Peanut Science (1979) 6,10-13

Peanut Drying Energy Consumption

Paul D. Blankenship!" and Victor Chew"

ABSTRACT placed in windrows with invertors for partial drying. After windrow
drying for 1 to 7 days, 32.7 to 36.3 tonnes of peanuts were har-
vested by combine during an afternoon and used to evenly fill
Total energy consumption and drying times were deter-
eight, 4.3 m x 2.4 m x 1.4 m Peerless' (4-RAE and 4-SAE) drying
mined for drying peanuts with various equipment and pro-
trailers for transportation to the drying facility and subsequent art-
cedures commonly used by the peanut industry. Total pea-
ificial drying. Four Model 153, 3.73 kW ST and two Model 103,
nut drying times were significantly shorter with 3.73 kW,
7.46 kW DT Peerless, propane gas-fired dryers were used for dry-
single-trailer (ST) dryers than with 7.46 kW, double-trailer
ing the peanuts ofeach replication. The 3.73 kW dryers had a man-
(DT) dryers. Total energy consumption was significantly
higher per tonne ofpeanuts dried for drying with ST dryers.
ufacturers rated airflow late of305.6 cubic meters per minute (rrf lmin)
under 2.54 ern ofwater static load; the 7.46 kW dryers had a rate of
Total energy consumption and drying times were not sig-
nificantly different for drying in side-air-entry or rear-air- 475.8 m 3/min. Watt hour meters were used to measure electricity
entry trailers. Precleaning reduced energy requirements for used by each dryer. Gas consumption was determined from weight
loss of individual propane tanks for each dryer. Initial and final
drying and slightly reduced total drying times. Drying pea-
moisture contents ofthe peanuts were determined by oven drying
nuts at 4O.560C decreased drying times but required con-
siderably more energy than drying at 35°C. Type of
250 g of shelled kernels at 13QOC for 3 h and calculating moisture
temperature control, constant (Co) or cycling (Cy), had no content based on weight loss. Moisture samples were taken with a
effect on drying times or energy consumption. standard farmers stock sample probe. Start-up time for treatments
of a replication varied less than 5 min. Artificial drying was dis-
continued when the moisture content (m.e.) ofthe peanuts reached
Key Words: peanuts, drying, energy consumption, cleaning. 11-12%.

1975 Experiments
This study was conducted in 1975 and 1976 at a The effects of dryer type (ST, DT), plenum air entry (SAE, RAE),
peanut drying, cleaning and receiving station owned and peanut precleaning (C, Uc) on total drying time and energy
by Stevens Industries, Inc. at Parrott, Georgia. consumption were investigated in Experiment 1 in 1975. The dry-
ing air temperature (35°C or lower, 1l.lloC maximum heat rise
from ambient temperature) was controlled with cycling-type flame
The purpose was to determine and compare differ- controls on each dryer. The burner flame was operated with an on-
ences in drying times and energy consumption dur- off thermostat set at the desired temperature. Gas pressure was
ing peanut drying with the following full-scale, con- controlled manually at each dryer and adjusted as ambient tempera-
ventional equipment and procedures: ture changed to maintain flame operation 50% of dryer operation
time. Plenum temperature next to the plenum wall directly op-
a. 3.73 kW, single trailer (ST) and 7.46 kW, double posite the air entry was measured and recorded. Peanuts of four of
trailer (DT) propane gas-fired dryers. the eight tests for each of the eight replications in Experiment 1
b. Trailers with side-air-entry (SAE) and trailers were precleaned at the drying facility with a commercial precleaner
with rear-air-entry (RAE). before drying.
c. Precleaned (C) and uncleaned (Uc) peanuts. 1976 Experiments
d. Two average drying air temperatures: 35°C (L)
and 40.56OC (H). Two types of temperature controls were studied in 1976 in Ex-
periment 2, Co and Cy. Average plenum temperature was controlled
e. Two types of temperature control: one with a at 350C (or lower 1l.llOC maximum temperature rise above ambient
continuously operating burner (Co) and one temperature) for all treatments of each of the four replications. A
with a repetitively cycling burner (Cy) on 50%, cycling flame maintained an average temperature on four of the
off 50% of the time (each cycle less than one tests as described in Experiment 1. A constant temperature was
minute). maintained on the other four treatments by manually regulating
gas pressure to the burners at a level low enough to prevent burner
cycling but high enough to maintain the desired average tempera-
Materials and Methods ture. None of the peanuts for these tests were precleaned.

Three different experiments were conducted during two drying Two drying air temperatures, 35°C (or ambient temperature plus
seasons to determine the objectives; Experiment 1 in 1975, Experi- 8.33°C) and 4O.56°C (or ambient temperature plus 13.8goC) were
ments 2 and 3 in 1976. studied in 1976 in Experiment 3. Cycling-type temperature con-
trols were used for controlling the average temperature of both
Florunner peanuts for each replication of eight treatments in groups offour treatments ofeach ofthe four replications. Peanuts
each experiment were removed from the soil during one day and were not precleaned.

1Agricultural Engineer, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Science Results and Discussion

and Education Administration, Agricultural Research, National
Peanut Research Laboratory, Dawson, Georgia 31742. Peanuts for Experiment 1 ranged in initial m.c, from
2 Mathematical Statistician, U. S. Department ofAgriculture, 13 to 31%. For Experiments 2 and 3, peanut initial
Science and Education Administration, Agricultural Research, m.c, ranged from 23 to 25%. Initial m.c. variation be-
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611. tween treatments ofeach replication had no significant
effect on the results in any ofthe experiments. Final
3Mention of a trademark or proprietary product does not con-
stitute a guarantee or warranty ofthe product by SEA and does not moisture contents ofthe peanuts were 11.4, 11.5, and
imply its approval to the exclusion ofother products that may also 11.6 for Experiments 1,2, and 3, respectively. No
be available. significant differences in the measured test responses

10
 PEANUT DRYING ENERGY CONSUMPTION 11

were produced by variations in dryer performance 50

.. .• ••
within each type ofdryer. Initial weight variations of S 45
lLJ (.) Single Trailer Dryers
the treatments of each replication had no significant S 40 ( .) Double Trailer Dryers
o~
effect on the measured results. Final weights of the
• •
lLJ .s
treatments of each replication generally varied less ~15 35
than initial weights. >-J!! 30 •
.... E
Q cf •
Single Trailer and Double Trailer Dryers ~ cu
U c:
25
20 •• . •• •
lLJ c:
•
An analysis of variance revealed significantly less
total drying times for peanuts dried with 3.73 kW, ST
dryers than for peanuts dried with 7.46 kW, DT dryers.
@t2
...J~
j:!j
- 15

The major difference between the ST and DT dryers

used was that the ST dryers supplied a higher volume
OoM
.... - 10
5
0 Fi
of airflow per unit volume of peanuts than the DT 0 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
dryers. Based on the manufacturer's airflow rating,
INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT (IMC)
the ST dryers supplied 21 m 3/min/m30fpeanuts; DT (Percent Basis) wet
supplied 16.7 m 3/min/m3 ofpeanuts. The airflows of
the dryers were not measured during the tests; how- Fig. 2. The effect of initial m.c, on total electricity used for drying
peanuts with ST and DT dryers.
ever, the differences in drying times indicate that air-
flow rates did differ (2). 90

The effects of initial m.c. on the total drying times 80

for ST and DT dryers are shown in Figure 1. The Single Trailer Dryers(-) ~ _ • y
70 TGU= 2.9941MC - 21.902 • /
regression equations predicted a 3.5-hour longer total 3;; • ~/ 0

-o..
C) .!!! R=0.880 •
drying time for drying 32% initial m.c, peanuts with So 60 ,,~"
DT dryers than with ST dryers; for 200/0 initial m.c, oJ!!
w::J /" "
(/)c: _ • (1 0 0
peanuts, drying time was 1.2 hours longer.
-- ,,""
50 _ .",," 0
~tf
~ ",,""
• Single Trailer Dryer
o Double Trailer Dryer
~~ 40 o ",,"
o

...J~ • """,,"0• o
~"- 30 -/'" 0

..
",,"
0 111 Double Trailer Dryers (0)
40 o
"' .... ~ 20
""
"""eo TGU = 2.781 IMC - 26.438
35
Double Trailer Dryer
o
:.J ",,,,,,,,,,, R=O.903
TOT =1.735 IMC - la047
0 /'

,.
30 R=0.912 : 0 ",,/'''
10
. . . ".,"
0 ......./ . 0 .
0
.0
25 ""A 0 (
iii i i i
• ,;",Q;'( •
0 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
~ U; 20
~!
o 0." 0 • //// ; 0 •
• 0..., 0 I INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT (IMC)
15 ~ ,/ 0 •• 0 I (Percent Wet Basis)
• ",,,"". "-Single Trailer Dryer
10 """", TOT= 1.6021MC -16.539 Fig. 3. Comparison of the effects of initial rn.c. on total gas used
5
• o.
0' 0o.
"'. R=0.897 during drying with ST and DT dryers.

o i i i i , U 10
o 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32

INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT (IMC)

~~
-
....
(/)0
cu
'0:;:
9
8 -• • • 0

"".0""
-
ou-III
(Percent Wet Basis) ::J 7 -\",,""<
.-
c: 0"'" 0
Fig. 1. The effect of initial m.c. on total drying times of peanuts >-
C)
0
CI) 6 0,,11'/

ffi~
0
dried with ST and DT dryers. ",,"" 0

z c: 5 /
0

Electricity requirements per tonne ofpeanuts dried lLJ~ 4 .""Y 0

...J"- ~O"~
were not significantly different for ST and DT dryers. « te 3 JV""~ "--Double Trailer Dryers(o)
.... .2 -" • TEC= 0.372 IMC- 3.623
The relationship between initial m.c, and total electricity ~8 2
lk'Jv. 0 R=0.918
used per tonne ofpeanuts dried is shown in Figure 2. I /_ 00
_0
Peanuts with 13% m.c, required 5.67 kilowatt hours 0
,
, i
(kW.h) per tonne for drying; those with 31% required 0 10 12 14 16 \8 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
37.8 kW.h per tonne.
INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT (IMC)
Gas requirements per tonne ofpeanuts dried were (Percent Wet Basis)
significantly different for ST and DT dryers. The higher Fig. 4. Comparison of the effects of initial m.e, on total energy
gas requirement per tonne, i.e. heat requirement, for costs for drying with ST and DT dryers.
ST dryers indicates a higher airflow per unit volume
ofpeanuts than for DT dryers. Regressions of gas re- in Figure 3. ST dryers required about 7.3 L per tonne
quired for both types ofdryers on initial m.c, are shown more gas than DT dryers for drying peanuts with a
12 PEANUT SCIENCE

13% initial m.c. and 11.1 L per tonne more for 31% 50
initial m.c, peanuts.
Uncleaned Pearots (.)
0-':' 40 TEU= 1.926IMC-19.748
Total energy costs for ST and DT dryers are com- L&J .~
(J)~ R=0.905
pared in Figure 4. Gas costs were calculated at 8.72 ::::>
>- Jg
cents per L and electricity at 7 cents per kW.h. Varia- ~
-
e:
0
30 •
tion in total energy costs between the dryers ranged ~cf
~ cu
from 70.5 cents per tonne ofpeanuts dried from a 13% U e:
20
W e:
initial m.c. to 90.3 cents per tonne for those dried from LLJt2
a 31 % initial m.c, ...J"""'-
<t ~
o~~ ... 10
Average hourly energy costs per trailer for the dry- ~-
ers during the 6-week drying season ofthese tests are
shown below:
o p, iii iii i , , , ,
o 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
Average hourly energy Standard INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT (IMC)
Type dryer costs per trailer deviation (Percent Wet Basis)
Fig. 5. Comparison of the effects of initial m.c, on total electricity
Dollars Dollars used for drying Uc and C peanuts.
90
ST 1.27 0.26
80
Uncleaned Peanu1s (.) -------,
DT 0.92 0.18 TGU = 2.9481MC - 24.508 o •
3--- 70
C)'2 R=0.880
Operating DT dryers with only one load of peanuts t:;S • •
would negate the cost advantage of this type of dryer oJ!!
60 • /~o
L&J ::l ~
as compared to ST dryers. (J)e:
::::> 0 o • • 9'/" 00
50
(J) cf •
• ~ <'
<'~ 0 0
<t cu o / e
Side-Air-Entry and Rear-Air-Entry Trailers C)E 40 • 0 /'A
...Jt2 o ~ If) 0 0
Na significant differences in total drying times or <t";;l-
~ ~ 30 •Y'~.
electricity and gas requirements were found for dry- ocu
~5 v:;';·o· '\--Cleaned Peanuts (0)
ing peanuts in SAE or RAE trailers. 20 ""v. 0 T~U =2.814IMC- 23.549

Precleaned and Uncleaned Peanuts 10

7~.
lPa. o. 0 R- 0.846

Electricity and gas requirements and total drying 0

0
,
(
. 00

iii
10 12 14 16
ii'
18 20 22 24 26 28
iii i
30 32
i

times were significantly different for drying cleaned

INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT (IMC)
and uncleaned peanuts. The effect of initial m.c. on (Percent Wet Basis)
these three parameters are shown in Figures 5, 6, and
7, respectively. Variation in total cost decreased from Fig. 6. Comparison of the effects of initial m.c, on total gas used for
drying Uc and C peanuts.
58 cents per tonne for peanuts with 31% initial m.c.
to 1.7 cents per tonne for 13% initial m.c, peanuts
40 e dl •
(Fig. 8).
t:: 35
All peanuts used for these tests contained less than
0
t:
Uncleaned Pearots (e)
TOT=1.791 IMC- 19.481 0
:. //
<'

W
30
R=0.923 o· ~t":~
100/0 foreign material after combining with small a- ~
J<'
~ 25
mounts ofloose soil. Cleaning peanuts with large per- /'1
Cl_ • 0
centages of loose soil or small rocks would probably Z
>=
III
~
20 e <'
o e.~ o(?"/.
\
\
0
0

produce more pronounced differences in both dry- a::

0=
0
15 " 9': 0" 0 I....-Cleaned Pearots (0)
ing rates and energy consumption than our results ....J 0
TOT= 1.5181MC - 14.650
<l 10 R=0.887
showed. Cleaning costs are generally much higher, ~
0 ~
~
0
e
~
5 .oe
however, than the energy savings obtained for the 0
cleaned peanuts dried in these tests. 0 ) i i
0 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
Drying Air Temperature
INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT (IMC)
The effects ofdrying air temperature on total drying (Percent Wet Basis)
time, total gas and electricity used per tonne of pea- Fig. 7. Comparison of the effects of initial m.e, on total drying
nuts dried, and total energy costs per tonne ofpeanuts times for drying Uc and C peanuts.
dried are shown in Table 1. Peanuts dried with the
low temperature required an average of3.8 hours longer nuts. Total gas used per tonne, however, averaged
for drying than for drying with the high temperature; 13.2 L more for the high temperature, making total
consequently, 3.3 kW.h per tonne of peanuts more energy costs about $1.05 per tonne higher for drying
electricity were required for the low temperature Pea- with the high temperature. In addition to the increased
 PEANUT DRYING ENERGY CONSUMPTION 13

costs, drying peanuts with high temperatures has a Conclusions

detrimental effect on peanut milling quality (1).
1. Total drying times were longer for drying with
II double trailer dryers than with single trailer dryers
U
ILl
....
-
~ .~
-"0
10
9 Uncleaned Peanuts(.)
TEC= 0.392 IMC- 3.515
o •
because the double trailer dryers supplies a lower
airflow rate per unit volume of peanuts than the
single trailer dryers. Electricity requirements per
0° 8 R=0.914
UJ!! tonne ofpeanuts dried were not different for single
~ 7 trailer and double trailer dryers, but gas require-
>- c:
e>g 6 ments and total energy costs were higher for the
a:Q.. •
~~c:
w
5 single trailer dryers.
{!. 4
....J .........
2. Total energy requirements and total drying times
;:! e 3
o c were not different for drying in side-air-entry or
.. =
£3
2
rear-air-entry trailers.
I
O....~ -__"""'T"---,r---r-.......,r--.....--""""T'-....-"""T"".......,r-.. 3. Total drying times were shorter for drying pre-
o 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 cleaned peanuts than for uncleaned peanuts that
contained less than 10% foreign material initially.
INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT (IMC) Gas and electricity requirements and total energy
(Percent Wet Basis)
costs per tonne of peanuts dried were slightly
Fig. 8. Comparison to total energy costs for drying Uc and C peanuts. higher for uncleaned peanuts.

Table 1. Comparison of the effects of drying temperature on total 4. Drying peanuts with 40.56°C air required more
drying time, total electricity used, total gas used, and total energy gas but less electricity than drying with 35°C air.
cost. Total energy costs were higher for drying with
the high temperature, even though total drying
Measured Parameter Low 11
times were shorter.
Total drying time 19.8 hrs 16.0 hrs

Total electricity 22.1 kW.h/tonne peanuts 18.8 kW-h/tonne peanuts 5. Type oftemperature control, constant or cycling,
used dried dried had no effect on the parameters measured.
Total gas used 38.7 L/tonne peanuts 53.58 L/tonne peanuts
dried dried

Total energy cost 4.91 dollars/tonne 5.97 dollars/ tonne

Acknowledgements
per tonne peanuts dried peanuts dried
We thank Stevens Industries, Inc., Dawson, Georgia, Peerless
Manufacturing Company, Shellman, Georgia, and the Georgia
1.1 Average of ST and DT readings.
Power Company for providing equipment and facilities for con-
ducting this research.

Constant and Cycling Temperatures Literature Cited

No significant differences were observed in total
1. Beasley, E. O. and]. W. Dickens. 1963. Engineering research
drying time or total gas or electricity used for drying in curing peanuts. N. C. Agric. Exp. Stn. Tech. Bul. No. 155,38
peanuts at the same average plenum temperature with pp.
Co or Cy temperature controls.
2. Blankenship, P. D. and J. L. Pearson. 1976. Effects of airflow
rates on the drying and quality of green peanuts in deep beds.
ARS-S-135, 5 pp.

Accepted December 18,1978