources of dietary protein: The Nutritional, Toxicological, Processing, And Policy Implications. Food Reviews International, 1992; 8: 2, 223-233.
 
[5]  Rahma, MS. Food properties handbook.2nd edition. Taylor and Francis Group 2008; 534.
 
[6]  Sahin S, Sumnu SG. Physical properties of foods. Sprinter science + Business Media. 2006; 107.
 
[7]  Hu X, Mallikarjunan P. Thermal and dielectric properties of shuckedoysters.LWT- Food Science and Technology, 2005; 38: 489-494.
 
[8]  Elansari AM, Hobani, AI. Effect of temperature and moisture content on thermal conductivity of four types of meat. International Journal of Food Properties, 2009; 12: 308-315.
 
[9]  Karunakar B, Mishra SK, Bandyopadhyay S. Specific heat and thermal conductivity of shrimp meat. Journal of Food Engineering, 1998:37: 345-351.
 
[10]  Wang JJ, Hayakawa KI. Maximum slope method for evaluating thermal conductivity probe data. Journal of Food Science, 1993; 58(6), 1340-1345.
 
[11]  Reyes A, Pérez N, Mahn A. Determination of specific heat and thermal conductivity of “Loco” (Concholepas concholepas).Food Bioprocess Technology. 2013; 6: 1873-1877.
 
[12]  Fontana JA, Varith J, Ikediala J, Reyes J, Weaker B. Thermal properties of selected foods using a dual needle heat – pulse sensor. Paper no. 996063. An ASAE meeting presentation. Institute of food technologist at Mc cornice place. USA, 1999.
 
[13]  Stroshine R. Physical properties of agricultural materials and food products. Purdue University, west lafayatte, Indiana. U.S.A. 1998. http://www.purdue.ed/abe.
 
[14]  ASTM E1269. Standard Test Method for Determining Specific Heat Capacity by Differential Scanning Calorimetry, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. 2011. www.astm.org.
 
[15]  ASTM, E177/C1044. Standard Test Method for Steady State Heat Flux Measurements and Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of Guarded Hot Plate Apparatus, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. 2013 www.astm.org.