1: \documentstyle[aps,psfig,amssymb]{revtex}
2: %\documentstyle[multicol,aps,psfig,amssymb]{revtex}
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4: \begin{document}
5: %\draft
6: \title{Damage of cellular material under simultaneous application of
7: pressure and pulsed electric field}
8: \author{
9: M. I. Bazhal$^{a,b}$ ,
10: %$\thanks{Corresponding author, E-mail:Maksym.Bazhal@utc.fr}}
11: N. I. Lebovka$^{a,c}$ %\&
12: %$\thanks{Corresponding author, E-mail:Nikolai.Lebovka@utc.fr}}
13: , E. Vorobiev$^{a} $\footnote{Corresponding author,
14: E-mail:Eugene.Vorobiev@utc.fr}}
15: \address{
16: $^{a}$D\'{e}partement de G\'{e}nie Chimique, Universit\'{e} de
17: Technologie de Compi\`{e}gne, Centre de Recherche de Royallieu,
18: B.P. 20529-60205 Compi\`{e}gne Cedex, France
19: \\ $^{b}$ Ukrainian State University of Food Technologies, 68, Volodymyrska str.,
20: Kyiv, 252033, Ukraine
21: \\ $^{c}$ Institute of Biocolloidal
22: Chemistry named after F.D. Ovcharenko, NAS of Ukraine, 42,
23: blvr.Vernadskogo, Kyiv, 252142, Ukraine }
24: %\date{\today}
25: %\date{June 1, 2000}
26: \maketitle
27: \begin{abstract}
28: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{0.2}
29: \parskip=3mm
30: \tighten
31:
32: Influence of pulsed electric field (PEF) simultaneous to pressure
33: treatment on moisture expression from fine-cut cellular raw material has been
34: investigated. Dependencies of specific conductivity $\sigma$,
35: liquid yield $Y$, instantaneous flow rate $v$ and qualitative juice
36: characteristics at different modes of PEF treatment are discussed.
37: Three main consolidation phases were
38: observed in a case of mechanical expression. A unified approach is
39: proposed for liquid yield data analysis allowing
40: to reduce the data scattering caused by differences in the quality
41: of samples. Simultaneous application of pressure and PEF treatment
42: allowed to reveal a passive form of electrical damage.
43: Pressure provokes the damage of defected cells,
44: enhances diffusion migration of moisture in porous cellular material
45: and depresses the cell resealing processes.
46: PEF application at a moment when a sample specific electrical
47: conductivity reaches minimum and pressure achieves its constant
48: value seemed to be the most optimal.
49: \end{abstract}
50: % Received
51: %\begin{keyword}
52: \pacs{
53: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{0.2}
54: \parskip=3mm
55: \tighten Keywords: Cellular material; Permeabilization; Plasmolysis; Pressing; Pulsed electric field
56: treatment
57: }
58: %\end{keyword}
59: %\noindent {\footnotesize PACS numbers: 05.40.+j, 64.60.Ht, 05.70.Ln}
60: %\tableofcontents
61:
62: %\bigskip\bigskip
63:
64: %\begin{multicols}{2}
65:
66: \begin{tabular}{ll}
67: {\bf Notation} &
68: \\ $d$ & mean cell's dimension, $\mu m$
69: \\ $D$ & diffusion coefficient, m$^{2}$ s$^{-1}$
70: \\ $E$ & electric field strength, kV cm$^{-1}$
71: \\ $k$ & area normalizing coefficient
72: \\ $M^{1}$ & first Moment, s
73: \\ $N$ & number of pulses
74: \\ $P$ & pressure, bar
75: \\ $S$ & area under the expression curve $Y(t)$, \% s
76: \\$t_{i}$ & pulse duration, $\mu $s
77: \\$t_{max}$ & maximal time of pressing, s
78: \\$t_{p}$ & time of PEF treatment application, s
79: \\$t_{v_{max}}$ & time, where maximum of instantaneous flow rate is observed, s
80: \\ $\Delta t$ & pulse repetition time, ms
81: \\ $T$ & temperature, K
82: \\ $v$ & $=dY/dt$ instantaneous flow rate, \% s$^{-1}$
83: \\ $U$ & external voltage, V
84: \\ $W$ & moisture content, \%
85: \\ $Y^{I}$ & first normalized form of liquid yield
86: \\ $Y^{II}$ & second normalized form of liquid yield
87: \\ $Y ^{*}$ & intensification degree of PEF treatment
88:
89: %\bigskip
90: \end{tabular}
91:
92: \begin{tabular}{ll}
93: {\it Greek letters}
94: \\ $\sigma $ & conductivity, S m$^{-1}$
95: \\ $\tau $ & characteristic time of expression, s
96: \\ $\tau ^{*}$ & coefficient of PEF enhanced durability
97: \\ $\tau_{D}$ & $\sim d^{2}/6D$ time constant of diffusion process, s%$^{-1}$
98: \end{tabular}
99: %\bigskip
100:
101: \begin{tabular}{ll}
102: {\it Subscripts}
103: \\$E$ & with PEF treatment
104: \\$E=0$ & without PEF treatment
105: \\$r$ & reduced to the maximal value
106: \\$\infty$ & in the limit of infinite time
107:
108: \end{tabular}
109:
110: \begin{tabular}{ll}
111: %\bigskip
112: {\it Abbreviations}
113: \\PEF & pulsed electric field
114: \\SEM & scanning electron microscopy
115: \end{tabular}
116:
117: \section{Introduction}
118:
119: Mechanical expression (hydraulic pressing) is widely used in the
120: processes of solid-liquid separation for extraction of fruit
121: juices and vegetable oils, dewatering of fibrous materials, etc.
122: (Schwartzberg, 1983). Efficiency of this process
123: %mechanical expression
124: can be increased by raw material plasmolysis, cellular damage or
125: permeabilization prior to its expression. Different methods are
126: traditionally used to increase the degree of raw material
127: plasmolysis: heating, osmotic drying or freezing dehydration,
128: alkaline breakage, enzymatic treatment, etc.
129: % Different methods traditionally are used to increase the degree of raw material plasmolysis such as heating, osmotic, drying or freezing dehydration, alkaline breakage, enzymatic treatment etc.
130: (Rao \& Lund, 1986; Aguilera \& Stanley, 1999; Tsuruta, Ishimoto
131: \& Masuoka, 1998; Ponant, Foissac \& Esnault, 1988; Jones, 1988;
132: Barbosa-C\'{a}novas \& Vega-Mercado, 1996). Earlier on, the method
133: of electric field treatment (both d.c. and a.c.) was also proposed
134: for cellular material plasmolysis (known as electro-plasmolysis).
135: The methods of electro-plasmolysis were shown to be good for juice
136: yield intensification and for improving the product quality in
137: juice production (Scheglov, Koval, Fuser, Zargarian, Srimbov,
138: Belik et al., 1988; McLellan, Kime \& Lind, 1991, Bazhal \&
139: Vorobiev, 2000), processing of vegetable and plant raw materials
140: (Papchenko, Bologa, Berzoi, 1988; Grishko, Kozin, Chebanu, 1991),
141: food stuffs processing (Miyahara, 1985), winemaking (Kalmykova,
142: 1993), and sugar production (Gulyi, Lebovka, Mank, Kupchik,
143: Bazhal, Matvienko et al., 1994; Jemai, 1997). But all these
144: electric field applications are usually restricted by the high and
145: uncontrolled increase in cellular tissue
146: temperature and
147: product quality deterioration because of electrode material
148: electrolytic reactions, etc.
149:
150: Recently, a variety of new high and moderate pulsed electric field
151: (PEF) applications were successfully demonstrated for liquid and
152: solid foods (Barbosa-C\'{a}novas, Pothakamuri, Palou \& Swanson,
153: 1998; Wouters \& Smelt, 1997; Knorr, Geulen, Grahl \& Sitzmann,
154: 1994; Knorr \& Angersbach, 1998, Barsotti \& Cheftel, 1998).
155: The PEF application provides a possibility of fine regulation of
156: electric power input and may result in effective permeabilization
157: of cellular membranes (Zimmermann, 1975; Chang et al., 1992;
158: Weaver \& Chizmadzhev, 1996) without significant temperature
159: elevation (Barbosa-C\'{a}novas et al., 1998).
160:
161: One of emerging and promising method is the combined PEF and
162: pressure application, which demonstrates significant yield
163: intensification for juice extracted from apples and beets and
164: clarification of the extracted juice (Vorobiev, Bazhal \& Lebovka,
165: 2000; Gulyi et al., 1994). %; Bouzrara \& Vorobiev, 2000).
166: But the major problem arising
167: from simultaneous application of mechanical expression and PEF
168: treatment is the choice of optimal modes of treatment.
169: %But the major problem arising from simultaneous application of mechanical expression and PEF treatment is the choice of optimal modes of treatment.
170: The mechanism of solid/liquid expression from cellular materials
171: is rather complex and may include many different phases of
172: consolidation process (Lanoiselle, Vorobiev, Bouvier \& Piar,
173: 1996). The electric breakdown of a cellular system can influence
174: consolidation phases and change drastically the expression curves.
175: Unfortunately, up to now there are no accepted mechanism of
176: electric breakdown in the cellular systems and reliable criteria
177: for choosing optimal parameters of electric field treatment
178: (Lebovka et al., 1996, Lebovka, Bazhal \& Vorobiev, 2000). Another
179: problem is the poor reproducibility of the experimental data,
180: which is typical for objects of biological origin.
181:
182: The properties of cellular materials influence significantly the
183: the electrotreatment efficiency.
184: %For characterization of changes in tissue properties under the influence of external factors (electric field, pressure) can be used an electrometry.
185: The electrometry can be used for characterization of changes in
186: tissue properties under the influence of external factors
187: (electric field, pressure).
188: %Investigation of the influence of compressed cell tissue properties on the
189: % electrotreatment effectiveness can be a key for the solution of the optimisation problem of plasmolysis under the simultaneous
190: % application of PEF and pressure treatment.
191: % But an immediate study of the changes of tissue structure under
192: % the pressure is rather difficult.
193: This is a simple method, as far as the electrical conductivity,
194: $\sigma$, reflects a degree of a water saturated tissue
195: permeability (Sahimi, 1995). But the general dependence between
196: the structure of a cellular material and $\sigma$ may be rather
197: complex, because the conductivity of a biological tissue may be
198: influenced by a number of processes, such as resealing of
199: membranes in cells (Heinz, Angersbach \& Knorr, 1999), diffusional
200: redistribution of moisture inside the samples, etc.
201:
202: The objective of this study is the optimization of moisture
203: expression from biological raw materials under simultaneous
204: pressing and
205: PEF treatment. %We investigate
206:
207: The liquid expression from fine-cut cellular tissue after PEF
208: application for different modes and durations of precompression
209: has been investigated. Apple was used as the example of cellular
210: material.
211:
212: The useful method of data treatment, which allows to reduce data
213: scattering caused by differences in quality of the samples is
214: described. Discussion of the consolidation kinetics before and
215: after PEF treatment is also given.
216:
217: \section{Preliminary remarks}
218:
219: \label{Preliminary}
220:
221: %The interest of the simultaneous application of mechanical expression and PEF treatment is as follows.
222:
223: The reasons for the simultaneous application of mechanical
224: expression and PEF treatment are as follows. The excessive
225: quantity of extraparticle liquid and absence of contacts between
226: solid particles increases electrical energy losses. So the
227: effectiveness of the PEF treatment is restricted by the uniform
228: and tight packing of raw material between electrodes and previous
229: removing of extraparticle air and excessive liquid (from cells
230: destroyed by cutting). The method of raw material compact
231: formation is its pre-consolidation. Moreover, effectiveness of the
232: PEF treatment with respect to the water-saturated cellular
233: materials is restricted by the low values of moisture content,
234: $W$. The PEF treatment is ineffective for a water-saturated system
235: (which is the case for the fine-cut apple raw material) because of
236: electric breakage and uncontrolled increase of current flow
237: through the system. The initial steps of consolidation remove an
238: excess liquid from the extracellular volume. Therefore, we can
239: expect increase of the PEF treatment efficiency after
240: pre-consolidation of the raw material.
241:
242: \section{Materials and methods}
243: \label{Materials}
244:
245: \subsection{Preparation of apple slices}
246: \label{Preparation}
247:
248: Freshly harvested apples of Golden Delicious variety were selected
249: for investigation and stored at $4{{}^{\circ }}$C until required.
250: The moisture content of apples $W$ was within 80-85\%. The
251: fine-cut apple pieces (3-5 mm diameter) were prepared from an
252: apple pap using rasp.
253:
254: \subsection{Experimental setup and instrumentations}
255: \label{Experimental}
256:
257: Figure \ref{f1} is a schematic representation of the experimental
258: set-up. All experiments were carried out using laboratory
259: filter-press cell equipped with an electrical treatment system.
260: The polypropylene frame had a cylindrical cavity compartment (20
261: mm thick, 56 mm in diameter). The cavity compartment of frame was
262: initially filled up with apple slices and then was tightly closed
263: from both sides by the steel plates. One of the plates, covered by
264: a filter cloth, was used as a stationary electrode. The other
265: plate was attached with an elastic rubber diaphragm. A mobile wire
266: gauze electrode was installed between the diaphragm and the layer
267: of apple slices. Pressure was applied to the layer of apple slices
268: through the elastic diaphragm using the hydraulic pressure
269: controller GDS 'Standard' (GDS Instruments Ltd, UK) with water as
270: a pressure fluid. The pressure controller provided a constant
271: pressure from 1 to 30 bars. The yield of liquid was controlled by
272: balance PT610 (Sartorius AG, Germany).
273:
274: A high voltage pulse generator, $1500$V-$15$A (Service
275: Electronique UTC, France) provided the monopolar pulses of
276: rectangular shape and allowed pulse duration $t_{i}$ varied within
277: the interval of $10-1000$ $\mu $s (to precision $\pm 2$ $\mu $s),
278: pulse repetition time $\Delta t$ within the interval of $1-100$ ms
279: (to precision of $\pm 0.1$ ms) and number of pulses $n$ within the
280: interval of $1-100000$. The conductivities were measured by
281: contacting electrode method with an LCR Meter HP $4284$A (Hewlett
282: Packard, 38 mm guarded/guard Electrode-A HP 16451B) for thin apple
283: slice samples at the frequency of $100$ Hz and with Conductimetre
284: HI$8820$N (Hanna Instruments, Portugal) for the apple juice
285: samples at a frequency of $1000$ Hz (these frequencies were
286: selected as optimal in order to remove the influence of polarising
287: effect on electrodes and inside the samples). Pulse protocols and
288: all the output data (current, voltage, impedance, pressure, juice
289: yield and temperature) were controlled using a data logger and
290: special software HPVEE v.4.01 (Hewlett-Packard) adapted by Service
291: Electronique UTC, France).
292:
293: High resolution scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images were
294: obtained using the instrument XL30 ESEM-FEG (Philips, V=15 kV,
295: P=3.5 Torr). The "WET" chamber mode allowing observation of
296: hydrated apple specimens in their natural state was applied.
297:
298: The optical absorbance of an expressed liquid was measured with
299: Photocolorimeter CO75 (WPA Ltd, UK) at the wavelength 520 nm. The
300: characteristic absorption spectra were determined with respect to
301: distilled water. Transmittance of an expressed liquid was calculated
302: as a ratio of filtered and nonfiltered liquid absorptions. The liquid was
303: filtrated using a Whatman 2V filter paper.
304:
305:
306: \subsection{Methods}
307: \label{Methods}
308:
309: All experiments were done using electric field voltages $U$ from
310: $200$ to $1500$ V, pulse duration $t_{i} = 100$ s, pulse
311: repetition time $\Delta t = 10$ ms, number of pulses $N = 50$,
312: constant pressure $P = 3$ bars and total time of mechanical
313: expression $t$ up to $10^{4}$ s. Pressure value of 3 bars was
314: accepted as the most efficient for exhibition of the effect of
315: simultaneous pressing and PEF treatment (Vorobiev et al., 2000).
316: The experiments were repeated, at least, five times.
317:
318: %\subsection{Data analysis}
319: %\label{Data}
320:
321: %Mean and standard deviations %for each term
322: %of data were calculated by analyses of variance (ANOVA) using the
323: %SAS Release 6.08 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, N.C., USA).
324:
325: \section{Results and discussion}
326: \label{Results}
327:
328: \subsection{Phases of consolidation}
329: \label{Phases}
330:
331: Figure \ref{f2} presents typical experimental curves of liquid
332: yield $Y_{r}$, instantaneous flow rate $v_{r}$, pressure $P_{r}$
333: and specific electrical conductivity $\sigma_{r}$ vs. time $t$.
334: For convenience of presentation, here all properties are reduced
335: to their maximal values, e.g., $Y_{r}=Y/Y_{max}$, etc., and flow
336: rate is determined as $v=dY/dt$.
337: % We shows here also the scheme of approximate structure of the apple
338: %slices layer compressed by a pressure in different moments of
339: %time.
340:
341: Initially we observe a rather rapid
342: increase of liquid yield $Y$, and decrease of electrical
343: conductivity, $\sigma$. This behaviour corresponds to the layer
344: pre-compaction (at a constant velocity of elastic diaphragm
345: displacement) and
346: %extra-particle air-liquid mixture expulsion.
347: expulsion of extraparticle air-liquid mixture. The maximum of
348: instantaneous flow rate $v$ is observed approximately at
349: $t=t_{v_{max}}=50-60$ s. In the absence of PEF treatment ($U=0$,
350: or $E=0$ ) the curve of $\sigma(t)$ temporarily stabilises in time
351: interval $300<t<1000$ s and by this moment the pressure $P$
352: reaches its maximal value of 3 bars. This behaviour correspond to
353: the end of pre-compaction period. Then, at $t>1000$, the
354: $\sigma(t)$ curve ($E = 0$) slightly rises, which can be explained
355: by mechanical rupture of residual cells, by the material
356: deterioration and by the effects of the biological activity of
357: microorganisms.
358:
359: Typical SEM micrographs of apple tissue structure before and after
360: pressing are presented in Figs. \ref{f3}(a) and (b), %\ref{f3}b,
361: respectively. The mean size of undamaged cells is of order
362: $100-200$ $ \mu$m. We see, that after pressing some of the cells
363: are destroyed, but there exist also intact cells. So, for a given
364: mode of treatment ($P=3$ bars, $t=600$ s) the cellular structure
365: is not completely disrupted after pressing and there exists some
366: isolated cells, which remain intact during pressing period. These
367: cells can be damaged or partially permeabilized by another
368: methods, for example, by PEF, thermal or another mode of
369: treatment.
370:
371: % The following stabilisation regime at long time indicates the termination of cellular liquid expulsion from apple press-cake.
372:
373: In analysing the results presented in Figs. \ref{f2},
374: \ref{f3}(a,b) we can discern the following phases of press-cake
375: layer consolidation process:
376:
377: \begin{itemize}
378:
379: \item Phase I. Initial compaction of press-cake and expulsion
380: of air-liquid mixture, or pre-consolidation period
381: ($0<t\lessapprox 2t_{v_{max}}\cong 100-120$). During this phase
382: the velocity of elastic diaphragm displacement is constant and a
383: maximum of liquid flow rate is observed.
384:
385: \item Phase II. Mechanical rupture of cells and expulsion of liquid from
386: ruptured cells ($100-120 \lessapprox t\lessapprox 300-400$). The
387: decrease of both liquid flow rate and velocity of elastic diaphragm
388: displacement and
389: acceleration of the pressure increase are observed.
390:
391:
392: \item Phase III. Final consolidation of press-cake at constant
393: pressure, packing of press-cake and retardation of liquid flow rate
394: ($100-120 \lessapprox t$). The liquid flowing from intracellular,
395: extracellular and extraparticle volumes is expressed from the
396: press-cake.
397: At the beginning of this phase a minimum value of the specific electrical conductivity is
398: observed. Moisture occupies all channels and so
399: the press-cake is said to be in an impregnated state.
400:
401: \end{itemize}
402:
403: These phases are shown schematically at the top of Fig. \ref{f2}.
404:
405: \subsection{Methods of data analysis for combined pressing and PEF treatment}
406: \label{PEF}
407:
408: Significant changes in kinetics of moisture expression and press-cake
409: consolidation can be observed after PEF treatment. Figure
410: \ref{f4}(a) presents some examples of experimental curves of liquid
411: yield $Y(\%)$ versus time $t$. It can be seen that $Y(t)$ curves
412: rise significantly after PEF application (applied in this case at
413: $t=600 $ s ) as the result of damage or partial permeabilization
414: of intact cells and subsequent expression of liquid.
415:
416: But here, the main problem is in poor reproducibility of the
417: experimental $Y(t)$ data. The measured curves of $Y(t)$ can
418: deviate substantially because of differences in initial humidity
419: of samples. This difficulty can be overcome by consideration of
420: the normalized or reduced liquid yield. This normalization
421: procedure was executed in two steps. We began with the first
422: normalized form of liquid yield defined as (see Fig. \ref{f4}(b)):
423: \begin{equation}
424: Y_{E}^{I}=Y_{E}(t)/Y_{E}(t_{max}), \label{e1}
425: \end{equation}
426: where $t_{max}$ is the maximal time of pressing (here we use the
427: value $t_{max} = 5400$ s), $Y_{E}$ values correspond to the values
428: of $Y$ at different electric field strengths $E$.
429:
430: We assume that all liquid yield curves should be equal in the time
431: range of $t<t_{p}$ for identical conditions of pressing. For
432: experiments with PEF application $(E\neq 0)$, we take the curve
433: $Y_{E=0}^{I}(t)$ for $E = 0$ as a reference. Then we calculate the
434: area under this curve for the time period $t<t_{p}$ and
435: renormalize all the curves $Y_{E}^{I} (t)$ so as to obtain the
436: same values of
437: \begin{equation} S_{E} =\int\limits_{0}^{t_{p}
438: }Y_{E}^{I} (t) dt, \label{e2}
439: \end{equation}
440: for all curves. %calculated for each curve equal to $S_{E=0}$ .
441:
442: Normalization coefficient is given by
443: \begin{equation}
444: k_{E} =S_{E=0} /S_{E}. \label{e3}
445: \end{equation}
446:
447: The second normalized form of liquid yield curve is defined as
448: follows (see Fig. \ref{f4}(c)):
449: \begin{equation}
450: Y_{E}^{II} (t)=k_{E} \cdot Y_{E}^{I} (t). \label{e4}
451: \end{equation}
452:
453: The degree of intensification caused by PEF treatment, $Y^{*}$ can
454: be determined as the following ratio of the second normalized
455: forms for pressing with and without PEF treatment:
456: \begin{equation}
457: Y^{*}=Y_{E}^{II}(t_{max})/Y_{E=0}^{II}(t_{max}). \label{e5}
458: \end{equation}
459: Here the values of $Y_{E,E=0}^{II}(t_{max})$ were determined in
460: the point of the maximal time of pressing $t=t_{max}$.
461:
462: Another interesting property of the expressing is the mean
463: characteristic time, which characterizes durability of the
464: process. The theory developed for mechanical expression of
465: %agro-food
466: cellular materials (Lanoiselle et al., 1996) describes
467: expression process with the set of characteristic times for the
468: different expression phases. These are very valuable
469: characteristics of the expression processes but, in practice, it
470: is very difficult to find them proceeding from the expression
471: curves. The main problem here is that we can never determine the
472: exact value of limiting expression quantity $Y_{\infty }$ at
473: $t\rightarrow \infty.$ For vegetable %food
474: stuff we are faced %meet
475: with the problem of high enzymatic destruction at continuous
476: expression. So we always stop the expression process at rather
477: long, but finite time (in our case we choose $t_{max}=5400$ s) and
478: the obtained values of $Y(t_{max})$ are of course less then the
479: actual values of $Y_{\infty}$. More general approach implies
480: evaluation of the first Moment of the function
481: $F(t)=Y(t_{max})-Y(t)$:
482: \begin{equation}
483: M^{1}=\frac{\int\limits_{0}^{t_{\max
484: }}F(t)tdt}{\int\limits_{0}^{t_{\max }}F(t)dt}
485: \label{e6}
486: \end{equation}
487:
488: It is easy to show, that for the simple exponential function
489: $F(t)=\exp (-t/\tau )$ and \ $t_{\max }\rightarrow \infty $ the
490: first Moment is equal
491: to the characteristic time, $M^{1}=\tau .$ For the finite but large values of $%
492: t_{\max },$ we have $M^{1}\approx \tau (1-\frac{\left( t_{\max
493: }/\tau \right) ^{2}}{2e^{t_{\max }/\tau }})$, and at $t_{\max
494: }/\tau =5$ \ the first Moment equals to $M^{1}\approx 0.92\tau $.
495: So, in our case the value of $M^{1}$ may serve for approximate
496: estimation of the effective characteristic time constant of the
497: whole expression process.
498:
499: It is useful to use this approach for crude estimation of
500: characteristic time or durability of expression process after PEF
501: intervention. In such a case we can treat $M^{1}$ as a mean
502: characteristic time of liquid expulsion processes reflecting the
503: summarized effect of all the mechanisms in a system. We can define
504: the coefficient of PEF-enhanced durability as
505: \begin{equation}
506: \tau^{*}=M^{1}_{E}/M^{1}_{E=0}. \label{e7}
507: \end{equation}
508:
509: This coefficient shows the degree of the durability increase after
510: the PEF treatment.
511:
512:
513: \subsection{Influence of field strength $E$ and time $t_{p}$ of PEF treatment}
514: \label{Influence}
515:
516: \subsubsection{Liquid yield kinetics}
517: \label{Yield}
518:
519: Figure \ref{f5} presents the curves of excess normalized liquid
520: yield $\Delta Y=Y_{E}^{II}-Y_{E=0}^{II}$ versus time $t$ at
521: different times of PEF application, $t_{p}$, and different values
522: of electric field strength, $E$. We have applied PEF treatment in
523: different characteristic moments:
524:
525: \begin{itemize}
526: \item $t_{p}=0$ s (before pressing);
527: \item $t_{p}=20$ s (initial phase of pressing);
528: \item $t_{p}=120$ s (second consolidation phase and specific
529: conductivity of a tissue is low);
530: \item $t_{p}=330$ s (press-cake pressure is achieved a constant
531: value);
532: \item $t_{p}=600$ s and $t_{p}=5400$ s (final consolidation phase).
533: \end{itemize}
534:
535: The range of voltage values used corresponds to conditions of
536: steady PEF-application regime without any disruption of electrical
537: treatment caused by overflow of acceptable maximal current value.
538: For the given pulses protocol, the steady electrical treatment
539: regime was observed for the voltages not exceeding the following
540: maximal values: $U_{max} = 600$ V for $t_{p} = 0$ s, $U_{max} =
541: 1000$ V for $t_{p} = 600$ s, and $U_{max} = 1500$ V for $t_{p} =
542: 5400$ s.
543:
544: As can be seen from Fig. \ref{f5} the form of the liquid yield
545: $Y^{II}_{E}$ curves in the time interval of $t<300$ s practically
546: does not depend on the time of PEF input $t_{p}$ and the electric
547: field strength values $E$ (that corresponds to small values of
548: deviations $Y^{II}_{E\neq 0}-Y^{II}_{E=0}$). Only at longer time
549: intervals $t>300$ s in the phase III of consolidation, we can
550: observe a behaviour reflecting the mode of PEF treatment.
551:
552: At short times of PEF treatment, $t_{p}\lesssim 100-200$ s, the
553: excess liquid yield increases rapidly with $E$ increase as compared
554: with untreated sample (see Fig. \ref{f5}(a-c)). But
555: ineffectiveness of PEF treatment at short $t_{p}$ is less in
556: comparison with the cases of later PEF application. It can be
557: explained by the influence of excess quantities of air and
558: extraparticle liquid in the cake pores. The sample is highly
559: water-saturated at earlier period of pre-consolidation and PEF
560: application during this period may cause dielectric breakage and
561: uncontrolled increase of current flow through the system. At such
562: conditions, the intensification degree of PEF treatment $Y^{*}$ is
563: rather low (see black square for $t_{p}=0$ in Fig. \ref{f6}(a)).
564:
565: When we apply the PEF treatment later on, for example, at the
566: beginning of the phase III of consolidation,
567: at $t\thicksim 300-400$ s a liquid excess yield
568: seems to be less dependent on $E$ (Fig. \ref{f5}(d)).
569: Pressure achieves its constant value at
570: this time and most of cells that could be destroyed mechanically
571: at a given pressure (3 bars in our experiments) are already
572: disrupted and most of liquid is evacuated from these cells.
573: %At that time the pressure achieves its constant value and the most
574: %of cells which can be destroyed mechanically at the given pressure
575: % (3 bars in our experiments) are already disrupted and the majority
576: %of liquid is evacuated from these cells.
577: The residual isolated intact cells are connected with electrodes
578: through the network of channels containing conductive moisture. At
579: such conditions, the transmembrane potential on intact cells
580: should be high enough, even at low values of $E$, and, therefore,
581: the effective electropermeabilization of cell can be attained even
582: at minimal values of electric field intensity ($E=170$ V cm$^{-1}$
583: in our experiments).
584:
585: As we can see from comparison of typical micrographs of apple
586: tissue structure received for pressing with and without electrical
587: treatment (Figs. \ref{f3}(b) and (c)), PEF application at $t=330$
588: s ($E=500$ V cm$^{-1}$) causes almost complete destruction of the
589: material. The similar pictures are observed in the wide interval
590: of $E\thicksim 250-500$ V cm$^{-1}$ and micrographs allow us to
591: identify only certain quantity of single isolated intact cells.
592:
593:
594: Dependencies of the coefficient of PEF enhanced durability $\tau
595: ^{*}$ versus electric field strength, $E$ (Fig. \ref{f6}(b))
596: substantiate conclusions set forth above.
597: %The conclusions above are supported by the dependencies of the
598: %coefficient of PEF enhanced durability $\tau ^{*}$ versus electric
599: %field strength, $E$ (Fig. \ref{f6}b).
600: We see that the value of $\tau^{*}$ depends considerably on the
601: electric field strength $E$ only at small time of PEF input
602: ($t_{p}<100-200$ s). The best liquid excess yield as compared with
603: untreated sample may be obtained at the lowest applied field $E$
604: when the PEF is applied at an instant when the pressure in the
605: system reaches a constant value ($t_{p}=300-400$ s).
606:
607: \subsubsection{
608: Specific conductivity $\sigma$, flow rate $v$ and pressure $P$
609: kinetics}
610:
611: \label{conductivity}
612:
613: Figure \ref{f7} presents the experimental curves of (a) a specific
614: electrical conductivity, $\sigma$, and (b) instantaneous flow
615: rate, $v$, versus time $t$ for the compressed layer of apple
616: slices. The PEF treatment was applied at $t=t_{p}=120$ s at
617: different external field strengths, $E$. As can be seen from Fig.
618: \ref{f7}(a), the $\sigma(t)$ values begin to rise abruptly after
619: PEF treatment, and this behaviour becomes more pronounced with
620: increasing $E$. Such rise of $\sigma(t)$ values corresponds to the
621: combined effect of mechanical rupture of cells and their
622: electrical permeabilization.
623:
624: We present schematically the model of PEF treatment with and
625: without pressing in Fig. \ref{f8}.
626: In the absence of mechanical pressure % real biological cellular systems
627: the effect of the hidden (or passive) electrical breakdown can be
628: rather important. The electrical conductivity of the whole system
629: depends not only on the destruction degree of individual cells,
630: but also on the character of their connectivity and the presence
631: of continuously conducting channels.
632:
633: At first, after PEF treatment the real degree of electrical
634: breakdown is hidden and does not affect the conductivity of the
635: whole system. PEF treatment permeabilizates cell membranes and
636: intensifies diffusion processes. The time of electric conductivity
637: build-up in a cellular material after PEF treatment can be
638: estimated from the time constant of diffusion processes:
639: %The time of cellular material electric conductivity build-up after PEF
640: %treatment can estimated by time constant of diffusion processes:
641: $\tau_{D}\sim d^{2}/6D\approx 1$ s, where $d\approx 100$ is a mean
642: cell dimension, and $D\approx 10^{-9}$ m$^{2}$ s$^{-1}$ is a
643: diffusion coefficient of an endocellular fluid. In general, this
644: effect can exhibit a wide distribution of time constants
645: $\tau_{D}$ because of differences in cell dimensions, diffusivity
646: of intracellular solutions, degree of cell permeabilization, etc.
647: % For partially destroyed cells the diffusion is spatially
648: %restricted and it also results in increase the $\tau_{D}$ value.
649: %Thus the time of the cellular material electric conductivity
650: %build-up after PEF treatment really is determined by the
651: %magnitude of $\tau_{D}$.
652: %The number of electrically permeabilized cells and the degree of
653: %their damage increases with increase of PEF loading power (value
654: %of $E$ and/or pulses duration). At small PEF loading power the
655: %time of a cellular system conductivity increasing may be rather
656: %large,of order $\tau_{D}$, i.e. about 1 or more seconds.
657: %So, in the first moments after PEF treatment the real degree of
658: %electrical breakdown is hidden and does not affect the
659: %%%%characteristics, quality of materials etc.
660: Moreover, it can be masked by another related phenomena of
661: resealing process. Heinz et al. (1999) observed that the
662: insulating properties of the cell membranes can be recovered
663: within a few seconds after the small power PEF treatment and it
664: results in decreasing of a cellular system conductivity.
665:
666: Simultaneous effect of pressing and PEF treatment($P\neq 0$ and
667: $E\neq 0$) can cause the primary changes. First of all, mechanical
668: and electrical stresses can be coupled to cause membrane breakdown
669: in cells (Akinlaja \& Frederick, 1998). Then, the external
670: pressure enhances flowing of the fluid from destroyed cells to
671: extracellular and extraparticle channels. All these decrease the
672: retardation time of electric conductivity build-up after PEF
673: treatment.
674: % the interchanging processes of fluid near destroyed cells get intensified and time constant of electric conductivity augmentation decreases after PEF (see ).
675: Under simultaneous PEF treatment and material compression
676: %application of the pressure
677: we can also eliminate or diminish the effect of a hidden electric
678: breakdown and to depress the cells resealing processes. So, in a
679: general case, we should observe in final state $\sigma_{P\neq
680: 0}>\sigma_{P=0}$. This conclusion is confirmed by the data on
681: $\sigma(t)$ kinetics at $P=0$ presented in Fig. \ref{f7}(a) by the
682: dashed line. In this experiment we have dropped the pressure after
683: PEF treatment. This results in considerable decrease of
684: $\sigma(t)$ values as compared with the curve obtained at $P\neq
685: 0$ (Fig. \ref{f8}).
686:
687: A liquid flow rate $v$ also depends upon the degree of cellular
688: system destruction as a result of PEF treatment. But the behaviour
689: of $v(t)$ after PEF application does not change drastically (Fig.
690: \ref{f7}(b)). We can explain such behaviour by the fact of
691: substantial decrease and termination of liquid expulsion from the
692: press-cake by that time. The most pronounced peak is observed only
693: at the highest electric field strength ($E=400$ V cm$^{-1}$, Fig.
694: \ref{f7}(b)), and behaviour of the $v(t)$ curve reveals only
695: increase of its long time tails with increase of $E$ .
696:
697: Figure \ref{f9} presents the experimental curves of (a) reduced
698: pressure values $P^{*}=P/P_{max}$ and (b) pressure difference
699: $P_{0}-P_{E}$ versus time $t$ for different durations of
700: pre-compression stage before the %compressed layer of apple slices different moment of
701: PEF application. It can be seen that PEF treatment diminishes
702: tissue rigidity which corresponds to the decrease of an effective
703: pressure in a system. Electrical treatment during the pressing
704: period up to $330$ s delays pressure increase and accelerates the
705: liquid yield. PEF application ($t_{p}>330$ s) can decrease
706: steady-state pressure abruptly and initiate a rise of a liquid flow
707: rate. The peaks of pressure decrease become sharper with
708: pre-compression time increase. It corresponds to the more rapid
709: destruction of cellular material pre-compressed during a longer
710: time. But then, at the final stage, the mechanical properties of a
711: press-cake reflate and pressure increases again up to the maximal
712: level.
713:
714: \subsection{Optical properties of expressed liquid}
715:
716: The expressed liquid (apple juice) absorption (or coloration) and transmittance change in
717: the course of a simple pressing process, due to filtration
718: properties of the cellular material in the course of time. In the final phase
719: of consolidation (phase III, see Fig. \ref{f2}), the liquid
720: coloration reduces considerable as compared with coloration of an
721: initial portion of moisture. As we have demonstrated before
722: (Vorobiev, Bazhal \& Lebovka, 2000), the simultaneous pressing and
723: electric field treatment result in considerable reduction of
724: coloration of those differential portions of liquid which were
725: obtained after PEF application. Studying the temporal dependencies
726: of optical properties in differential liquid for different modes of
727: pressing and PEF application is {\it per se} of great interest.
728:
729: Here we will discuss only the optical properties of the cumulative
730: expressed liquid, which is obtained as a result of combined pressing and PEF
731: treatment at the final stage of the process. Figure \ref{f10}
732: presents dependencies of absorption and transmittance versus
733: electric strength $E$ for extracted liquid at different values of
734: $t_{p}$. On the one hand, the PEF treatment decreases the liquid
735: coloration, as can be seen from absorption curves in
736: Fig.\ref{f10}. This is a positive factor of PEF treatment. We can
737: explain this phenomena by improvement of the tissue filtration
738: properties during pressing. Moreover, filtration properties of the
739: PEF treated press-cake also get improved with $t_{p}$ increase
740: because of increase of the pressed tissue consolidation. On the
741: other hand, transmittance of expressed liquid reduces with $t_{p}$ decrease
742: and increase of $E$. This is an undesirable phenomena. It can be
743: explained by the influence of electrical treatment on the
744: press-cake filtration properties. It is known that PEF application
745: causes many defects of the tissue. Application of the PEF
746: treatment increases yield of a liquid with high contents of
747: suspended particles.
748:
749: That's why it is so important to choose a proper instant for PEF
750: application allowing to obtain the cumulative liquid with low
751: coloration and high transmittance. The PEF application at a moment
752: when pressure in the system achieves a constant value is
753: consistent with requirement of the best quality of a juice.
754:
755: \section{Conclusion}
756:
757: Investigations of the moisture expression from fine-cut apple raw
758: material under simultaneous mechanical expression and PEF
759: treatment were done. All experiments were performed using both
760: laboratory filter-press cell and high voltage pulse generator
761: which provided monopolar pulses of rectangular shape. The PEF
762: treatment was applied to materials that were expressed at time $t
763: = t_{p}$. Then the yield of liquid was analysed in comparison with
764: that of untreated material. The experimental results were obtained
765: for electric field strength $E$ varying from $200$ to $1500$ V
766: cm$^{-1}$, pulse duration $t_{i}$ = 100 s, pulse repetition time
767: $\Delta t = 10$ ms, number of pulses $N = 50$, constant pressure
768: $P = 3$ bars and maximal time of mechanical expression
769: $t_{max}=5.4\times10^{3}-10^{4}$ s.
770:
771: The summary of results is as follows:
772:
773: (1) The data obtained allows us to conclude that all kinetics
774: curves ( $\sigma(t)$, $Y(t)$, $v(t)$ and $P(t)$) clearly reflect
775: three main consolidation phases in cellular material.
776:
777: (2) The combination of pressing and PEF treatment gives the most
778: optimum results and permits to enhance significantly the liquid
779: yield in comparison with samples untreated by PEF. The PEF
780: treatment application permits to intensify pressing process
781: whenever the PEF is applied. But best liquid excess yield results
782: at lowest value of applied field $E$ may be obtained when PEF is
783: applied after some pre-compression period. Such pressure
784: pretreatment before PEF application is necessary for structuring
785: uniformity of the press-cake, removing excess moisture and
786: decreasing the electrical conductivity of cellular material. In our study,
787: the pre-compression period duration of $300-400$ s was optimal and
788: for which the pressure in the system reaches a constant value.
789: The PEF application in this moment of time results in the best
790: quality of the expressed liquid (apple juice), which is confirmed by
791: its coloration and transmittance.
792:
793: (3) The simultaneous pressure and PEF treatment application
794: reveals the passive form of the electrical damage. Electrical
795: damage under a low field without pressure application develops
796: very slow. The pressure provokes damage of defected cells,
797: enhances diffusion migration of moisture and depresses cells
798: resealing processes.
799:
800: (4) The proposed unified approach for liquid yield data analysis
801: allows to reduce the data scattering caused by the differences in
802: the quality of samples.
803:
804: \section*{Acknowledgements}
805:
806: The authors would like to thank the ``Pole Regional Genie des
807: Procedes`` (Picardie, France) and the Society CHOQUENET for
808: providing the financial support. Authors also thank Dr. N. S.
809: Pivovarova and Dr. A. B. Jemai for help with the preparation of
810: the manuscript.
811:
812: \newpage
813:
814: \section*{References}
815:
816: %\begin{thebibliography}{99}
817: %\bibitem{schloegl}
818: %\end{thebibliography}
819:
820: Aguilera, J.M., \& Stanley, D.W. (1999). {\it Microstructural
821: principles of food processing and engineering}. Gaithersburg:
822: Aspen Publishers.
823:
824: Akinlaja J., \& Frederick, S. (1998). The Breakdown of Cell
825: Membranes by Electrical and Mechanical Stress. {\it Biophysical
826: Journal, 75}(1), 247-254.
827:
828: Barbosa-C\'{a}novas, G.V., \& Vega-Mercado, H. (1996). {\it
829: Dehydration of Foods} (pp. 289-320). New York: Chapman \& Hall.
830:
831: Barbosa-C\'{a}novas, G.V., Pothakamury, U.R., Palou, E., \&
832: Swanson, B.G. (1998). {\it Nonthermal Preservation of Foods} (pp.
833: 53-72). New York: Marcel Dekker.
834:
835: Barsotti, L., \& Cheftel, J.C. (1998). Traitement des aliments par
836: champs electriques pulses. {\it Science des Aliments, 18}(6),
837: 584-601.
838:
839: Bazhal, M.I., \& Vorobiev, E.I. (2000). Electric treatment of
840: apple slices for intensifying juice pressing. {\it Journal of the
841: Science of Food and Agriculture} (in press).
842:
843: %Bouzrara, H., \& Vorobiev, E. (2000). Expression of cellular
844: %materials intensified by electric field pulses. In Proccedings of
845: %the 8$^th$ World Filtration Congress (pp. 299-302). Brighton, UK.
846:
847: Chang, D.C., B.M. Chassy, J.A. Saunders, \& Sowers, A.E., Eds.
848: (1992). {\it Guide to electroporation and electrofusion}. San
849: Diego: Academic Press.
850:
851: Grishko, A.A., Kozin, V.M., \& Chebanu, V.G. (1991). {\it
852: Electroplasmolyzer for processing plant raw material}, US Patent
853: no. 4723483.
854:
855: Gulyi, I.S., Lebovka, N.I., Mank, V.V., Kupchik, M.P., Bazhal,
856: M.I., Matvienko, A.B., \& Papchenko, A.Y.~ (1994). {\it Scientific
857: and practical principles of electrical treatment of food products
858: and materials}. Kiev: UkrINTEI (in Russian).
859:
860: Heinz, V., Angersbach, A., \& Knorr, D. (1999). High electric
861: field pulses and membrane permeabilization. In {\it Proceedings of
862: the European Conference on Emerging Food Science and Technology},
863: Tampere, Finland, 22-24 November 1999, 34.
864:
865: Jemai, A.B. (1997). {\it Contribution a l'etude de l'effet d'un
866: traitement electrique sur les cossettes de betterave a sucre.
867: Incidence sur le procede d'extraction}. Th\`{e}se de Doctorat,
868: Universit\'{e} de Technologie de Compi\`{e}gne, Compi\`{e}gne,
869: France.
870:
871: Jones, G.C. (1988), Cossette pretreatment and pressing, {\it
872: International Sugar Journal, 90}(1077), 157-167.
873:
874: Kalmykova, I.S. (1993). {\it Application of electroplasmolysis for
875: intensification of phenols extracting from the grapes in the
876: technologies of red table wines and natural juice}. PhD Thesis,
877: Odessa Technological Institute of Food Industry, Odessa, Ukraine
878: (in Russian).
879:
880: Knorr, D., \& Angersbach, A. (1998). Impact of high intensity
881: electric field pulses on plant membrane permeabilization. {\it
882: Trends in Food Science and Technology, 9}, 185-191.
883:
884: Knorr, D., Geulen, M., Grahl, T., \& Sitzmann, W. (1994). Food
885: application of high electric field pulses. {\it Trends in Food
886: Science \& Technology, 5}, 71-75.
887:
888: Lanoiselle, J.L., Vorobiev, E.I., Bouvier, J.M. \& Piar G. (1996).
889: Modeling of Solid/Liquid Expression for Cellular Materials, {\it
890: AIChE Journal, 42}, 2057-2068.
891:
892: Lebovka, N.I., Mank, V.V., Bazhal, M.I., Kupchik, M.P. \& Gulyi,
893: I.S. (1996). Cascade model of thermal electrical breakdown of
894: inhomogeneous systems. {\it Surface Engineering and Applied
895: Electrochemistry, 1}, 29-33.
896:
897: Lebovka, N.I., Bazhal, M.I. \& Vorobiev E. (2000). Simulation and
898: experimental investigation of food material breakage using pulsed
899: electric field treatment. {\it Journal of Food Engineering, 44},
900: 213-223.
901:
902: McLellan, M.R., Kime, R.L., \& Lind, L.R. (1991).
903: Electroplasmolysis and other treatments to improve apple juice
904: yield. {\it Journal of Science Food Agriculture, 57}, 303-306.
905:
906: Miyahara, K. (1985). {\it Methods and apparatus for producing
907: electrically processed food stuffs}, US Patent no. 4522834.
908:
909: Papchenko, A.Y., Bologa, M.K. \& Berzoi, S.E. (1988). {\it
910: Apparatus for processing vegetable raw material}, US Patent no.
911: 4787303.
912:
913: Ponant, J., Foissac, S. \& Esnault, A. (1988). The alkaline
914: extraction of sugar beet. {\it Zuckerindustrie, 113}(8), 665-676.
915:
916: Rao, M.A., \& Lund, D.B. (1986). Kinetics of thermal softening of
917: food - a review. {\it J. of Food Proc. and Pres., 10}, 311-329.
918:
919: Sahimi, M. (1995). {\it Flow and transport in porous media and
920: fractured rock}. Weinheim: VCH.
921:
922: %Scheglov, Y.A. (1983). Electroplasmolysis: A new method for
923: %treating fruits and vegetables. J. Panorama. Licensintorg, 9, 30.
924:
925: Scheglov, Ju.A., Koval, N.P., Fuser, L.A., Zargarian, S.Y.,
926: Srimbov, A.A., Belik, V. G., Zharik, B.N., Papchenko, A.Y.,
927: Ryabinsky, F.G., \& Sergeev, A.S. (1988). {\it Electroplasmolyzer
928: for processing vegetable stock}, US Patent no. 4723483.
929:
930: Schwartzberg, H.G., (1983) Expression-related properties. In M.
931: Peleg \& E.B. Bagley, Eds., {\it Physical properties of food} (pp.
932: 423-472). AVI Pupl. Comp., Connecticut.
933:
934: Tsuruta, T., Ishimoto, Y., \& Masuoka T. (1998). Effect of
935: glycerol on intracellular ice formation and dehydration of onion
936: epidermis. {\it Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 858},
937: 217-226.
938:
939: Vorobiev, E.I., Bazhal, M.I., \& Lebovka, N.I. (2000).
940: Optimization of pulsed electric field treatment of apple slices by
941: pressing. In {\it Proceedings of the 8$^{th}$ International
942: Congress on Engineering and Food ICEF8}, Puebla, Mexico, 9-13
943: April, 2000, 265.
944:
945: Weaver, J.C., \& Chizmadzev, Yu.A. (1996). Theory of
946: electroporation: A review. {\it Biolectrochemistry and
947: Bioenergetics, 41}(1), 135-160.
948:
949: Zimmermann, U. (1975). Electrical breakdown:
950: electropermeabilization and electrofusion. {\it Reviews of
951: Physiology Biochemistry and Pharmacology, 105}, 176-256.
952:
953: %\end{thebibliography}
954:
955: %\newpage
956: %\section*{Figure Captions}
957:
958: \begin{figure}[tbp]
959: %\centerline{\psfig{figure=f1.ps,width=12cm,angle=0,clip=}}
960: \caption{Experimental set-up. } \label{f1}
961: \end{figure}
962:
963: \begin{figure}[tbp]
964: %\centerline{\psfig{figure=f2.ps,width=8cm,angle=0,clip=}}
965: \caption{ Typical experimental curves for different reduced
966: properties: liquid yield $Y_{r}$, instantaneous flow rate $v_{r}$,
967: pressure $P_{r}$ and specific electrical conductivity $\sigma_{r}$
968: versus time of the expression $t$. For the convenience of
969: presentation all properties here are reduced to their maximal
970: values, e.g., $Y_{r}=Y/Y_{max}$, etc., flow rate is determined as
971: $v=dY/dt$. The error bars represent standard deviations of data.
972: At the top we show the proposed scheme of changes in the cellular
973: tissue %food material
974: structure with time.} \label{f2}
975: \end{figure}
976:
977: \begin{figure}[tbp]
978: %\centerline{\psfig{figure=f3.ps,width=12cm,angle=0,clip=}}
979: \caption{SEM micrographs of apple tissue: (a) before treatment,
980: (b) after pressing ($P=3$ bars, $t=600$ s), (c) after simultaneous
981: PEF \& pressing treatment ($P=3$ bars, $t_{p}=330$ s, $E=500$ V
982: cm$^{-1}$, $t=600$ s).} \label{f3}
983: \end{figure}
984:
985: \begin{figure}[tbp]
986: %\centerline{\psfig{figure=f4.ps,width=10cm,angle=0,clip=}}
987: \caption{ Execution steps in the procedure of experimental curves
988: normalization: examples of real experimental curves of expressed liquid
989: yield $Y(\%)$ versus time $t$ obtained for $E=520$ V cm$^{-1}$ and
990: $t_{p}=600$ s (a); definition of the first normalized form of
991: liquid yield $Y_{E}^{I}$ (b); and definition of the second
992: normalized form of liquid yield $Y_{E}^{II}$ (c).} \label{f4}
993: \end{figure}
994:
995:
996:
997: \begin{figure}[tbp]
998: %\centerline{\psfig{figure=f5.ps,width=12cm,angle=0,clip=}}
999: \caption{ Kinetics of normalized excess liquid yield
1000: $\Delta Y=Y_{E}^{II}-Y_{E=0}^{II}$ at
1001: different values of $t_{p}$and $E$. The error bars represent
1002: standard deviations in the data.}
1003:
1004: \label{f5}
1005: \end{figure}
1006:
1007: \begin{figure}[tbp]
1008: %\centerline{\psfig{figure=f6.ps,width=12cm,angle=0,clip=}}
1009: \caption{ Degree of PEF treatment intensification $Y^{*}$ (a) and
1010: coefficient of PEF enhanced durability $\tau ^{*}$ (b) versus
1011: electric field strength $E$ at different values of PEF treatment
1012: application time $t_{p}$. The error bars represent standard
1013: deviations in the data.}
1014:
1015: \label{f6}
1016: \end{figure}
1017:
1018: \begin{figure}[tbp]
1019: %\centerline{\psfig{figure=f7.ps,width=12cm,angle=0,clip=}}
1020: \caption{ Specific electrical conductivity, $\sigma$, (a) and
1021: instantaneous flow rate $v$ (b) versus time of expression, $t$, at
1022: $t_{p}=120$ s and different values of $E$. The error bars
1023: represent standard deviations in the data.}
1024:
1025: \label{f7}
1026: \end{figure}
1027:
1028: \begin{figure}[tbp]
1029: %\centerline{\psfig{figure=f8.ps,width=12cm,angle=0,clip=}}
1030: \caption{ Schematic of the model of PEF treatment with and without
1031: pressure $P$. The conductivity of the sample is higher for case
1032: when the pressure is applied.}
1033:
1034: \label{f8}
1035: \end{figure}
1036:
1037: \begin{figure}[tbp]
1038: %\centerline{\psfig{figure=f9.ps,width=12cm,angle=0,clip=}}
1039: \caption{ Reduced pressure $P^{*}=P/P_{max}$ (a) and pressure
1040: difference $P_{E=0}-P_{E}$ (a) versus time of expression, $t$, at
1041: different values of $t_{p}$ and $E$. The error bars represent
1042: standard deviations in the data.}
1043:
1044: \label{f9}
1045: \end{figure}
1046:
1047: \begin{figure}[tbp]
1048: %\centerline{\psfig{figure=f10.ps,width=12cm,angle=0,clip=}}
1049: \caption{Absorbance and transmittance of liquid yielded during
1050: pressing versus electric field strength, $E$, at different values
1051: of PEF treatment application time, $t_{p}$. The error bars
1052: represent standard deviations in the data.}
1053:
1054: \label{f10}
1055: \end{figure}
1056:
1057:
1058: %\end{multicols}
1059: \end{document}
1060: