Mathematical modeling and regression analysis using MATLAB for optimization of microwave drying efficiency of banana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the influence of microwave (MW) power (300–800 W) and standard geometries (slab, cube, disc, sphere) on banana drying kinetics . Nine thin-layer models were explored. Model validation employed the coefficient of determination and root mean square errors, further checked using residual sum of squares and zero mean of errors. The Henderson and Pabis model emerged as optimal for thin-layer drying. As MW power ranged from 300 to 800 W, drying times reduced: slabs (700–220 sec), cubes (800–300 sec), discs (560–160 sec), and spheres (620–200 sec). Moisture diffusivities spanned 9.12×10 −9 to 7.2×10 −6 m 2 /s, revealing reduced moisture diffusion at lower MW power. Activation energies were tabulated for discs (25.54 W/g), spheres (108.96 W/g), cubes (88.41 W/g), and slabs (107.56 W/g). Sample mass uncertainty was approximated at 0.03 g (∼1% error). Specific energy varied between 140 and 244 kJ, while microwave energy values ranged from 44.58 to 112.8 MJ/kg, declining with increased power. Cube samples showed maximum energy consumption, whereas disc samples typically consumed the least. Notably, disc-shaped bananas demonstrated peak drying energy efficiencies (41.75–51.3 %) across all MW power levels. Average drying efficiencies were observed between 19.97 and 51.3 % for the studied power range.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".