Energy and Exergy Efficiencies of Fluidized and Fixed Bed Rice Drying

Highlights Fluidized bed drying of rough rice at 40°C with or without ambient air dehumidification worked best based on the energy and exergy utilization. The dryer lost exergy in the exit air, which was the primary cause of thermal inefficiency; recirculation of the exit air could improve the exergy efficiency. Ambient air dehumidification did not reduce the dryer’s energy utilization and exergy efficiency for rough rice. Abstract . Fluidized bed drying of rough rice in the U.S. has not been used to its full potential due to a lack of research to address rice quality impacts and energy consumption. Little research has been done to analyze the energy and exergy of fluidized bed drying of rough rice. Thermal analysis allows using the drying air’s energy better and improving the drying system’s thermal efficiency. In this study, energy utilization and energy utilization ratio were calculated using the first law of thermodynamics, while exergy loss and exergy efficiency were determined using the second law. Drying air temperature (40°C, 45°C, or 50°C), drying bed condition (fluidized or fixed), drying duration (30, 45, or 60 min), and ambient air dehumidification (yes or no) were the tested factors. A lab-scale drying system designed in a previous study was used. Three replicates were performed to minimize any bias or human errors. All factors significantly affected the energy and exergy of the drying process, except dehumidification and replication. The minimum and maximum energy utilization values were 0.01 and 0.55 kJ s-1 for fixed bed drying at 40°C for 30 min with dehumidification and fluidized bed drying at 50°C for 60 min without dehumidification, respectively. The minimum and maximum exergy efficiency values were 13.46% and 49.14% for fixed bed drying at 45°C for 45 min with dehumidification and fluidized bed drying at 40°C for 60 min with dehumidification, respectively. The primary cause of thermal inefficiency was attributed to the energy and exergy losses in the exit air, while the secondary source was the exergy and energy losses from the drying chamber and inlet air pipes. Costly solutions could be recirculation of the exit air and better insulation of the drying chamber and inlet pipes. However, using the optimal drying conditions for the energy and exergy utilization of the drying air is suggested. This study found that fluidized bed drying was better than fixed bed drying overall. At the primary drying stage, fluidized bed drying had a higher exergy efficiency, energy utilization, and energy utilization ratio than fixed bed drying. At 40°C, fluidized bed drying with or without ambient air dehumidification worked best based on the energy and exergy utilization of the drying system. Keywords: Dehumidification, Energy, Exergy, Fixed bed, Fluidized bed, Rice drying.