CONVECTION DRYING

Date: 22nd January, 2026

Name: Hinneh Andrews – 1938122 Boafo Prince Bekoe - 1936022
Dagadu Christian - 1936722
Department of Chemical Engineering, Kwame Nkrumah University of Sci. and Tech.

REPORT INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This experiment investigated the convection drying
Drying rate mechanism of a moist sand sample using a CE 130

Loading bowl dryer. The process was monitored by measuring

the mass loss of the sample against drying time under
Water of crystallization
controlled conditions of air temperature (58–59.3 °C)
Residual moisture
and flow speed. Key drying parameters, including
Convection drying
moisture content and drying rate, were calculated from
Drying curve
the experimental data. The results show a distinct
Relative humidity transition from a constant rate period to a falling rate
Freeze drying period, characteristic of convective drying. The initial
Eaporation moisture content was determined to be 0.074 g water/g
dry sand. Drying rates were calculated at different
intervals, with an initial rate of approximately 87.8 g
water/hour at t=0 hr, decreasing to about 82.0 g
water/hour by t=0.05 hr. The findings demonstrate the
direct influence of air humidity and temperature on the
drying efficiency and provide practical insight into
optimizing drying operations for particulate materials.

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION

Drying is most vital process in food preservation, processing or any processing industries.
Drying process entails removing moisture from wet solid to extend the shelf life, decrease
wight and reduce microbial action. Drying techniques are widely classified based on
various factors such as condition of material, the type of heat input, mode of operation.
Drying process classified based on heat transfer includes convection drying, contact
drying and radiation drying. (Mujumdar, n.d.)

Contact drying involves placing wet sold material into contact with a hot plate or drum.
Radiation drying involves the use of infrared or microwaves radiation to absorb moisture
from wet solid or product (Abdizhapparova et al., 2022) . Evaporative drying and
Vaporization drying are two other drying techniques which are classified based on
whether drying temperature is higher or lower than boiling point of the liquid to be
separated respectively. Freeze drying is another technique widely in food processing to
extend the shelf life of food product. In this process, water in the wet solid is frozen first
and then removed by sublimation under vacuum, usually takes place at a temperature
lower than the freezing point. It also used for heat-sensitive product to maintain it quality.

Convection drying is the one of the oldest and mostly used technique for removing
moisture from wet solid product especially foods, sludge. This process employs the
principle of heat transfer and mass transfer simultaneously during operation, in which hot
moving fluid (air) transfer heat to the substance, also removing moisture content at the
same time. The hot air supplies heat past the surface of the wet solid mainly forced
convection (McMinn & Magee, 1999). Air temperature, humidity, air speed and properties
of substance to be dried are variable that shows the effectiveness of the convection drying
process.

Drying process usually involves two stages: Constant Rate Period: The material’s surface
remains fully saturated with the liquid, thus the wet surface behaving like a free liquid
surface (Pinheiro et al., 2022).

Falling Rate Period: The surface of the material is no longer saturated, such that internal
movement of moisture from the material is allowed (Pinheiro et al., 2022) . Drying is
widely applicable in food industry, pharmaceutical industry. Drying curve is the visual

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 1
 representation of how moisture content decreases over periods of time. The nature of
drying curve is usually influenced by the kind of moisture present in the material. This
form moisture includes surface moisture, capillary moisture, pore moisture and water of
crystallization.

2.0 METHODOLOGY

First , the drying plate was removed from its support frame. Following this, the digital scale
was tared to zero to establish a precise baseline for measurements to be done. Each drying
plate was then individually inserted into the support frame. Its weight was read from the
digital scale and carefully recorded.

Next, the fan was activated using the dual-push button switch, and its speed was adjusted via
the control dial to achieve the target airflow in a range of 1.3m/s to 1.5m/s. The
correspomding volumetric air flow rate was read and noted from the display.

The heater was subsequently switched on, and the desired temperature was set using the
temperature controller. The air conditioning duct was allowed to run until the heat was
distributed evenly along its entire length, ensuring uniform drying environment.

The moist material was then spread in a thin, even layer across the drying plates; a stopwatch
was used to time this operation for consistency. Once prepared, the loaded drying plates were
inserted into the support frame, and the new total weight was recorded. This moment marked
the commencement of the timed drying period.

At regular intervals, observations were made and documented. These include the mass of the
moist sample remaining, as well as the air temperature, air speed, and relative humidity.
Finally , using the Mollier Diagram and other relevant calculations,the humidity loading,
denoted as ”x”, was determined for the process.

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 1
Figure 1F Parts and stages of flow in the CE 130

Figure 2 Air outlet

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 1

Figure 4 Fan Figure 3 control panel

3.0 CHEMICALS AND APPARATUS

1. CE 130 bowl dryer

2. Sample to be dried

3. Mass balance

4. Stopwatch

Figure 5 CE 130 BOWL DRYER

Figure 7 Electronic Mass Balance Figure 6 Sample to be dried on the tray

4.0 TABLE OF RESULTS

Time, hr Temp, 0C Mass of sample, g Relative Humidity, %

0 58.1 661.5 20.4

0.05 58.6 657.1 19.6

0.1 58.8 653 19.3

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 1
0.15 59 649.5 19.4

0.2 59 646.8 19.5

0.25 58.9 644.5 19.5

0.3 59.2 642.8 19.6

0.35 59.3 641.6 19.6

0.4 59.1 640.3 19.5

0.45 59.1 640.3 19.5

0.5 59 640.3 19.5

Mass of Moisture VR Drying rate, g

Loading,
moisture in content (DB) g water Kg
sample, g hr

21.3 0.073984022 0.305662 88 24.52

16.9 0.058700938 0.284821 82 23.87

12.8 0.044459882 0.24314 70 23.64

9.3 0.032302883 0.1875 54 23.64

65
6.6 0.022924627 0.159778 46 23.41

4.3 0.014935742 0.1180 34 23.4

97
2.6 0.009030914 0.0833 24 23.52
62
1.4 0.0048628 0.0903 26 23.27
09
0.1 0.000347343 0 0 23.6

0.1 0.000347343 0 0 23.12

0.1 0.000347343 - -0.2 23.24

0.0006
9

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 1
5.0 GRAPHS

A GRAPH OF DRYING RATE AGAINST DRYING

TIME
Drying rate, g water/hr

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Drying time,hr

Figure 8 DRYING RATE AGAINST DRYING TIME CUREVE

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 1
 A GRAPH OF MASS OF MOISTURE GAINST
DRYING TIME
Mass of moisture, g

25

20

15

10

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Drying time, hr

Figure 9 A GRAPH OF MASS OF MOISTURE AGAINST DRYING TIME

6.0 CALCULATIONS

Mass of tray= 352.3g

Mass of tray+ sand =640.2g

Mass of tray+ sand+ water =661.5g

Mass of moisture = mass of tray+ sand+ water – mass of tray +sand

= 661.5- 640

= 21.3g

Mass of dry sand = mass of tray+ sand – mass of tray

= 640.2 - 352.3

= 287.9 g

At t= 0 hr:
mass of moisture 21.3 g water
Moisture content = = = 0.073984
mass of dry sand 287.9 g dry sand
∆ v vx−vx +1 0.07398−0.05870 g water
Vr = = = = 0.3056
∆ t tx+1−tx 0.05−0 g dry mass .h

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 1
 dm g water
Drying rate, = Vr. m = = 0.3056×287.9 = 87.8095
dt h

At t = 0.05 hr:
Mass of tray + sand = 657.1g
mass of moisture = 657.1- 640.2
= 16.9 g

mass of moisture 16.9 g water

Moisture content = = = 0.058700
mass of dry sand 287.9 g dry sand
∆ v vx−vx +1 0.05870−0.044459 g water
Vr = = = = 0.284838
∆ t tx+1−tx 0.1−0.05 g dry mass .h
dm
Drying rate, = Vr.
dt
g water
m = 0.284838 ×287.9 = 81.99392
h

7.0 DISCUSSION

The results obtained from the convection drying experiment clearly illustrate the fundamental
principles of mass transfer under convective heat. The recorded data (Table, Page 6) shows a
steady decrease in the mass of the sample from 661.5 g to 640.3 g over 0.5 hours, while the
air temperature remained relatively stable between 58.1°C and 59.3°C.

The calculated moisture content dropped from 0.074 g water/g dry sand at the start to
approximately 0.044 g water/g dry sand by the end of the recorded period. This removal of
moisture occurred in two observable phases, as supported by the drying rate curve (Figure 8).
Initially, a higher drying rate was observed;calculated to be 87.8 g water/hour at t=0 hr. This
corresponds to the constant rate period, where evaporation primarily occurs from the
saturated surface of the sand, behaving like a free water surface.

As drying progressed, the rate declined to 82.0 g water/hour by t=0.05 hr, marking the
transition into the falling rate period. This is shown in Figure 9 , where the curve begins to

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 1
flatten. During this phase, the surface is no longer fully saturated, and the drying process
becomes limited by the internal diffusion of moisture from within the sand particles to the
surface. The simultaneous decrease in relative humidity of the air (from 20.4% to 19.5%)
indicates that the drying air was effectively picking up moisture, maintaining a driving force
for evaporation, though the internal resistance of the material became the controlling factor.

The graph of mass against time (Figure 9) is characteristically exponential, confirming

typical drying behavior. The near-constant air temperature ensured that the heat supply for
latent heat of vaporization was consistent, preventing unwanted cooling of the sample that
could slow the process.

A notable observation is the apparent stabilization of mass at 640.3 g after 0.4 hours. This
suggests the sample was approaching its equilibrium moisture content under the given air
conditions, where the vapor pressure of moisture in the sand equaled the partial pressure of
water vapor in the drying air.

8.0 SOURCES OF ERROR

1. Even though the outlet air vent was made sure it was not blocked, cogestion in

the lab made it inconsistent. This may have altered the relative humidity of the

air blowing over the drying sample.

2. Flactuations in the air speed also may have altered the rate of evaporation

3. Human error is also a factor where monitoring of the time was inconsistent

with the reading of its corresponding mass of sample beeing dried.

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 1
 9.0 PRECAUTIONS

1. The mass balance was consistently tared to zero before measurements were taken to
ensure data is accurate, precise and reproducible.

2. The sample was evenly spread across the surface of the tray to ensure effectiveness of
the experiment.

3. It was ensured that the hot air exit of the CE 130 dryer was not blocked so as to
prevent increase in humidity of the air and hence reduction in the rate of absorption of
further moisture leading ineffective drying.

10.0 CONCLUSION

The CE 130 convective dryer worked perfectly for tracking how wet sand loses weight as it
dries. Through this experiment on convection drying, we learned how both moisture content
and temperature change in a drying material with time. When we plotted our results, it
became clear that samples with more free moisture simply take longer to dry; a
straightforward relationship that makes practical sense. These observations matter because
they help improve drying processes and prevent wasted resources in both industry and
research settings. We also noticed that drier air speeds up the drying process appreciably.
This knowledge is particularly useful when transporting fluids, since knowing the drying rate
helps us choose the right temperatures to prevent losses from evaporation.

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 1
11.0 Appendix

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 1
POST LAB

1.)

Inlet conditions

T 1= 25 C R.H1 = 30%

Air speed = 1.5m/s,

From psychometric chart;

X 1 = 6 g/kg dry air

h1 = 40.345 kJ/kg

v(specific volume) = 0.853 m3/kg DA

Outlet conditions

T 2 = 48 C

R.H2 = 40%

From psychometric chart;

h2 = 122.867kJ/kg dry air

During heating, there is no change in moisture content, hence X 1 = X 2 =X

P = 101.325 kPa

mass flow rate of air in = mass flow rate of air out

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 1
Hence m 1 = m 2 = m

Where h 1 and h 2 are the enthalpies for the inlet and outlet gas respectively and q is the

Heat added for the drying.

Volumetric flow rate (V) = velocity × Area

Area = 350×10−3 m × 350×10−3 m = 0.1225m2

Volumetric flow rate = 1.5 m/s × 0.1225m2 = 0.18375m3 /s

Mass = volumetric flow rate/ specific volume

Mass(m) = V/v

m = 0.2154 g

q = m *(h2 -h1 ) = 0.2154 *(122.867 - 40.345 ) = 17.775 kJ/s

2. Industrial application convective drying

a. food processing industry: for processing of grains and fruits. Generally, such dryers can
be used for drying of meal-like and fine-kernel materials.

b. Textile industry : For drying fabrics post-dyeing or printing to eliminate residual moisture
and fix color pigments.

3.

i Temperature

ii. Relative humidity

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 1
 11.0 REFERENCES

Abdizhapparova, B., Potapov, V., Khanzharov, N., Shingissov, A., & Khanzharova, B. (2022).
DETERMINATION OF HEAT TRANSFER MECHANISMS DURING VACUUM DRYING OF SOLID-MOIST
AND LIQUID-VISCOUS MATERIALS. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, 6(11–120),
6–15. [Link]

McMinn, W. A. M., & Magee, T. R. A. (1999). Principles, Methods and Applications of the
Convective Drying of Foodstuffs. Food and Bioproducts Processing, 77(3), 175–193.
[Link]
Mujumdar, A. S. (n.d.). Handbook of Industrial Drying; Second Edition.
Pinheiro, M. N. C., Madaleno, R. O., & Castro, L. M. M. N. (2022). Drying kinetics of two fruits
Portuguese cultivars (Bravo de Esmolfe apple and Madeira banana): An experimental study.
Heliyon, 8(4). [Link]

12. DECLARATION

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 1
 I declare that:

 This report is my unaided work and is a true reflection of the lab I participated in.
 Large portions of it have not been submitted by another student for assessment.
 A significant portion of it was not copied from an internet source or a book (Daboo).
 A significant portion of it was not written using ChatGPT or any other AI tool.
 If any of the above statements turn out to be false, I forfeit the marks awarded to this
report.

HINNEH ANDREWS 22ND JANUARY ,2026

NAME DATE SIGNATURE

DAGADU CHRISTIAN 22ND JANUARY ,2026

NAME DATE SIGNATURE

BOAFO PRINCE BEKOE 22ND JANUARY ,2026

NAME DATE SIGNATURE

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 1