## 4 Discussion  
Dehydration is an important process, due to the fact that it can extend the shelf life of agricultural products and allow the sale of products out of season. This process results in a reduction by one-third in the space requirements for food storage and transportation. With the implementation of renewable energies and intelligent automatic control systems, the energy costs of the process can be reduced [4, 5, 7, 10, 23]. In similar studies, it has been recommended that the equipment exhibit a more uniform temperature and velocity distribution within its internal components [5, 23]. In the case of Model 2, the drying chamber temperature is distributed uniformly across the surfaces of the trays, with the temperature reaching approximately 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C. However, modifications are necessary to enhance the drying process at the top. Some other designs have a utilized smaller drying chamber. One dryer was reported to be 0.6 m long, 0.35 m wide, and 0.5 m high, with a volume of 0.105 m\({}^{3}\), and with the trays arranged vertically and separated by 0.04 m [5]. Another dryer was designed as low capacity (10-15 kg of product), using six trays. Its drying chamber dimensions are 0.77 m long, 0.65 m wide, and 1.085 m \(\pm\) 0.125 m high, with a volume of approximately 0.543 m\({}^{3}\)[18]. Another dryer is reported to have a size of 1.25 m length, 0.85 m width, 0.63 m height, and a volume of 0.67 m\({}^{3}\)[11]. A larger equipment configuration is also reported, comprising a drying chamber with a height of 1.4 m, a depth of 0.90 m, a width of 0.5 m, and a volume of 0.63 m\({}^{3}\)[32]. This last chamber is among the largest, yet the Model 2 configuration is three times larger. The drying chamber of Model 1 has a volume of 2.11 m\({}^{3}\), which is significantly larger than the previously reported designs. The drying volume of Model 2 is 2.02 m\({}^{3}\). The small cabinet-type dryer is well suited to drying small quantities, whereas the multi-shelf dryer is reported as being employed on a larger scale [2]. This approach represents a novel methodology, as it enables the model to be employed for larger-scale production, thereby offering a viable alternative for reducing harvest waste in small greenhouse production. The solar drying system can be employed in limited crop volumes or on a domestic scale [2]. Solar systems are designed for low-capacity solar drying, yet they are economically \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variable** & **Model 1** & **Model 2** & **Comparison Index** \\ \hline Min. Temperature & 30 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 40 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 1.33 \\ Max. Temperature & 100 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 100 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 1.00 \\ Min. Tray Temperature & 46 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 43 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 0.93 \\ Max. Tray Temperature & 70 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 95 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 1.36 \\ Minimum Velocity & 0.005 m s\({}^{-1}\) & 0.005 m s\({}^{-1}\) & 1.00 \\ Maximum Velocity & 1.06 m s\({}^{-1}\) & 0.97 m s\({}^{-1}\) & 0.92 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Comparison indices of Model 1 and Model 2 for the minimum and maximum of air temperature, tray temperature, and air velocity. viable for farmers, maintaining product quality [15]. A small solar dryer utilizes the equivalent of 0.12 kW from the sun, and it can heat to 94.8 \({}^{\circ}\)C [22]. Unfortunately, Model 1 was unable to achieve an adequate drying temperature. Model 2, however, employs two 2.5 kW heat sources and has proven sufficient for maintaining a 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C temperature within the core equipment. Additionally, one advantage of the electrical dryer is that it is not subject to environmental fluctuations and can operate continuously, including during nighttime hours. Although solar drying systems are sustainable, their implementation for commercial-level applications is laborious [5]. Another approach to efficient energy use is the use of hybrid systems, which combine solar and electric energy as heating sources and use automatic control systems.