Sustainable food processing of selected North American native berries to support agroforestry

Figures & data

Figure 1. Acres cultivated for bluberries, blackberries and chokeberries (Aronia) in the United States. Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service (2021).

Figure 2. Nutrient composition of blueberries in (wetbasis, wb %) (FoodData Central 2021).

Figure 3. Nutrient composition of blackberries in (wetbasis, wb %) (FoodData Central 2021).

Figure 4. Nutrient composition of chokeberries in (wetbasis, wb %) (Karakashova et al. 2016; Kulling and Rawel 2008).

Figure 5. Schematic diagram of a direct solar drying. Adapted from (Prakash and Kumar 2013).

Figure 6. Schematic diagram of Conventional Air Drying – Oven drying. Adapted from (Kassem et al. 2011).

Figure 7. Effect of oven drying (at different temperature and time) on total phenolics, anthocyanin content and anti-oxidant capacity (indicated in the secondary vertical label) in chokeberries. Fresh sample contents are also shown for comparison. Data (Samoticha, Wojdyło, and Lech 2016).

Figure 8. Comparison of oven and freeze drying on vitamin C retention of berries (Chokeberry- Aronia; Blueberry & Blackberry).

Date from: Nemzer et al. (2018) and Sadowska, Jadwiga, and Klóska (2017).

Figure 9. (a) Schematic diagram of a freeze dryer. (b) Freeze drying process of blueberries.

Table 1. Application of freeze drying for blueberries, blackberries and chokeberries (Aronia).

Berries	Process parameters	Properties	Key findings	Geographic Location & Cultivar	References
Blueberry	Foams were blast frozen at −30 °C, for 6 hours and freeze dried at −55 °C and 0.04 mbar for 24 hours	Powder yield, solubility, moisture content and water activity, bulk density, rehydration time, particle morphology and Color characteristics	Increase in the concentration of carrier agent decreased the powder yield. Foam-mat freeze drying had the highest yield (>72%), moisture content (2.6 − 4%), water activity (0.4), rehydration time (74 − 78 s) and solubility (99%) compared to the spray dried powder. The particles were larger, irregular and had a flake-like shape and exhibited dark purple color.	Leeds, England Cultivar – N/A	(Darniadi, Ho, and Murray 2018)
Blueberry	Berries are frozen at −35 °C for 48 hours and freeze dried at −20 °C, 20 Pa for 48 h with a condenser temperature of 60 °C.	Total phenolic contents, anthocyanins and antioxidant capacity	Freeze drying improved the retention and sometimes even the concentration of bioactive compounds compared to oven drying	Northwestern Washington State, USA Cultivar – Highbush	(Sablani et al. 2011)
Blueberry	Berries are frozen at −50 °C, pre-dried at 30 °C, 0.42 mBar and secondary drying at 40 °C, 0.05 mbar	Microparticles characterization, product yield, polyphenols content, antioxidant activity	Freeze dried powder showed amorphous structure with a yield of 78.1% and had a better retention of anthocyanins (1.5 times higher than spray dried powder).	Lodz, Poland Cultivar – N/A	(Wilkowska et al. 2016)
Blackberry, Black chokeberry (Aronia)	Berries are frozen at −18 °C, freeze dried at −40 °C and pressure 0.042 mBar	Total monomeric anthocyanin content, vitamin C, and antioxidant capacity	Minimal loss was observed for both the berries on comparison with the fresh samples. Freeze drying showed better preservation than air-drying	Bydgoszcz, Poland Cultivar – N/A	(Sadowska, Jadwiga, and Klóska 2017)
Chokeberry (Aronia)	Refrigeration for two days at 4 °C prior to drying. Frozen at −80 °C overnight and freeze dried at 35 °C and 0.010–0.015 torr for two days	Total phenolic contents, total flavonoids, anthocyanins and antioxidant capacity	Freeze drying retained the maximum amount of phytochemicals and antioxidant capacity compared to oven and sun drying.	Yeongcheon, Korea Cultivar – Aronia Nero	(Do Thi and Hwang 2016)

Table 2. Impact of drying on optical properties and rehydration potential of blueberries, blackberries and chokeberries (Aronia).

Berry model	Drying method	Properties	Key findings	Geographical Location & Cultivar	References
Blueberry	Hot air drying (HAD), Freeze drying (FD), Refractance Window drying (RWD)	Color	Dried blueberries showed significant changes in L*, a*, b* compared to control samples except for FD samples which showed no significant effect in a* value. However, total color change (ΔE) was least for HAD since the L* value decreased. FD and RWD showed increase in L* value, thus the berries appeared to be light pale.	British Columbia, Canada Cultivar – N/A	(Nemzer et al. 2018)
Blueberry	Osmotic dehydration + convective drying	Color, rehydration ratio	No significant color change was observed when compared with osmotically dehydrated samples. Rehydration ratio (2.6) was maximum when dried at 85 °C	Quebec, Canada Cultivar – Lowbush (Dixie variety)	(Grabowski et al. 2007)
Blueberry	Hot air drying (HAD), Microwave vacuum drying (MWVD), hot air drying and microwave-vacuum drying (HACD + MWVD)	Rehydration potential	Compared to HAD and MWVD, samples dried by HACD + MWVD showed higher rehydration capacity (3.01 to 3.29 kg/kg H2O DM) and increased initial rehydration rate (0.27 − 0.46 per min)	Wielkopolska, Poland Cultivar – Bluecrop	(Zielinska and Markowski 2016b)
Blueberry	Ethyl oleate (AEEO) pretreatment + cabinet drying	Rehydration ratio	AEEO pretreatment increased the rehydration ratio and it increased with increase in pretreatment time. Maximum rehydration ratio occurred at 70 °C with 5 min soaking time.	Guangdong, China Cultivar – N/A	(An et al. 2019)
Blackberry	Spray drying	Color	No significant differences were found in a* value with the increase of inlet temperature and carrier agent concentration. However, the b* value decreased but showed a positive value indicating a yellow color. L* value was significantly affected by carrier concentration. Lightness increased with increase in concentration.	Cambuí, Brazil Cultivar - Tupy	(Nogueira et al. 2020)
Blackberry	Spray drying	Color	Increase of carrier agent (maltodextrin) concentration increased the lightness and decreased the hue angle, thereby enhancing the purple color.	Jundiaı´, Brazil Cultivar – N/A	(Ferrari, Germer, and de Aguirre 2012)
Chokeberry (Aronia)	Spray drying	Color	Drying temperature showed no significant impact on the color of samples. However, carrier type showed an impact on a* and b* values. Storage of powders increased L* and the highest value was obtained when stored at 25 °C.	Mogielnica, Poland Cultivar – N/A	(Bednarska and Janiszewska-Turak 2020)
Chokeberry (Aronia)	Spray drying, freeze drying and oven vacuum drying	Color	Oven vacuum drying showed decrease in L* value indicating a darker color compared to spray and freeze drying. However, ΔE was minimum for samples dried by oven vacuum at 40 °C.	Unkel, Germany Cultivar – N/A	(Horszwald, Julien, and Andlauer 2013)
Black Chokeberry (Aronia)	Freeze drying	Color	L* and b* values were highest for half cut and puree dried samples respectively. While the lowest L* value was observed in puree and whole dried samples respectively. Half cut and puree dried samples showed intense red color compared to the fresh samples.	Yalova, Turkey Cultivar – N/A	(Taşkın 2020)
Chokeberry (Aronia)	Freeze-drying (FD), vacuum (VD), convective drying (CD), microwave (VMD) and combined method (CVM)	Color	Samples obtained by FD, CD and VMD had a brighter color, whereas, samples dried by VD and CVM showed a darker color. Intense red color was observed in FD, VMD and CVM and vacuum dried samples had a negative a* value exhibiting green color. Highest b* value was observed for CVM dried samples and the lowest was observed for convective dried samples.	Trzebnica, Poland Cultivar – N/A	(Samoticha, Wojdyło, and Lech 2015)
Chokeberry (Aronia)	Convective drying	Rehydration ratio	Rehydration capacity (1.77 − 1.93) of the berries increased with increase in drying temperature	Javor mountain, Serbia Cultivar – N/A	(Petkovic et al. 2019)

Figure 10. Schematic diagram of a spray dryer.

Figure 11. Mechanism of spray drying.

Figure 12. Influence of spray drying operating conditions on powder characteristics. Data from: (Phisut 2012; Shishir and Chen 2017).

Table 3. Application of different carrier material for spray drying of blueberries, blackberries and chokeberries (Aronia).

Berry model	Spray dryer system	Carrier agents	Process parameters	Results	Geographic Location & Cultivar	References
Blueberry	Mini Spray Dryer B290	Maltodextrin DE7 Maltodextrin DE10Maltodextrin DE20 Maltodextrin DE40	Inlet Temperature: 170–210 °C MD concentration: 10–30 wt.% Volumetric flow rate: 35 m^3/h Pressure: 1.5 bar	Resveratrol retention was predominantly influenced by MD concentration. Lower molecular weight of MD showed a better preservation of resveratrol content. Optimal process conditions include 23 wt.% MD at 170 °C for DE7 and 23 wt.% MD at 210 °C for DE7	San Luis Potosí, Mexico Cultivar – N/A	(Leyva-Porras et al. 2019)
Blueberry	Mini Spray Dryer B290	Maltodextrin (MD) Inulin	Inlet air temperature: 180 °C Outlet air temperature: 70 °C Feed flow: 7 mL/min Pressure: 1.5 bar Air flow rate: 28 m^3/h	MD formulations preserved its amorphous state at all levels of water activity whereas inulin formulations showed a structural change from amorphous to crystalline state at water activity 0.434. Compared to inulin, MD effectively conserved the antioxidants.	San Luis Potosí, Mexico Cultivar – N/A	(Araujo-Díaz et al. 2017)
Blueberry	Mini Spray Dryer B290	Mesquite gum	Inlet temperature: 180 °C Outlet temperature: 92 °C Air flow rate: 7.32 L/min Feeding rate: 9 mL/min	Employing mesquite gum as an encapsulating agent can effectively prevent the loss of anthocyanins when the capsules are exposed to temperature and light during storage. Temperature and light showed a very minimal effect on the color changes. Hence, mesquite gum can be used in applications where the objective is to impart color.	Puebla, Mexico Cultivar – Rabbiteye	(Jiménez-Aguilar et al. 2011)
Blackberry	Mini Spray Dryer-LM 1.0 MSDI	Gum Arabic (GA) Polydextrose (PD)	Inlet temperature: 140 °C, 160 °C Nozzle diameter: 1.0 mm Feed flow rate: 0.60 L/h Carrier concentration: 10 %, 15% Air flow rate: 40.5 L/h Pressure: 3.5 kgf/cm^2	Hygroscopicity and solubility was not affected by temperature, carrier type or concentration. Increase of temperature showed significant impact on degradation of bioactive compounds. PD showed higher browning index than GA and it increased with temperature.	Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil Cultivar – Tupy	(Rigon and Zapata Noreña 2016)
Blackberry	Production mirror, GEA-NIRO®, Denmark	Maltodextrin (MD) Agave fructans (AF)	Inlet air temperature: 180 °C Outlet air temperature: 80 °C Feed flow rate: 20 mL/h carrier agent concentration: 5, 7.5, 10% (w/v) Atomization rate: 28 000 rpm	AF showed desired results such as high yield, lower water activity and lower moisture content but the particles were more agglomerated. The yield increased (52.2 to 89.7%) with concentration of carrier material. On the other hand, MD produced more stable particles.	Jocotepec, Mexico Cultivar – N/A	(Farías-Cervantes et al. 2020)
Blackberry	Mini Spray Dryer B290	Maltodextrin (MD) Gum Arabic (GA) MD + GA (1:1 w⁄w)	Inlet air temperature: 145 °C Outlet air temperature: 75 − 80 °C Drying air flow rate: 0.36 m^3/hr Aspirator flow rate: 35 m^3/hr Pump flow rate: 0.49 kg/hr	Powders produced with MD and a mixture of both carrier agents exhibited the strongest antioxidant activity with minimum loss of anthocyanins and so can be potentially used as food colorants. GA powders appeared to be smaller with more dented surfaces and showed higher degradation.	Jundiaı´, Brazil Cultivar – N/A	(Ferrari, Germer, and de Aguirre 2012)
Chokeberry (Aronia)	Mini Spray Dryer B290	Gum Arabic	Nozzle diameter: 0.7 mm Inlet Temperature: 130 ± 3 °C Outlet Temperature: 56 ± 2 °C Spraying air flow rate: 536 L/h Liquid feed flow rate: 8 mL/min Atomization pressure: 6 psi	Microencapsulated particles were spherical in shape without any deformations. Use of gum Arabic showed desired outcomes such as low moisture content, small particle size and increased bioavailability of bioactive compounds	Suvobor, Serbia Cultivar – N/A	(Ćujić et al. 2018)
Chokeberry (Aronia)	Mini Spray Dryer B290	Maltodextrin (MD) (DE16–19.9) Skimmed milk (SM)	Nozzle diameter: 0.7 mm Inlet Temperature: 130 ± 3 °C Outlet Temperature: 56 ± 2 °C Spraying air flow rate: 536 L/h Liquid feed flow rate: 8 mL/min Rate atomization pressure: 6 psi	Chokeberry fruit extract encapsulated with SM (3.65%) produced a lower moisture content than MD (4.34%), MD exhibited a spherical structure with no roughness; smaller particle size; higher yield; increased retention of total phenolics and anthocyanins compared to SM	Sabac, Serbia Cultivar – N/A	(Ćujić-Nikolić et al. 2019)
Chokeberry (Aronia)	Semi-industrial spray drier LAB S1	Maltodextrin (MD) Arabic gum (AG) Rice starch	Inlet Temperature: 180 °C Speed: 39,000 rpm Air flow rate: 0.055 m3/s	Powders encapsulated with all the three carrier agents were characterized by a high dry weight content (97–98%). MD exhibited the desired physical features such as low hygroscopicity, water content, and highest a*, b* values. A mixture of AG and MD may also be considered as an alternative for MD since it had lower hygroscopicity, porosity, and better storage stability.	Tarczyn, Poland Cultivar – N/A	(Janiszewska-Turak, Sak, and Witrowa-Rajchert 2019)
Chokeberry (Aronia)	Niro Atomizer FU 11 DA	Tapioca dextrin (TD) Maltodextrin (MD)	Inlet temperature:150, 160, 170 °C Rotary atomizer speed: 12,000, 13,500 and 15,000 rpm Outlet temperature: 88–90 °C Feed flow rate: 10 − 15 L/h	Compared to MD, TD formulations gave better outcomes such as increased flowability and yield, less deformations and shrinkage and better conservation of bioactive properties. Increase of inlet temperature increased particle size, bulk density, yield and flowability. Increase of atomizer speed decreased the droplet size and showed less impact on the loss of bioactive compounds.	Breda, Netherlands Cultivar – N/A	(Gawałek and Domian 2020)

Figure 13. Classification of thin – layer modeling.

Figure 14. Drying curve.

Table 4. Recent applications of thin layer models to describe the drying kinetics for blueberries, blackberries and chokeberries (Aronia).

Berry model	Drying unit operation	Process parameters	Best fit model	Model expression	R^2	χ^2	RMSE	References
Blueberry	Convective drying	RH − 20% T − 30, 40, 50 °C	Page model	$MR=\mathrm{ }\exp \left(-k{t}^n\right)$	0.9879 − 0.9908	0.00030 − 0.00036	0.01672 − 0.01758	(Martín-Gómez et al. 2020)
Blueberry	Convective drying with different pretreatments (NaOH immersion, enzymatic, microwaves, and high hydrostatic pressure)	T − 70 °C	Weibull and modified Henderson – Pabis model	$MR=\exp \left(-{\left(\frac{t}{\beta }\right)}^{\alpha }\right)$ $MR=\mathrm{ }\mathrm{a exp}\left(-kt\right)+$ $\mathrm{b exp}\left(-gt\right)+\mathrm{ }\mathrm{c exp}\left(-ht\right)$	0.9858 − 0.9995; 0.9844 − 0.9989	0.0011 − 0.0022; 0.0009 − 0.0014	0.0303 − 0.0450; 0.0266 − 0.0346	(Vega-Galvez et al. 2012)
Blueberry	Hot air convective + Microwave vacuum drying	T − 80 °C	Linear Model and Henderson – Pabis model	$MR=a-bt$ $MR=\mathrm{ }\mathrm{a exp}\left(-kt\right)$	0.98 − 0.99	–	0.0177–0.0186	(Zielinska, Sadowski, and Błaszczak 2016)
Blueberry	Pulsed electric field + Vacuum drying; Pulsed electric field + Hot air drying	T − 75, 60, 45 °C	Weibull model	$MR=\exp \left(-{\left(\frac{t}{\beta }\right)}^{\alpha }\right)$	0.994, 0.991, 0.985; 0.984, 0.993, 0.981	–	–	(Yu, Jin, and Xiao 2017)
Blackberry	Solar drying	V − 2 m/s (Direct solar drying) V − 11 m/s (Indirect solar drying)	Midilli–Kuçuk model	$MR=\mathrm{ }a\exp \left(-k{t}^n\right)+bt$	0.9932; 0.9970	0.0044; 0.0037	0.0257; 0.0162	(López‐Vidaña et al. 2019)
Blackberry	Solar drying	Max T − 45 °C V − 0.58 m/s	Page model	$MR=\mathrm{ }\exp \left(-k{t}^n\right)$	0.9971	0.0001	0.1802	(Lo et al. 2018)
Blackberry	Hot air drying	V − 1 m/S T − 54 − 75 °C	Midilli et al. model	$MR=\mathrm{ }\mathrm{a exp}\left(-kt\right)+bt$	0.9936 − 0.9998	0.000022 − 0.000075	0.00124 − 0.0051	(Eminoğlu, Yegül, and Sacilik 2019)
Blackberry	Hot air drying + 4 different pretreatments (Blanching, pulse treatment + microwave, ascorbic acid and ultrasonic vibration)	Hot air-drying T − 50, 60, 70 °C	Midilli et al. model	$MR=\mathrm{ }\mathrm{a exp}\left(-kt\right)+bt$	0.9988 − 0.9996	0.00037 − 0.00090	0.01495 − 0.01652	(Kaveh, Taghinezhad, and Aziz 2020)
Black Chokeberry (Aronia)	Convective drying	T − 50, 60 and 70 °C	Henderson - Pabis model	$MR=\mathrm{ }\mathrm{a exp}\left(-kt\right)$	0.9937, 0.9866, 0.9909	–	0.0173, 0.0325, 0.0187	(Petkovic et al. 2019)
Black Chokeberry (Aronia)	Freeze drying	T – (−50 °C) P − 52 Pa	Midilli et al. model	$MR=\mathrm{ }\mathrm{a exp}\left(-kt\right)+bt$	0.9970 − 0.9998	0.000047 − 0.00035	0.0045 − 0.0179	(Taşkın 2020)
Black Chokeberry (Aronia)	Vacuum microwave drying	V − 1 m/s; constant 360 W; 360 to 240 W	Modified Page model	$MR=\mathrm{ }a\exp \left(-k{t}^n\right)$	0.9977; 0.9991	–	0.01598; 0.00992	(Calín-Sánchez et al. 2015)

RH – Relative humidity; T – Temperature; V – Velocity; P – Pressure; MR – Moisture ratio.

Table 5. Degradation kinetics of vitamins and anthocyanins in blueberries and blackberries during drying.

Berry model	Drying method/heat treatment	Process parameters	Degradation model	Kinetic parameters	Half life (t1/2)	References
Blueberry juice	High pressure (HP) and pulsed electric field (PEF)	HP − 600 MPa at 42 ◦C for 5 min PEF − 36 KV/cm, 100 μs	1.4th-order kinetics	–	–	(Barba et al. 2012)
Blueberry juice	Thermal treatment	T − 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 ◦C	First order kinetics	Ea: 80.4 kJ/mol Q10: 1.67 − 4.27 K: 0.064 − 2.254 * 10^3 min^−1	5.1 − 180.5 h	(Kechinski et al. 2010)
Blueberry powder	Freeze drying	T − 25, 42, 60, 80 °C	First order kinetics	Ea: 58.26 kJ/mol Q10: 2.15, 1.98, 1.85 for 25, 42, 60 ◦C K: 0.1 − 2.1 min^−1	25 °C − 139 days 42 °C − 39 days 60 °C − 12 days	(Fracassetti et al. 2013)
Blueberry pulp	Thermal treatment	T − 70, 80, 90 ◦C	First order kinetics	K: 0.0655, 0.0945, 0.2419 h^-1 Ea: 92 kJ/mol Q10: 2.6	12.7, 7.3, 1.4 h	(Busso Casati, Baeza, and Sánchez 2017)
Blueberry puree	Hydro thermodynamic processing	T − 70, 80, 87.5, 95, 105 °C	First order kinetics	Ea: 66.37 kJ/mol K: 0.002 − 0.0179 min^−1	38.7 − 346.6 min	(Martynenko and Chen 2016)
Blackberry juice	Thermal + high pressure treatment	T − 40 − 121 °C P − 0.1-700 MPa	1.4th-order kinetics	K: 0.006 − 29.251 * 10^-2min^-1	–	(Buckow et al. 2010)
Blackberry juice	Stored at different temperatures	T − 5, 30, 37, 45 ◦C	First order kinetics	K: 2.12 − 149.79 day^−1 Ea: 56.8 − 58.6 kJ/mol	4.6 − 327.1 day	(Gancel et al. 2011)
Blackberry juice	Spray drying	Inlet T − 130 °C Outlet T − 60 °C Atomizing pressure − 40–50 mBar	First order kinetics	K: 0.05 − 0.30 week^−1	–	(Colín-Cruz et al. 2019)
Blackberry jam	Thermal processing and storage stability	Stored for 5 months at 18 °C	First order kinetics	K: 7.199 * 10^-3 /day	96.2 days	(Oancea and Călin 2016)
Blackberry Pulp	Ohmic heating, conventional heating	T − 70, 75, 80, 90 °C	First order kinetics	K: 0.00155 − 0.0051 min^−1 Ea: 56 kJ/mol (Conventional heating) Ea: 67 kJ/mol (Conventional heating) D: 427 − 1484 min Z: 35.33, 44.7 °C ΔH: 53.6 − 64 ΔG: 102.3 − 105.5 ΔS: −144 to −114	129 − 447 min	(Sarkis et al. 2013)

U.S. Department of Agriculture. FoodData Central. 2021. Accessed February 6, 2021. https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/.

 Google Scholar

Karakashova, L., F. Babanovska-Milenkovska, M. Stojanova, and B. Karakashov. 2016. Comparison of qualities properties of fresh, frozen and solar dried chokeberry fruits. 25th International Scientific-Experts Congress on Agriculture and Food Industry 2014, Izmir. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4506.1209.

 Google Scholar

Kulling, S. E., and H. M. Rawel. 2008. Chokeberry (Aronia melanocarpa) – A review on the characteristic components and potential health effects. Planta Medica 74 (13):1625–34. doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1088306.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Prakash, O., and A. Kumar. 2013. Historical review and recent trends in solar drying systems. International Journal of Green Energy 10 (7):690–738. doi: 10.1080/15435075.2012.727113.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kassem, A. S., A. Z. Shokr, A. R. El-Mahdy, A. M. Aboukarima, and E. Y. Hamed. 2011. Comparison of drying characteristics of Thompson seedless grapes using combined microwave oven and hot air drying. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences 10 (1):33–40. doi: 10.1016/j.jssas.2010.05.001.

 Google Scholar

Samoticha, J., A. Wojdyło, and K. Lech. 2016. The influence of different the drying methods on chemical composition and antioxidant activity in chokeberries. LWT – Food Science and Technology 66:484–9. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2015.10.073.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nemzer, B., L. Vargas, X. Xia, M. Sintara, and H. Feng. 2018. Phytochemical and physical properties of blueberries, tart cherries, strawberries, and cranberries as affected by different drying methods. Food Chemistry 262:242–50. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.04.047.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sadowska, K., A. Jadwiga, and Ł. Klóska. 2017. Influence of freezing, lyophilisation and air-drying on the total monomeric anthocyanins, vitamin C and antioxidant capacity of selected berries. International Journal of Food Science & Technology 52 (5):1246–51. doi: 10.1111/ijfs.13391.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Darniadi, S., P. Ho, and B. S. Murray. 2018. Comparison of blueberry powder produced via foam-mat freeze-drying versus spray-drying: Evaluation of foam and powder properties. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 98 (5):2002–10. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.8685.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sablani, S. S., P. K. Andrews, N. M. Davies, T. Walters, H. Saez, and L. Bastarrachea. 2011. Effects of air and freeze drying on phytochemical content of conventional and organic berries. Drying Technology 29 (2):205–16. doi: 10.1080/07373937.2010.483047.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wilkowska, A., W. Ambroziak, A. Czyżowska, and J. Adamiec. 2016. Effect of microencapsulation by spray drying and freeze drying technique on the antioxidant properties of blueberry (Vaccinium myrtillus) juice polyphenolic compounds. Polish Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences 66 (1):11–6. doi: 10.1515/pjfns-2015-0015.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Do Thi, N., and E.-S. Hwang. 2016. Effects of drying methods on contents of bioactive compounds and antioxidant activities of black chokeberries (Aronia melanocarpa). Food Science and Biotechnology 25 (1):55–61. doi: 10.1007/s10068-016-0008-8.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Grabowski, S., M. Marcotte, D. Quan, A. R. Taherian, M. R. Zareifard, M. Poirier, and T. Kudra. 2007. Kinetics and quality aspects of Canadian blueberries and cranberries dried by osmo-convective method. Drying Technology 25 (2):367–74. doi: 10.1080/07373930601120563.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zielinska, M., and M. Markowski. 2016. The influence of microwave-assisted drying techniques on the rehydration behavior of blueberries (Vaccinium corymbosum L.). Food Chemistry 196:1188–96. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.10.054.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

An, K., M. Fu, H. Zhang, D. Tang, Y. Xu, and G. Xiao. 2019. Effect of ethyl oleate pretreatment on blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum L.): Drying kinetics, antioxidant activity, and structure of wax layer. Journal of Food Science and Technology 56 (2):783–91. doi: 10.1007/s13197-018-3538-7.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nogueira, G. F., C. T. Soares, L. G. P. Martin, F. M. Fakhouri, and R. A. de Oliveira. 2020. Influence of spray drying on bioactive compounds of blackberry pulp microencapsulated with arrowroot starch and gum Arabic mixture. Journal of Microencapsulation 37 (1):65–76. doi: 10.1080/02652048.2019.1693646.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ferrari, C. C., S. P. M. Germer, and J. M. de Aguirre. 2012. Effects of spray-drying conditions on the physicochemical properties of blackberry powder. Drying Technology 30 (2):154–63. doi: 10.1080/07373937.2011.628429.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bednarska, M. A., and E. Janiszewska-Turak. 2020. The influence of spray drying parameters and carrier material on the physico-chemical properties and quality of chokeberry juice powder. Journal of Food Science and Technology 57 (2):564–77. doi: 10.1007/s13197-019-04088-8.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Horszwald, A., H. Julien, and W. Andlauer. 2013. Characterisation of Aronia powders obtained by different drying processes. Food Chemistry 141 (3):2858–63. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.05.103.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Taşkın, O. 2020. Evaluation of freeze drying for whole, half cut and puree black chokeberry (Aronia melanocarpa L.). Heat and Mass Transfer 56:2503–13. doi: 10.1007/s00231-020-02867-0.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Petkovic, M., I. Đurović, N. Miletic, and J. Radovanović. 2019. Effect of convective drying method of chokeberry (Aronia melanocarpa L.) on drying kinetics, bioactive components and sensory characteristics of bread with chokeberry powder. Periodica Polytechnica Chemical Engineering 63 (4):600–8. doi: 10.3311/PPch.13783.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Phisut, N. 2012. Spray drying technique of fruit juice powder: Some factors influencing the properties of product. International Food Research Journal 19:1297–306.

 Google Scholar

Shishir, M. R. I., and W. Chen. 2017. Trends of spray drying: A critical review on drying of fruit and vegetable juices. Trends in Food Science & Technology 65:49–67. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2017.05.006.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Leyva-Porras, C., M. Z. Saavedra-Leos, E. Cervantes-González, P. Aguirre-Bañuelos, M. B. Silva-Cázarez, and C. Álvarez-Salas. 2019. Spray drying of blueberry juice-maltodextrin mixtures: evaluation of processing conditions on content of resveratrol. Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) 8 (10):437. doi: 10.3390/antiox8100437.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Araujo-Díaz, S. B., C. Leyva-Porras, P. Aguirre-Bañuelos, C. Álvarez-Salas, and Z. Saavedra-Leos. 2017. Evaluation of the physical properties and conservation of the antioxidants content, employing inulin and maltodextrin in the spray drying of blueberry juice. Carbohydrate Polymers 167:317–25. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.03.065.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jiménez-Aguilar, D. M., A. E. Ortega-Regules, J. D. Lozada-Ramírez, M. C. I. Pérez-Pérez, E. J. Vernon-Carter, and J. Welti-Chanes. 2011. Color and chemical stability of spray-dried blueberry extract using mesquite gum as wall material. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 24 (6):889–94. doi: 10.1016/j.jfca.2011.04.012.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rigon, R. T., and C. P. Zapata Noreña. 2016. Microencapsulation by spray-drying of bioactive compounds extracted from blackberry (Rubus fruticosus). Journal of Food Science and Technology 53 (3):1515–24. doi: 10.1007/s13197-015-2111-x.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Farías-Cervantes, V. S., Y. Salinas-Moreno, A. Chávez-Rodríguez, G. Luna-Solano, H. Medrano-Roldan, and I. Andrade-González. 2020. Stickiness and agglomeration of blackberry and raspberry spray dried juices using agave fructans and maltodextrin as carrier agents. Czech Journal of Food Sciences 38 (No. 4):229–36. doi: 10.17221/350/2018-CJFS.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ćujić, N., N. Stanisavljević, Š. Katarina, A. Kalušević, V. Nedovic, J. Samardzic, and T. Janković. 2018. Application of gum Arabic in the production of spray-dried chokeberry polyphenols, microparticles characterisation and in vitro digestion method. Lekovite Sirovine 38:10–8. doi: 10.1364/leksir1838009C.

 Google Scholar

Ćujić-Nikolić, N., N. Stanisavljević, K. Šavikin, A. Kalušević, V. Nedović, J. Samardžić, and T. Janković. 2019. Chokeberry polyphenols preservation using spray drying: effect of encapsulation using maltodextrin and skimmed milk on their recovery following in vitro digestion. Journal of Microencapsulation 36 (8):693–703. doi: 10.1080/02652048.2019.1667448.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Janiszewska-Turak, E., A. Sak, and D. Witrowa-Rajchert. 2019. Influence of the carrier material on the stability of chokeberry juice microcapsules. International Agrophysics 33 (4):517–25. doi: 10.31545/intagr/113530.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gawałek, J., and E. Domian. 2020. Tapioca dextrin as an alternative carrier in the spray drying of fruit juices – A case study of chokeberry powder. Foods 9 (8):1125. doi: 10.3390/foods9081125.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Martín-Gómez, J., M. Varo, J. Merida, and M. Serratosa. 2020. Influence of drying processes on anthocyanin profiles, total phenolic compounds and antioxidant activities of blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum). LWT 120:108931. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2019.108931.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Vega-Galvez, A., E. Lara, V. Flores, K. D. Scala, and R. Lemus-Mondaca. 2012. Effect of selected pretreatments on convective drying process of blueberries (Var. O’neil). Food and Bioprocess Technology 5 (7):2797–8. doi: 10.1007/s11947-011-0656-x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zielinska, M. P. and Sadowski, W. Błaszczak. 2016. Combined hot air convective drying and microwave-vacuum drying of blueberries (Vaccinium corymbosum L.): Drying kinetics and quality characteristics. Drying Technology 34 (6):665–84. doi: 10.1080/07373937.2015.1070358.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yu, Y., T. Z. Jin, and G. Xiao. 2017. Effects of pulsed electric fields pretreatment and drying method on drying characteristics and nutritive quality of blueberries. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation 41 (6):e13303. doi: 10.1111/jfpp.13303.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

López‐Vidaña, E. C., I. P. Figueroa, E. G. A. Marcos, A. Navarro‐Ocaña, L. Hernández‐Vázquez, and J. A. Santiago‐Urbina. 2019. Solar drying kinetics and bioactive compounds of blackberry (Rubus fruticosus). Journal of Food Process Engineering 42 (4):e13018. doi: 10.1111/jfpe.13018.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lo, A., J. C. Gallardo Brigido, A. Silva-Norman, I. Pilatowsky, O. García-Valladares, and J. Ramírez. 2018. Moisture content modeling and effective moisture diffusivity determination during convective solar drying of blackberry (Rubus Spp) and Basil (Ocimum basilicum L.). Paper presented at the IDS 2018. 21st International Drying Symposium Proceedings. doi: 10.4995/IDS2018.2018.7841.

 Google Scholar

Eminoğlu, M. B., U. Yegül, and K. Sacilik. 2019. Drying characteristics of blackberry fruits in a convective hot-air dryer. HortScience 54 (9):1546–50. doi: 10.21273/HORTSCI14201-19.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kaveh, M., E. Taghinezhad, and M. Aziz. 2020. Effects of physical and chemical pretreatments on drying and quality properties of blackberry (Rubus Spp.) in hot air dryer. Food Science & Nutrition 8 (7):3843–56. doi: 10.1002/fsn3.1678.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Calín-Sánchez, Á., A. Kharaghani, K. Lech, A. Figiel, A. Carbonell-Barrachina, and E. Tsotsas. 2015. Drying kinetics and microstructural and sensory properties of black chokeberry (Aronia melanocarpa) as affected by drying method. Food and Bioprocess Technology 8 (1):63–74. doi: 10.1007/s11947-014-1383-x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Barba, F. J., H. Jäger, N. Meneses, M. J. Esteve, A. Frígola, and D. Knorr. 2012. Evaluation of quality changes of blueberry juice during refrigerated storage after high-pressure and pulsed electric fields processing. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies 14:18–24. doi: 10.1016/j.ifset.2011.12.004.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kechinski, C. P., P. V. R. Guimarães, C. P. Z. Noreña, I. C. Tessaro, and L. D. F. Marczak. 2010. Degradation kinetics of anthocyanin in blueberry juice during thermal treatment. Journal of Food Science 75 (2):C173–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2009.01479.x.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fracassetti, D., C. Del Bo’, P. Simonetti, C. Gardana, D. Klimis-Zacas, and S. Ciappellano. 2013. Effect of time and storage temperature on anthocyanin decay and antioxidant activity in wild blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium) powder. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 61 (12):2999–3005. doi: 10.1021/jf3048884.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Busso Casati, C., R. Baeza, and V. Sánchez. 2017. Comparison of the kinetics of monomeric anthocyanins loss and colour changes in thermally treated blackcurrant, Maqui berry and blueberry pulps from Argentina. Journal of Berry Research 7 (2):85–96. doi: 10.3233/JBR-170151.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Martynenko, A., and Y. Chen. 2016. Degradation kinetics of total anthocyanins and formation of polymeric color in blueberry hydrothermodynamic (HTD) processing. Journal of Food Engineering 171:44–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2015.10.008.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Buckow, R., A. Kastell, N. S. Terefe, and C. Versteeg. 2010. Pressure and temperature effects on degradation kinetics and storage stability of total anthocyanins in blueberry juice. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 58 (18):10076–84. doi: 10.1021/jf1015347.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gancel, A.-L., A. Feneuil, O. Acosta, A. M. Pérez, and F. Vaillant. 2011. Impact of industrial processing and storage on major polyphenols and the antioxidant capacity of tropical highland blackberry (Rubus adenotrichus). Food Research International 44 (7):2243–51. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2010.06.013.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Colín-Cruz, M. A., D. J. Pimentel-González, H. Carrillo-Navas, J. Alvarez-Ramírez, and A. Y. Guadarrama-Lezama. 2019. Co-encapsulation of bioactive compounds from blackberry juice and probiotic bacteria in biopolymeric matrices. LWT 110:94–101. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2019.04.064.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Oancea, S., and F. Călin. 2016. Changes in total phenolics and anthocyanins during blackberry, raspberry and cherry jam processing and storage. Romanian Biotechnological Letters 21:11232–7.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sarkis, J. R., D. P. Jaeschke, G. D. Mercali, I. C. Tessaro, and L. D. F. Marczak. 2013. Degradation kinetics of anthocyanins in blackberry pulp during ohmic and conventional heating. International Food Research Journal 26 (1):87–97.

 Google Scholar