PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 9, 2026SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología0 citationsOpen Access

Energy efficiency comparison of intermittent and continuous drying of seaweed as a novel biomass

View Full Paper
MNMohiodin NazemiCRChristiaan RichterRURúnar Unnþórsson

Key Points

  • This research aims to fairly compare the energy efficiency of intermittent drying and continuous drying methods for seaweed.
  • Evaluated two intermittent drying methods and one continuous drying method experimentally.
  • Allocated the same total drying time (180 min) for both drying methods.
  • Maintained identical energy input for each method during the evaluation.
  • No significant improvement in moisture reduction or specific energy consumption for intermittent drying (p > 0.05).
  • Intermittent drying with longer drying times increased moisture removal by approximately 8%.
  • Intermittent drying resulted in 5–10 °C lower maximum temperatures, which may help preserve quality.

Abstract

Seaweed is an abundant and rapidly renewable marine biomass, yet its high moisture content necessitates energy-intensive drying prior to utilization. Although intermittent drying (ID) is frequently claimed to be more energy-efficient than continuous drying (CD), most studies rely on unequal total drying times, making the reported energy savings inconclusive. This study provides the first fair comparison (allocating the same total drying time for both methods) between ID and CD for Bladderwrack (Fucus vesiculosus). In the first case, two ID methods and one CD method were evaluated experimentally under identical energy input and total duration (180 min). Results show that ID provides no significant improvement in moisture reduction (p > 0.05) or specific energy consumption (Ē ratios = 0.96–0.98) compared with CD under fair conditions. In the second case, when ID was allowed a longer total drying time while maintaining equal energy consumption, moisture removal increased by approximately 8 % (Ē ratios ≈ 1.2). Additionally, ID resulted in 5–10 °C lower maximum temperatures, suggesting potential quality-preservation benefits. A broader analysis of previous studies suggests that reported efficiency gains for ID are frequently attributable to longer drying times rather than intrinsic process efficiency. These findings highlight the context-dependent nature of ID’s benefits and underscore the importance of standardized comparisons when assessing drying methods for sustainable biomasses.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Nazemi et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69897983f0ec2af6756e72e0https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2026.109110
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper