Review examines mass transfer modeling in food processing, suggesting new simulation frameworks for better accuracy.
Mass transfer is central to food processing but remains difficult to quantify because food materials are heterogeneous, multiphase, porous, biologically structured, and dynamically changing. Under these conditions, experiments alone cannot fully capture the spatiotemporal complexity of transport behavior, making modeling and simulation essential for mechanism interpretation, process prediction, and engineering optimization. Existing reviews mainly address specific operations or numerical methods, with limited synthesis of governing equations, simulation workflows, application implementation, and practical applicability. This review examines food mass transfer by linking coupled momentum, heat, and mass transfer laws with governing equation selection, simulation workflow, and representative food processing applications. Governing formulations for Fickian diffusion, conservation-based transport, heat–mass coupling, multicomponent transfer, Darcy-type porous-medium flow, and related model extensions are summarized, together with their assumptions, geometric applicability, and dimensionless criteria. A unified simulation workflow is then organized, covering transport type identification, governing equation and physical model selection, geometric representation, parameter determination, initial and boundary condition specifications, numerical method and simulation tool selection, numerical implementation, validation, and transferability assessment. Representative applications are discussed for drying, heat–mass coupled processes, multicomponent transfer, transport in porous foods, and redistribution in multi-ingredient or multilayer foods. Overall, future progress requires more integrated, structure-aware, experimentally validated, transferable, and application-oriented simulation frameworks.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: