Food Thermal Property Predictive

INFORMATION TO USERS
The most advanced technology has been used to photo

graph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm
master. UMI films the original text directly from the copy
submitted. Thus, some dissertation copies are in typewriter
face, while others may foe from a computer printer.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a
complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will
be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyrighted material had to
be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re

produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper
left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal
sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is available
as one exposure on a standard 35 mm slide or as a 17" x 23"
black and white photographic print for an additional charge.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been

reproduced xerographieally in this copy. 35 mm slides or
6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for
any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for
an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
Accessing the World’s Information since 1938
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
O r d e r N u m b e r S9 00 61 3
F o o d th e r m a l p r o p e r ty p r e d ic tio n as effected b y te m p e ra tu r e
a n d c o m position
Choi, Yonghee, Ph.D.
Purdue University, 1985
U M I
300 N. Zeeb Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48106
PLEASE MOTE:
!n all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy.
Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V .
1. Glossy photographs or pages_____
2. Colored illustrations, paper or print______
3. Photographs with dark background_____
4. Illustrations are poor copy______
5. Pages wiih black marks, not original copy______
6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page______
7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages _ y

8. Pnnt exceeds margin requirements______
9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine_______
10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print______
11. Page(s)___________ lacking when material received, and not available from school or
author.
12. Page(s) seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.
13. Two pages numbered . Text follows.
14. Curling and wrinkled pages_____
15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a siant, fiimed as received
16. Other_________________________________________________
.
FOOD THERMAL PROPERTY PREDICTION AS
EFFECTED BY TEMPERATURE AND COMPOSITION
A Thesis
Submitted to the Faculty
of
Purdue University
by
Yongiiee Choi
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
of
Doctor of Philosophy
May 1985
PURDUE UNIVERSITY
Graduate School
This is to certify that the thesis prepared
By Yonghee Choi____________________________________________________________
Entitled Food Thermal P ro p er ty P r e d ic t io n a s E f f e c t e d b y T eirperature
____________and C om position_____________________________________________________
Complies with University regulations and meets the standards of the Graduate School for
originality and quality
For the degree of:
Doctor of Philosophy
Signed by the fin a l PYamininCT m m m it tp p '
, chair
Approved by the head o f school or department:
S3isVUSHbW.
This thesis f 2 is not to be regarded as confidential
Major professor
Grad. School
Form No. 9
Revised 11-83
To My Parents
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express my sincere appreciation and gratitude to Dr.
Martin R. Okos, my major professor, for his inspiring guidance and
encouragement in this research and throughout the program of my study.
Sincere appreciation and gratitude are also expressed to Dr. j.
Marks, Dr. R. Stroshine, and Dr. P. Nelson for serving on my advisory
committee and for their helpful suggestions and assistance throughout
this work.
Finally, the continuous support and helpful advice of my wife
Heayoung during the course of this study have been indispensable, as
she and our son and daughter, Mark and Tina, made life enjoyable
throughout.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................vii
LIST OF FIGURES..................................................... xii
NOMENCLATURE................................ ........................ xv
ABSTRACT............................................................. xvii
I. INTRODUCTION..................... ........................... 1
II. OBJECTIVES ..... 4
III. LITERATURE REVIEW............................................ 5
A. Thermal Conductivity Measurement Technique.............. 5

1. Guarded Hot-Plate Method............................ 5
(^•-4
2. Concentric Cylinder Method.......................... 6

3. Concentric Sphere Method. ......... 7
4. Fitch. Method................... 8
5. Line Heat Source Method............................. 9
6 . Probe Method......................................... 9
7. Plane Heat Source Method......................... 11
B. Thermal Diffusivity Measurement Technique............... 11
1. Cylindrical Object and Time-Temperature Data........ 11
2. Spherical Object and Time-Temperature Data.......... 12
3. Use of a Thermal Conductivity Probe................ 13
C. Density Measurement Technique...................... 15
1. Platform Scale Method............................... 15
2. Air Comparison Pycnometer........................... 16
3. Pycnometer Method................................... 16
D. Specific Heat Measurement Technique..................... 17
1. Method of Mixtures.................................. 17
2. Method of Guarded-Plate............................. 18
3. Method of Calculated Specific Heat.................. 18
4. Method of Differential Scanning Calorimetry........ 19
E. Literature Data for Thermal Properties of Liquid Foods.. 20
1. Air, Ice, Water, Salt and Sugar Solutions...., 20
2. Fruits, Vegetables and Juice Products.............. 21
3. Milk Components and Products.......... .............. 23
4. Meat Components and Products........................ 24
5. Oil Components and Products......................... 25
Page
F. Compositions of Food Products........................... 26
1. Milk and Milk Products.............................. 26
2. Fruits, Vegetables and Juices....................... 27
3. Meat, Poultry and Fish.............................. 29
4. Grain and Flour................ 30
G. Effects of Heating on Selected Foodstuffs.............. 30
1. Effects of Heating on Protein................ 32
2. Effects of Heating on Carbohydrate .......... 34
H. State of Water in Frozen Foods.......................... 37
I. Relationship Between Unfrozen Water Fraction and
Temperature During Food Freezing........................ 37
J. Effects of Frozen Water on Thermal Properties of Frozen
Foods..................................................... 39
K. Effects of Air on Thermal Properties of Porous Foods.... 41
L. Literature Models for Thermal Properties of Liquid
Foods......... 44
1. Thermal Conductivity.. .............................. 44
2. Thermal Diffusivity.................................. 47
3. Density.............................................. 49
IV. EXPERIMENTAL METHODS................... 58
T A. Measurement Procedure of Thermal Properties.............. 58

■A 1. Unfrozen Foods....................................... 58
2. Frozen Foods.................... 63
B. Sample Preparation...................................... 64
1. Preparation of Proteins.............. 64
2. Preparation of Fats.................................. 68
3. Preparation of Carbohydrates........................ 70
4. Preparation of Salts................................. 71
5. Preparation of Product Samples...................... 73
C. Prediction of the Unfrozen Water Factions during Food
Freezing................ ................................. 74
V. MODELING FOR THE THERMAL PROPERTIES........................... 77
A. Model for Thermal Conductivity.......................... 77

B. Models for the Other Thermal Properties................... 82
VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS............................ 85
A. Thermal Property Data of Food Products in the

Literature................................................ 85
B. Results of Thermal Property Measurements................ 86
1. Thermal Conductivity and Thermal Diffusivity....... 86
2. Density.............................................. 105
3. Specific Heat... .... 110
Page
C. Results of Thermal Property Modeling.................. .. 115
1. Models of Water and Ice.............................. 115
2. Models of Each Pure Component of Foods.............. 118
3. Group Models of Major Components of Foods........... 147
4. Comparison Between Model and Literature Values for
Liquid Foods......................................... 151
5. Comparison Between Model and Experimental Values for
Food Products........................................ 155
VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...................................... 164
VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH. .................... 166
BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................... 167
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Literature Thermal Property Data of Foods 177

Appendix B. Experimental Thermal Property Data............ 204
Appendix C. Computer Programs.............................. 247
VITA............. 269
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. The Average Composition of Milk Products..................... 27
2. The Coefficients of Fernandez-Martin Model................... 46
3. Literature Models for Thermal Conductivity of Liquid Foods.. 54
4. Literature Models for Thermal Diffusivity of Liquid Foods... 55
5. Literature Models for Density of Liquid Foods.......... 56
6. Literature Models for Specific Heat of Liquid Foods.... 57
7. The Quantities of Chemicals for Making Milk Salt Solution... 72
y 8. Samples Used in This Study for the Thermal Property

4- Measurements of Major Pure Components in Different Food
Products....... ; ......... 73
9. The Compositions of Major Components for the Food Products

Used in This Study............... 74
10. Average Molecular Weights of Pure Components Used in This

Study......................................................... 75
11. Heat Conduction Models for Three-Component Systems.......... 78
12. Thermal Property Models of Water and Ice..................... 117
13. Density Models of Pure Components of Foods................... 123
14. Comparison of Perpendicular and Parallel Models in Thermal

Conductiv it y .................................................. 124
15. Thermal Conductivity Data of Powder Samples.................. 125
16. Bulk Density Data of Powder Samples.......................... 127
17. Bulk Density Models of Powder Samples........................ 127
18. Thermal Conductivity and Density Models of A i r .............. 128

(T
viii
Table Page
19. Comparison of Experimental Thermal Conductivity of Powder

Samples to the Five Proposed Models......................... 130
20. Thermal Conductivity Models of Pure Components of Foods 139
21. Thermal Diffusivity Models of Pure Components of Foods 140
22. Specific Heat Models of Pure Components of Foods............ 145
23. Thermal Conductivity of Whey Protein Solids by the Model

Based on Weight Fractions.................................... 148
24. Thermal Conductivity of Whey Protein Solids by the Model

Based on volume Fractions.................................... 149
25. Comparison of Thermal Property Models Based on Both Weight

and Volume Fractions......................................... 150
26. Group Models of Major Components of Foods................... 152
27. Composition of Liquid Food Products................ — 153
28. Comparison Between Model and Literature Values of Thermal

T Properties for Liquid Foods.................................. 155
■i.
29. Approximate Carbohydrate Compositions in Different Food
Types......................................................... 160
30. Comparison Between Model and Literature Values of Initial

Freezing Points.............................................. 162
31. Comparison Between Model and Experimental Values of Thermal

Properties for Food Products......................... 163
Appendix
Table
Al. Thermal Properties of Air, Ice and Water..................... 177
A2. Thermal Properties of Salt, Sugar and Their Derivatives 179
A3. Thermal Properties of Fruits, Vegetables and Juice Products. 187
A4. Thermal Properties of Milk Components and Products.......... 190
A5. Thermal properties of Meat Components and Products.......... 199
A6 . Thermal Properties of Oil Products. ......... 201
0T
ix
Table Page
Bi. Thermal Conductivity of Albumin Protein Suspensions 204
B2. Thermal Conductivity of Casein Suspensions.................. 205
B3. Thermal Conductivity of Whey Protein Suspensions........... 206
B4. Thermal Conductivity of Meat Protein Suspensions............ 207
B5. Thermal Conductivity of Gluten Suspensions.................. 208
B6. Thermal Conductivity of Fats.................... 209
B7. Thermal Conductivity of Dextrose Suspensions................ 210
B8. Thermal Conductivity of Lactose Suspensions................. 211
B9. Thermal Conductivity of Sugar Suspensions................... 212
BIG. Thermal Conductivity of Starch Suspensions.................. 213
Bll. Thermal Conductivity of Celluose Suspensions................ 214
— B12. Thermal Conductivity of Pectin Suspensions.................. 215
313. Thermal Conductivity of Milk Salt Suspensions............. '.. 216
B14. ThermalDiffusivity of Albumin Protein Suspensions......... 217
B15. Thermal Diffusivity of Casein Suspensions................... 218
B16. ThermalDiffusivity of Whey Protein Suspensions............ 219
B17. ThermalDiffusivity of Meat Protein Suspensions............. 220
B18. Thermal Diffusivity of Gluten Suspensions................... 221
319. ThermalDiffusivity of Fats.................................. 222
B20. Thermal Diffusivity of Dextrose Suspensions................. 223
B21. Thermal Diffusivity of Lactose Suspensions.................. 224
B22. Thermal Diffusivity of Sugar Suspensions.................... 225
B23. Thermal Diffusivity of Starch Suspensions................... 226
324. Thermal Diffusivity of Cellulose Suspensions............ 227
X
Table Page
B25. Thermal Diffusivity of Pectin Suspensions................... 228
B26. Thermal Diffusivity of Milk Salt Suspensions............ .... 229
B27. Thermal Conductivity and Thermal Diffusivity of

Evaporated Milk.............................................. 230
B28. Thermal Conductivity and Thermal Diffusivity of

Concentrated Orange Juice.................................... 231
329. Thermal Conductivity and Thermal Diffusivity of

Bratwurst Sausage............................................ 232
830. Density of Albumin Protein Suspensions........ 233
B31. Density of Casein Suspensions............................... 233
832. Density of Whey Protein Suspensions................... 234
B33, 'Density of Meat Protein Suspensions......................... 234
834. Density of Gluten Suspensions ........ 235
B35. Density of Fats.............................................. 235
B36. Density of Dextrose Suspensions............................. 236
B37. Density of Lactose Suspensions.............................. 236
B38. Density of Sugar Suspensions................................. 237
339. Density of Starch Suspensions............................... 237
B40. Density of Cellulose Suspensions............................ 238
B41. Density of Pectin Suspensions................................ 238
B42. Density of Mil* Sait Suspensions............................. 239
B43. Density of Food Product Samples.............................. 239
B44. Specific Heat of Albumin Protein Suspensions................ 240
B45. Specific Heat of Casein Suspensions......................... 240
B46. Specific Heat of whey Protein Suspensions................... 241
xi
Table Page
B47- Specific Heat of Meat Protein Suspensions................... 241
B48. Specific Heat of Gluten Suspensions......................... 242
B49. Specific Heat of F ats........................................ 242
B50. Specific Heat of Dextrose Suspensions....................... 243
B51. Specific Heat of Lactose Suspensions........... 243
B52. Specific Heat of Sugar Suspensions.......................... 244
B53. Specific Heat of Starch Suspensions......................... 244
B54. Specific Heat of Cellulose Suspensions...................... 245
B55. Specific Heat of Pectin Suspensions......................... 245
B56. Specific Heat of Milk Salt Suspensions.............. 246
B57. Specific Heat of Food Product Samples....................... 246
x ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. The General Relationship Between the Heat Coagulation Area

of Milks, Concentration of Non Fat Solids and the Time and
Temperature of Heating....................................... 61
2. A Schonatic Process for Dialysis............................. 65
3. A Schematic Process for Casein ~ Salts Powder and Whey

Protein Powder ................... ...................... 66
4. A Schematic Process for Total Meat Protein Powder........... 69
5. Thermal Conductivity of Whey Protein Suspensions............ 87
6. Thermal Diffusivity of Whey Protein Suspensions............. 88
7. Thermal Conductivity of Milkfat.............................. 90
8. Thermal Diffusivity of Milkfat............................... 91
9. Thermal Conductivity of Dextrose Suspensions................. 92
10. Thermal Diffusivity of Dextrose Suspensions.................. 93
11. Thermal Conductivity of Mil* Salt Suspensions................ 95
12. Thermal Diffusivity of Milk Salt Suspensions................. 96
13. Thermal Conductivity of 30% Solid Whey p r o t e i n .............. 97
14. Thermal Conductivity of Milkfat.............................. 98
15. Thermal Conductivity of 30% Solid Lactose Suspensions....... 99
16. Thermal Conductivity of 30% Solid Starch Suspensions........ 100
17. Thermal Conductivity of 30% Solid Salt Suspensions........... 101
18. Thermal Diffusivity of 30% Solid Whey P r o t e i n ............... 102
19. Thermal Diffusivity of 30% Solid Lactose Suspensions........ 103
xiii
Figure Page
20= Thermal Diffusivity of 30% Solid Starch Suspensions........ 104
21. Density of Albumin Suspensions...,........................... 106
22. Density of Corn O i l .......................................... 107
23. Density of Dextrose Suspensions.............................. 108
24. Density of Milk Salt Suspensions............................. 109
25. Specific Heat of Albumin Suspensions ..... Ill
26. Specific Heat of Corn Oil.................................... 112
27. Specific Heat of Dextrose Suspensions....................... 113
28. Specific Heat of Milk Salt Suspensions....................... 114
29. Density of Aloumin Solids...........120
30. Density of Dextrose Solids................................... 121
31. Density of Milk Salt Solids.................................. 122
32. Thermal Conductivity of Butter at 20°C...................... 126
33. Thermal Conductivity of Dextrose Powder..................... 129
34. Thermal Conductivity of Albumin Solids....................... 133
35. Thermal Conductivity of Dextrose Solids..................... 134
36. Thermal Conductivity of Milk Salt Solids.................... 135
37. Thermal Diffusivity of Albumin Solids........................ 136
38. Thermal Diffusivity of Dextrose Solids...................... .137
39. Thermal Diffusivity of Milk Salt Solids...................... 138
40. Specific Heat of Albumin Solids.............................. 142
41. Specific Heat of Dextrose Solids............................. 143
42. Specific Heat of Milk Salt Solids............................ 144
43. Thermal Conductivity of Food Product Samples................ 156
44. Thermal Diffusivity of Food Product Samples................. 157
xiv
Figure Page
45. Density of Food Product Samples............................... 158
46. Specific Heat of Food Product Samples......................... 159
XV
NOMENCLATURE
A Constant Coefficient
b Slope
B Constant Coefficient
C Constant Coefficient
Euler's Constant (0.5772157...)

Ce
C Specific Heat, KJ/KG °C
P
D Constant Coefficient
K Thermal Conductivity, W/M°C
M Weight
N Number of Data
Q Continuous Line Source Strength,
r Distance, cm
t Time, sec
t Time Correction Factor, sec

o
T Temperature, °C
xv Volume Fraction of Composition
xw Weight Fraction of Composition
Cl Thermal Diffusivity, M 2/S
Density, KG/M3
p
xvi
a Ash
c Carbohydrate
i Ice
f Fat
Nonfat
Nf
P Protein
S Total solid
w Water
Dimensionless Parameter
p r/2 [c(t]*5
xvii
ABSTRACT
Choi, Yenghee, Ph.D., Purdue University, May, 1985. FOOD THERMAL

PROPERTY PREDICTION AS EFFECTED BY TEMPERATURE AND COMPOSITION. Major
Professor: Martin R. Okos.
Thermal properties of foods (thermal conductivity, thermal
diffusivity, density, and specific heat) are heavily dependent on
temperature and composition. The thermal properties of pure component
solids were determined Dy the proposed model, which was based on the
weight fraction and the thermal properties of major pure components of
food products, at a temperature range of -40°C to 150°C from the
experimental values of 10%, 30% and 60% solid content suspensions. The
major components of food products considered were proteins (albumin,
casein, whey protein, meat protein and gluten), lipids (milk fat,
vegetable oil, lard and corn oil), carbohydrates (dextrose, lactose,
sugar and starch), fibers (cellulose and pectin), and milk salts.
A modified probe method was used to measure thermal conductivity
and thermal diffusivity of pure component suspensions of each major
component of food products for the solids content range of 10% to 60%
at the temperature range of -40°C to 150°C and the same properties in
food products. Density and specific heat of the samples were measured
by a volumetric pycnometer and a differential scanning calorimeter,
respectively.
xviii
General mathanatical models were developed by an optimization
technique for the thermal properties of food products on the basis of
weight fraction which is a easily measurable factor compared to the
volume fraction. For the frozen foods, the unfrozen water factions
were predicted by the product freezing point depression. The thermal
property values by the proposed models of pure major components in this
study were within 3.9% error to the literature values of liquid foods
and within 4.7% error to the experimental values determined for
evaporated milk, orange juice, and bratwurst sausage.
The thermal property models developed in this study can be used to
predict the properties of ail food products with the weight fractions
of major pure components in foods.
1
I. INTRODUCTION
The thermal properties of foods include thermal conductivity,
thermal diffusivity, density and specific heat. Knowledge of these
thermal properties of food substances is essential to researchers and
designers for predicting the drying rate or temperature distribution
within foods of various compositions when subjected to different dry
ing, heating and cooling conditions. This information is also neces
sary for the optimum design of heat transfer equipment, dehydrating and
sterilizing apparatus. Therefore, there is a great need for thermal
property values of foods for food processing and preservation.
The thermal properties of frozen foods have a direct impact on
design of freezing systems by establishing the magnitude of refrigera
tion requirements and in determining freezing times. These same pro
perties are of significance in determining the response of the product
to frozen food storage conditions. The direct dependence of thermal
properties of frozen foods on the state of water in the product has
oeen demonstrated by Heldman (1982) and this dependence must be ack
nowledged in any analysis of thermal properties data for frozen foods.
The thermal properties of food products are frequently the criti
cal parameters. In order to design energy efficient processes, accu
rate thermal property data is necessary. Therefore, reliable and
useful thermal property data should be established for food engineers.
Data on food products are not always conveniently available at
different temperatures and water contents. In many instances where
thermal properties have been reported, values disagree significantly.
This apparent disagreement could be due not only to instrumental errors
but also to the methods used, many of which are not suited to particu
lar foods. Many previous investigators have determined, to a limited
extend, some of these values for food substances. Often pertinent data
is not reported. Thus, the data's usefulness is limited since thermal
properties of foods vary with temperatures, composition, and porosity.
Complete information on the composition of the samples is often lacking
(e.g., content of water, protein, fat, etc.).
Several researchers have developed mathematical models, which can
be used to predict the thermal properties of foods products. However,
they are for specific foods and do not apply to all the physical situa
tions. When thermal properties are needed for various process condi
tions the most efficient and practical way to obtain them is by models
based on the process conditions. In general, composition, mass den
sity, and temperature are the main factors or process conditions
affecting thermal properties. Thermal conductivity and thermal dif
fusivity are found to be affected by composition, density and tempera
ture, while specific heat is found to be affected only by composition
and temperature, it is relatively more difficult to determine thermal
conductivity and thermal diffusivity than specific heat. General
mathematical models to predict the thermal conductivity, thermal

M
3
diffusivity, density and specific heat of food products based on tem
perature, composition and structure of food would be valuable for
engineers and scientists.
4
II. OBJECTIVES
The overall objective of this study is to develop general models
to predict the thermal properties of food products based on the weight
fractions and the thermal properties of major pure components. The
predicted thermal property values by the proposed models will be com
pared to literature and experimental thermal property data of foods,
in order to accomplish the overall objective, it will be necessary;
1. To conduct a detailed review of literature data on thermal pro
perties of food products.
2. To measure the thermal properties, such as thermal conductivity,
thermal diffusivity, density and specific heat, of major com
ponents of food products and the same properties in food pro
ducts.
3. To determine the effects of ice during freezing process on the
thermal properties of food products.
4. To develop general mathematical models to predict the thermal
properties of food products based on the thermal properties of
each major component for the temperature range of -40°C to 150°C.
5
III. LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Thermal Conductivity Measurement Technique
Methods of measurement of thermal conductivity can be divided into
two broad categories, namely those using the steady-state condition of
heat transfer and those using the transient state. Transient state
methods of thermal conductivity measurements make use of either a line
source of heat or one or more plane sources of heat. In both
categories the usual procedure is to apply a steady heat flux to the
specimen and to measure the temperature rise at some point in the
specimen resulting from this applied flux. There are a number of
experimental techniques for measurement under each of these two
categories. A brief discussion of the basic methods is given.
1. Guarded Hot-Plate Method
The Guarded Hot-Plate Method among the various steady-state
methods has been most widely used for the measurement of thermal con
ductivity of food materials. The method is most suitable for dry homo
geneous specimens in slab forms. The details of the technique are
given by the ASTM Standard C-177 (1970). In this method, the heat
6
source, the specimen, and the heat sink are placed in contact with each
other and with a thermal guard heated electrically. The thermal guard
plates are maintained at the same temperature as the adjacent surfaces,
so that ideally no heat leakage occurs from sources, specimen, or sink
boundaries. It is assumed that all the measured heat input to the
specimen is transferred across the specimen. By measuring the tempera
ture difference of specimen surfaces and heat input required to main
tain the steady-state temperature profile across the test specimen the
following equation is used to determine thermal conductivity.
K = QL/2AA T 111
where O is the measured rate of heat input, L is the specimen thick
ness, A is the area of specimen and A P is the temperature difference
between specimen surfaces normal to heat flow.
The disadvantage of this method is that it takes too long a time
for the measurement because conductivity is measured after the sample
has reached steady-state condition which may take several hours. The
steady-state method is unsuitable for foods with with high moisture
content because moisture diffusion will take place through the sample
from the hot plate to the cold plate before steady-state conditions are
reached.
2. Concentric Cylinder Method
The sample is confined in a cylinder that is assumed to be infin
ite in length and thus end effects can be neglected. The central heat
7
SOUITCS piTO V ldSS ilG a t tO DG trS H S fG T lT G d th jT G U yb uiiG ru a u G irla x w i t h 3
thermal conductivity to be calculated as follows:
P In (^) [2]
K = 2nL - T 2)
where p is the power used by the central heater, L is the length of the
cylinder, and and are the temperatures of the specimen at radius
r^ and r 2 , respectively.
Disadvantages of thismethod are similar to those of theguarded
hot-plate method, except thatheat losses from the sample may be
reduced to losses form theend of the cylindrical sample.
3. Concentric Sphere Method
In this method, the specimen completely encloses the heating
source, eliminating the end losses. Assuming that the surface of the
central heater at distance r^ and the outer specimen surface at dis
tance r2 reach at the same temperature after the steady state has been
established, heat flow will be essentially radial and the following
equation can be used for determining thermal conductivity:
_ P (y r x - l/r2) [3]
4"<T1 - T2)
Theoretically, the concentric sphere method should be the most
attractive, since errors due to heat losses can be practically elim
inated (all the heat must flow through the sample). However, because
of difficulty in obtaining suitably shaped food samples, the method has
been mainly confined to granular materials.
4. Fitch Method
The Fitch method is one of the most common transient methods used
to measure the thermal conductivity of food materials. The method was
developed by Fitch (1935). A sample is placed between two copper
blocKS fitted with thermocouples. The top copper block serves as a
base of a well insulated vessel which is filled with any substances
which can be maintained at a constant temperature. The lower block is
of known mass and embedded in insulation. The heat input necessary to
maintain the top vessel at the particular temperature is measured by
the temperature rise with time of the lower copper block.
T1
log(Tjr-) [4]
MCL ____ 2
K = 2.303
t
where M and C are pound mass and specific heat of the heat sink, T^ and
T’2 are temperature differences at the beginning and the end of the
experiment, t is the time, and A and L are the area and thickness of
the test specimen, respectively.
Disadvantages of this method are similar to those concerning heat
losses in the guarded hot-plate method. Other serious faults include
distortion and possible alteration of the physical structure of the
original sample due to the pressure from the upper vessel.
5. Lins Heat Source Mathcd
The line heat source method is one of the most common transient
methods used particularly with granular materials. The method was
first suggested by Schleirmacher (1888), later used by Stalhane and Pyk
(1931) and Van der Held and Van Drunen (1949). A modification of this
technique is the use of the thermal conductivity probe, as developed by
Nix, et al. (1967).
The line heat source technique utilizes a constant heat source to
an infinitely long solid along a line with infinitesimal diameter, such
as a thin resistant wire. Having the heat source imbedded in the mass
of material whose conductivity is to be measured, the line source is
energized and the temperature rise from the source is measured after a
short heating time. The rate of rise in temperature of the specimen is
then a function of thermal conductivity of the material. The equation
used for calculating thermal conductivity is reduced to the following
form:
6. Probe Method
The probe method is a more recently developed modification of the
line source techniques. The theory of a thermal conductivity probe is
based on the line heat source method. Its theory assumes a line heat
10
source of constant strength in an infinite homogeneous body at a uni
form initial temperature. To account for the fact that any real line
heat source has a finite radius, Van der Held and Van Drunen (1949)
introduced a time correction factor, tQ , which was subtracted form each
observed time. This is the time allowed for heat production by the
probe before the start of the measured time. This correction can thus
minimize the effect of finite heater diameter and any resistance to
heat transfer between the heat source and sample. The equation includ
ing the correction factor will then be:
.m t2„‘~ [6]
4«t (T
1)
After an initial transient period, a plot of temperature versus
logarithm of time is linear until heat penetrates to the sample boun
dary, so that its slope, Q/4nK, is used for the calculation of thermal
conductivity, K, (Sweat and Haugh, 1974). The following equation can
be used to calculate the thermal conductivity of sample:
/SL =b
AjLntD
=-2-
4nK
[7]
Advantages of this method are that it takes a short time to meas
ure thermal conductivity and the location of the thermocouple for the
measuring point is not critical and it is suitable for all kinds of
liquid foods.
11
7. Plane Heat Source Method
Theoretical and experimental work on linear heat flow in a slab
has lead to the development of the plane heat source technique (Carslaw
and Jaeger, 1959). The experimental method utilizes a flat slab as the
specimen with one face insulated and the other subjected to a constant
rate of heat input. Having obtained a time-temperature record for
points within the specimen, either a numerical or a graphical method
along with a defining equation is used to determine the thermal conduc
tivity.
B. Thermal Diffusivity Measurement Technique
Most of the methods for determination of thermal diffusivity
reported in the literature are indirect in that c( is calculated from
thermal conductivity, density and specific heat using the relationship,
c( = K/pCp. Following are a few of the methods reported in the litera
ture.
1. Cylindrical Object and Time-Temperature Data
Dickerson (1965) described an apparatus based on transient heat
transfer conditions requiring only time-temperature data. The
apparatus consists of an agitated water bath in which a cylinder with
high thermal conductivity containing the sample is immersed.
12
Thermocouples are soldered to the outside surface of the cylinder moni
toring the temperature of the sample at radius R. A thin thermocouple
probe indicates the temperature at the center of the sample. The
cylinder is placed in the agitated water bath and the time-temperature
is recorded until a constant rate of temperature rise is obtained for
both inner and outer thermocouples. The details of theory and tech
nique are given by Dickerson (1965). The following is the computing
equation:
cf = ^ [8]
4(TS - T c)
where A is the linear rate of heating, °F/min, R is the radius of the
cylinder, in inches and Tg and Tc are temperature at the surface and at
the center of cylinder, in °F, respectively.
Dickerson (1965) used several powder materials with known thermal
conductivity to verify this technique. He also employed the same
apparatus for measurement of thermal conductivity by replacing the
thermocouple tube with a heating wire. After checking several sources
of errors, comparison of his measured c( with calculated c( =K/pCp,
showed that the apparatus can be used for diffusivity measurements of
food materials with an accuracy of about 5 percent.
2. Spherical Object and Time-Temperature Data
In this method, temperature profiles at the center of a homogene
ous sphere is used to determine thermal diffusivity. A sample has been
13
initially at constant temperature and is cooled by a constant external
temperature. When a sufficient time has elapsed all terms after the
first in the solution of the Fourier's equation for the temperature
history of a sphere became negligible so that the plot of the tempera-
ture ratio versus time yields a simple logarithmic curve which
can be presented by:

T - Ta . -mt
Ti - Ta ~ 3e
where Ta is ambient temperature, Ti is initial temperature. The factor
j is the lag factor, obtained from the intercept of the straight por
tion of the logarithmic curve at t=0, and m is the cooling rate
obtained from the slope of the cooling curve. Having the cooling rate
and angle from the Table of {Ref. Mo. 50, Table 3.2) together
with the radius of the assumed sphere, rm , thermal diffusivity can be
calculated using equation [10].
[10]
3. Use of a Thermal Conductivity Probe
The determination of thermal diffusivity, c(, using the line source
technique is possible without information of density and specific heat.
The expression for the cylindrical temperature field, given by Inger-
soil, et al. (1954) and others, can be shown in the following form:
[11]
where p is inversely proportional to . Nix, et al. (1967) gives
the following series expression for evaluation of the above definite
integral.
T = 2^k [St ~ lnP + 2?n " 4?2r+ — ] [12]

The above equation can be used to calculate thermal diffusivity by
a trial and error method. Nix, et al. (1967) found that the first 40
terms of the above equation need to be evaluated to insure convergence,
if the set of thermocouples were placed in such location that 0.16 < p
< 3.1 over the time interval utilized. For each trial, an assumed
thermal diffusivity at a given particular time, t (approximately 10
sec), and a given thermocouple distance, r, yield a value of B which
together with known heat source strength, Q, and measured thermal con
ductivity, K, can be solved for temperature. The calculated tempera
ture is then compared with the measured temperature. A new value of
thermal diffusivity is generated based on tne disagreement between
these temperatures, and this process is continued until the tempera
tures agree.
The advantages of this technique, particularly for biological
materials, are the short duration of the test and the small temperature
change which is imposed on the sample. An accuracy of 5 percent has
been reported by Nix, et al. (1967) and computation time and sample
size may be minimized if 0.2 < p < 0.5 (Suter, et al., 1975).
15
Density Measurement
There are actually three types of density in dealing with biologi
cal materials. Bulk density refers to the weight of a mass of intact
individual units of the material packed in a given volume by a speci
fied method. This type of density includes the pore space within the
pack. Apparent density refers to the weight of each intact unit of the
material divided by the volume of unit. This type of density includes
the pore space within each unit of the material. Finally, true density
or solid density refers to the weight per volume of the solids within
each unit of the material.

► A
1. Platform Scale Method
A simple technique which applies to large objects such as fruits
and vegetables is . the platform scale method. The sample is first
weighed on the scale in air and then forced into the water by means of
a sinker rod. The second reading of the scale with the sample sub
merged minus the weight of the container and water is the weight of the
displaced water which will be used in the following expression to cal
culate volume:
Weight of displaced water [13]

Volume =
Weight density of water
Knowing the weight in air and the volume, weight density of the sample
is then obtained by the ratio of weight to volume.
16
2. Air Comparison Pycncmeter
The apparatus consists basically of two chambers and a valve con
necting the two chambers, and a differential pressure indicator.
Inserting a sample in the measuring chamber (2) would cause a pressure
differential. Equation [14] can be used for the calculation of true
volume of sample.
V = ^ - Vx - 1) W
where and V 2 are the volumes of chamber 1 and 2, and is the pres
sure after giving some air in chamber 1, and P2 is the final pressure
after opening a valve connecting chamber 1 and 2. The density of sam
ples are then calculated by the ratio of weight to volume.
3. Pycncmeter Method
Volumetric pycncmeter method for the determination of density is a
most suitable measurement technique for the liquid foods. For water
and very low concentrated liquid foods, 28 ml volumetric pycncmeter can
be used at the temperature range of 0°C to 100°C. For high concen
trated liquid foods, 12 ml pycnometer which is made of aluminum alloy
for the determination of semi-fluids, can be used at the above tempera
ture ranges.
17
D. Specific Heat Measurement Technique
The ratio of the heat supplied Q to the corresponding temperature
rise Âj; is defined as the heat capacity of a body. Specific heat is
the mass heat capacity defined as the heat capacity of a body per unit
mass of the body.
cp = Q [15]
Since in heat transfer problems of biological materials constant
pressure usually prevails, the specific heat at constant pressure is
normally used. The pressure dependence of specific heat is very low
for solids and liquids until extremely high pressure are encountered.
1. Method of Mixtures
In this method the specimen at a known mass and temperature is
dropped into a calorimeter of known specific heat containing water at a
known temperature and weight. The unknown specific heat is then com
puted from a heat oalance equation between the heat gained or lost by
the water and calorimeter and that lost or gained by the specimen. To
calculate the specific heat of the sample, the following heat balance
equation can be used:
CpcMc (Ti “ Te) + CpsMs (Ti " Te) = CpWMw(Te " Tw) tl6]
where subscripts of c, s and w refer to calorimeter bucket, sample and
water, respectively and Ti is initial temperature of sample and bucket,
Tw is initial water temperature and Te is equilibrium temperature.
18
One of the sources of errors in the methods of mixtures is thermal
leakage of the calorimeter and the energy added ny stirring. The con
sideration of this correction becomes even more important when measur
ing specific heat of materials with low heat capacity per unit volume.
2. Method of Guarded-Plate
In this method the specimen is surrounded by electrically-heated
thermal guards. These thermal guards are maintained at the same tem
perature as the specimen, which is also being heated electrically, and
thus there is ideally no heat losses. In this case tne electric heat
supplied to the specimen in a given time, t, is set equal to the heat
gain oy the specimen as given by the following expression:
O = C W\T- = 3.41 VIt

P
where V and I are respectively average voltage and current readings
during time t hours and 3.41 is the conversion factor from watts to
Btu/hr.
3. Method of Calculated Specific Heat
In many cases specific heat of foods and agricultural products
have been determined directly regardless of the physical state of the
material. In other cases, the specific heat has been calculated from
other thermal properties such as thermal conductivity, diffusivity and
density.
19
[18]
4. Method of Differential Scanning Calorimetry
The method of differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) which is
most advanced and highly sophisticated has been used to measure the
specific heat of sorghum flour (Palacios, 1981) and defatted soy flour
(Arce, et al., 1981). The DSC technique is direct, relatively quick,
dynamic and requires just milligram amounts of sample.
This method is based on measuring very small thermal effects pro
duced in thermal processes. The recorder in the system produces a
thermogram showing any gain or loss of energy as the equipment is
scanned at a given rate of temperature rise over a selected temperature
interval. The area inside the thermogram is proportional to the heat
energy absorbed or released by the sample during the heating or cooling
process. The system consists of a test sample holder, a reference
material holder, temperature programmer, and a chart recorder.
[19]
where d is the deflection from the base line, p is proportionally con
stant and dT/dt •is the rate of temperature scanning. If a reference
material is used in the reference holder, an equation similar to [19]
can oe written for the reference material as follows:
[20]
From equation [19] and [20], the equation [21] is derived for the
determination of specific heat of sample.
E. Literature Data for Thermal Properties of Liquid Foods
Thermal property data have been collected by several investiga
tors. Qashou, et al., (1972) presented a preliminary compilation of
experimental thermal conductivity data for food products. Polley, et
al., (1980) compiled the thermal property data of various foods. . How
ever, there are a few data available for the thermal properties of
basic pure materials of food products.
1. Air, Ice, Water, Salt and Sugar Solutions
Geankoplis (1978) presented the thermal property data of air at
the temperature range from -20°C to 150°C. The thermal diffusivity of
air was calculated by the thermal property relationship. The thermal
property data of ice and water were obtained by Dickerson (1968) and
Holman (1976), respectively. Unterbert (1966) presented in graphical
form the thermophysical properties of aqueous sodium chloride solutions
from 0°C to 100°C. Kubota, et al., (1980) reported the density of salt
solution for the solids content range of 5% up to 24% at the tempera
ture range of 10°C up to 50°C.
21
Short, et al., (1944) reported the specific heat values of sugar
solutions for the solids content range of 5% up to 50% and for the tem
perature range of -40°C to 26°C. Riedel (1949) measured the thermal
conductivity of cane sugar solution for the solids content range of 10%
up to 60% and for the temperature range of 0°C to 80°C. Keppeler, et
al., (1968) measured the thermal diffusivities and specific heats of
sucrose and lactose solutions at the temperature range of -27.5°C to
-8.1°C. Later, Keppeler, et al., (1970) determined the thermal proper
ties of frozen sucrose solutions at the solids content range of 4% up
to 35%. Kubota, et al., (1980) reported the density of sugar solution
for the solids content range of 10% up to 30% at the temperature range
of 10°C to 50°C.
2. Fruits, Vegetables and Juice Products
Perry, et al., (1964) determined thermal conductivity and thermal
diffusivity of four commercial varieties of citrus fruits such as
Valencia orange, Washington navel orange, Marsh grapefruit and Eureka
lemon at 20°C. They measured the temperature change, with fine
copper-constantan thermocouples, of the center of each of 54 fruit with
time. Each fruit went through a regime of warm to cold, and cold to
warm, totalling 98 determinations.
Sweat (1974) measured the thermal conductivity of selected fruits
and vegetables by a line heat source probe method at room temperatures.
Water contents of all samples were also measured by vaccum dry method
22
at 100°C. Density was determined by weighing the samples and then
measuring the volume of sample by measuring the weight of water dis
placed by the sample in a beaker filled water. The water contents of
samples ranged from 65% for avocado to 95% for cucumber. Sweat found
that there was a strong correlation between water content and thermal
conductivity of all products except for the apples which were consider
ably less dense. Low density values apparently reduce thermal conduc
tivity because of the void spaces in the product.
Riedel (1949) measured thermal conductivity of fruit juices such
as apple, grape, and pear juices of various water contents at the tem
perature of 20°C and 80°C. Riedel determined thermal conductivity, k,
depending on temperature by measuring the current and temperature
difference between hot and cold side of sample cylinder by a platinum
resistance thermometer with pure water known thermal conductivity as a
reference material. Thermal conductivities of above fruit juices were
then determined at various water contents on the basis of thermal con
ductivity of pure water as a function of temperature. Later Riedel
(1951) determined the specific heat of some fruit juices by calorime
ter.
Keller, et al., (1956) reported the thermal properties of frozen
orange juices at 20°, 40° and 60° Brix at the temperature range of
-28.9°C to -6.7°C.
Dickerson (1968) reported the thermal properties such as thermal
conductivity, thermal diffusivity, density and specific heat of some
23
fruit juices. Thermal diffusivity was calculated from the relationship
between thermal diffusivity and other properties which ware obtained by
Riedel's equation (1949) and Riedel's chart (1951).
Choi, et al., (1983) determined the thermal properties of tomato
juice for the concentration range of 4.8% to 80% solids and a tempera
ture range of 20°C to 150°C. The line heat source probe was employed
for the measurement of thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity
simultaneously. The density of samples was measured by a volumetric
pychometer after weighing the samples. For low solid concentrated
tomato juices, a 28 ml volumetric pycnometer was used at the tempera
ture range of 30°C to 80°C. For tomato paste- a 12 ml pyenometer which
was made of aluminum alloy for the determinations of semi-fluids, was
used at the above temperature ranges.
3. Milk Components and Products
Riedel (1949) measured the thermal conductivities of skim milk,
whole milk and whey at the temperature range of 7°C to 87°c.
Fernandez-Marytin (1972) measured the theraml conductivity and specific
heat of skim milk, Half-Half milk and whole milk of various solid con
tents at the tanperature range of 0°C to 80°C. Kubota, et al., (1980),
determined the density of skim milk solutions for a solid content range
of 5% to 25% and a temperature range of 10°C to 50°C. Several other
investigators have determined the thermal properties of some milk pro
ducts at a certain temperature range,
24
Roy (1968) measured the density of casein from buffalo and cow
milk at the temperature range of 25°C to 50°C. Munro (1980) measured
the density of sodium and calcium caseinate solutions at the tempera
ture range of 16°C to 50°C.
Roy, et al., (1971) reported the density of fat from buffalo and
cow milk at the temperature from 15°C to 50°C.
Buma (1980) reported the density of lactose solutions for a solid
content range of 10% to 40% and a temperature range of 20°C to 60°C.
4. Meat Components and Products
Lentz (1961) measured the thermal conductivity of different kinds
of meat and.several kinds of fat at the temperatures between -25°C and
5°C. A guarded hot-plate method was used in the measurements. Lentz
reported that at above-freezing temperatures the thermal conductivities
of tne different meats were about equal to each other and slightly
lower than the value for water, and that the thermal conductivity of
fats varied only slightly with temperature.
Hill, et al., (1967) measured thermal conductivity for frozen and
fresn beef, port, lamb and veal in the temperature range of -17.8°C to
65.6°C. The data showed the dependence of thermal conductivity on tem
perature, moisture content and direction of heat flow (perpendicular or
parallel to the grain of the meat). Measurements were made by a
steady-state method similar to the standard guarded hot plate method.
25
Higgs, et al., (1975) measured thermal conductivity of whole beef
using the refined line source technique. Chunk steaks of different fat
contents were used for the measurements between 14.3°C and 80°C. Higgs
reported that the thermal conductivity values obtained, rose with
increased temperature.
Baghe-Khandan (1978) measured thermal conductivity of ground and
whole beef at a temperature range of 30°C to 90°C. Water content, fat
content and density of the samples were also measured. Baghe-Khandan
found that thermal conductivity of beef increased with increasing tem
perature during cooking periods. The increase was higher for ground
beef than for whole beef.
5. Oil Components and Products
Several investigators have measured the thermal conductivities and
densities of several kinds of oil products at a certain temperature.
Clark, et al., (1946) reported the specific heat of some vegetable
oils at a temperature range of 0°C to 280°C. Ward, et al., (1950)
measured the specific heat of hydrogenated and unhydrogenated peanut
oil at a temperature range of -72.8°C to 77.2°C.
Swern (1979) reported the thermal conductivities, densities and
specific heats of oleic acid and stearic acid at some temperatures.
26
All the data available in the literature on the thermal properties
of liquid foods are listed in the Appendix Tables.
F. Compositions of Food Products
1. Milk and Milk Products
Milk is the liquid food secreted by the mammary gland for the
nourishment of the newly born, containing water, fat, proteins, lactose
and minerals. A typical composition of pure components for milk pro
ducts is listed in Table 1. Water is the medium in which all the other
components of milk are dissolved or suspended. Some small amount of
the water in milk is hydrated to the lactose and salts, and some is
bound in the proteins. The mixture of mixed triglycerides which makes
up 98 to 99% of the milkfat is peculiar to milk. Lactose is the
predominant solid in milk and the amount does not vary much from the
average value. The principal proteins of milk protein are casein (80%)
and whey protein (20%). The salts of milk are considered to be the
chlorides, phosphates and citrates of potassium, sodium, calcium, and
magnesium.
27
Table 1= The Average Composition of Milk Products
Milk Products Water Fat Lactose Ash Protein
Condensed Milk 65.0 10.5 13.0 2.1 9.4

Evaporated Milk 73.8 7.9 9.7 1.6 7.0
18% Cream 74.5 18.0 4.1 0.6 2.8
30% Cream 63.3 30.0 3.6 0.6 2.5
36% Cream 58.0 36.0 3.3 0.5 2.2
Half-and-Half Milk 80.2 11.5 4.5 0.7 3.1
Skim Milk 90.5 0.1 5.1 0.7 3.6
Whole Milk 87.0 3.9 4.9 0.7 3.5
Dry Whole Milk 2.0 27.5 38.2 5.9 26.4
Nonfat Dry Milk 3.0 0.8 52.3 8.0 35.9
Whey ■ 93.2 0.3 5.1 0.5 0.9
Condensed Whey 48.1 2.4 38.5 4.0 7.0
Whey Protein Cone. 4.3 5.2 8.3 5.4 76.8
T 2. Fruits, Vegetables and Juices

Ca .
Most fresh fruits and vegetables are high in water, low in pro
tein, and low in fat. Water contents will generally be greater than
70% and frequently greater than 85%. Commonly protein contents will
not be greater than 3.5% or fat contents greater than 0.5%. The diges
tible carbohydrates in fruits and vegetables are present largely in the
forms of sugars and starches.
The sugars are the principal constituents of the soluble solids in
most fruit juices. Grape juice is especially high in sugar content.
Fully mature pineapple contains about two-thirds sucrose and one-third
reducing sugars. The reducing sugars are composed of approximately
equal amounts of glucose and fructose. During processing of pineapple
28
juice there is some inversion of the sucrose and during storage this
inversion continues until the sugar is practically all in the reducing
form.
Fruits and vegetables also contain polysaccharides such as cellu
lose, hemicellulose and pectic substances. Cellulose which exists in
the form of partially crystalline microfibrils in fruits and vegetables
is largely responsible for changes in the texture of fruits and veget
ables during maturation, storage and cooicing. Pectic substances which
are complex celloidal carbohydrate derivatives also have a great influ
ence on their textures in several ways. However, the amounts of these
polyscaccharides are small compared to the amounts of sugar.
Fruit juices are rich in potassium, and contain appreciable
amounts of calcium, sodium, magnesium, phosphorus, chlorine, sulfur,
iron and copper and other minerals. However, the amounts are not so
great as those which occur in most vegetables.
Tomato juice contains approximately 4% sugar and contains little
fat and protein. Tomato juice is a good source of carotene, which is
the form of the precursor of vitamin A in tomato juice. The pectic
substances of tomatoes play an important part in determining the con
sistency of tomato juice. When cold tomatoes are crushed, the pectin
present is exposed to the action of pectic enzymes, which rapidly con
vert it to an insoluble form. However, the amounts of carotene and
pectic substances are very small compared with the other major com
ponents of tomato juices.
29
3, Meat- Poultry and Fish
The composition of a meat sample varies with such factors as
species, age, breed, level of feeding, length of post mortem time and
kind of muscle. Water is the greatest constitutent of meat (70-75%) .
Meat has different kinds of protein compared to milk protein. The
major proteins of meat products are myofibrillar (about 56%), connec
tive tissue (about 11%) and sarcoplasm (about 33%). There are two
major types of lipids in meat: the polar lipids which are mainly within
the cells and tne neutral triglycerides in the fat depots. The amount
of fat varies among different species and different animals in a
species and among different muscles within a carcass. The amount of
carbohydrate in meat products is normally very small.
The composition of the edible parts of poultry depends upon the
cut and the method of cooking. Roasted white meat without the skin
will contain aoout 64% water, 32% protein and 3.5% fat. Roasted dark
meat without the skin contains about 65% water, 28% protein, and 6%
fat. The skin is higher in fat. Chicken flesh contains more protein
and less fat than red meat. The fat contains a high percentage of
unsaturated fatty acids and low cholesterol content.
The chemical composition of seafood is similar to that of land
animals. The principal constitutents are water (66-84%), protein (15-
24%), fat (0.1-22%) and mineral substances (0.8-2%). However, there is
a wide variation in composition among the different species of fish and
among individual fish within a single species.
30
4. Grain and Flour
The major constituents of the principal cereal grains are about
10-14% water, 58-72% carbohydrate, 8-13% protein, 2-5% fat and 2-11%
indigestible fiber. While these are typical values, compositions will
vary slightly depending upon varieties of the particular grains, geo
graphical and weather conditions and other factors. It is to be noted
that tne cereal grains contain about two-thirds carbohydrate, and this
is in the form of digestible starches and sugars. The operations of
milling generally will remove the indigestible fiber and the fat from
these grains when they are to be consumed for human food. The average
proximate compositions of wheat flour are about 12% water, 10.5% pro
tein, 1.0% fat, 76.1% carbohydrate and 0.43% ash.
G. Effects of Heating on Selected Foodstuffs
Basically, heat conduction is thermal energy transmission by
molecular motion. In the case of solids, there are two principal car
ries of heat energy from molecule to molecule in conduction: lattice
waves which are always present and free electrons which are usually
preset in metals and semiconductors. In metal, which has more free
electrons than alloys and thermal insulating materials, heat conduction
is mainly based on the flow of electrons. On the other hand, in alloys
and thermal insulating materials which have few free electrons, heat is
transferred from molecule to molecule depending mainly upon lattice
31
vibrations» This difference in the number of free electrons causes
metals to have higher tnermal conductivities than most alloys and insu
lating materials. In the case of a gas, free electrons are of no sig
nificance. Heat conduction from molecule to molecule occurs by the
exchange of energy that take place during molecular collisions. From
kinetic theory, the kinetic energy of an ideal gas is found to be pro
portional to the square root of the absolute temperature. In the case
of a liquid, heat conduction from molecule to molecule also takes place
during molecular collisions, but many body interactions and multiple
collisions are involved. In general for simple liquids, thermal con
ductivities are about 10-100 times greater than thermal conductivities
of the corresponding gases at the same temperature, and about 10% less
r than the thermal conductivity of the corresponding solids at the melt-
ing point.
Consequently, in food materials which are composed of various suo-
stances in different states, heat transferred by conduction may take
place in several forms. The resulting effect of temperature on thermal
conductivity is not easily established by employing the basic knowledge
of heat transfer mechanism in solids, gasses and liquids as described
above. In addition, increasing the temperature of foodstuffs could
cause several changes in their physical or chemical properties. The
knowledge of such changes is thus of importance.
32
lo Effects of Heating on Protein
Protein is a polymer of amino acids. The amino acids are linked
together by peptide bonds to form the basic chain of the protein in
which the number and the sequence of amino acids determine the primary
structure. The secondary structure of protein molecules is caused by
the regular folding of the chain caused by interactions between the
residues of the chain. This type of organization is, however, periodi
cally interrupted to permit additional folding which gives rise to
higher protein structures. Hydrogen bonding is the major interaction
which gives rise to the secondary and higher protein structures. This
hydrogen bond formation could produce either sheet or helical structure
depending on the interchain or intrachain hydrogen bond formation. The
sheet structures are found only in fibrous proteins while the d-nelix
shaped structures are found in both fibrous and globulan proteins. in
addition, disulphide linkage and other non-petide covalent Bonding,
hydrophobic interactions and ionic bonding are the other types of
interactions also found to play important roles in protein structures.
It has been found that when a protein is heated, the possible
reactions that it may undergo during heating are as follows:
1. predenaturational transitions,
2. thermal denaturation,
3. aggregation, precipitation and gelation, and
33
4. thermal degradation
Predenturational transitions are mirror conformation changes which
occurs prior to denaturation. They are normally of little importance
in food systems as they have a minimal effect of the properties of the
material. However, if the changes allow other reactions to occur that
are not possible in the native states, then they might have a marked
effect on tne properties.
Thermal denaturation is a radical change in the structure of a
protein which usually occurs on heating. This radical change in struc
ture is referred to as the breaking of part or all of the bonds that
make up the secondary and higher structure of protein. The peptide
bond which links the amino acid residues to from the basic protein
chain, however, does not break. The denaturation could also be con
sidered to be similar to a phase transition from the crystalline to
amorphous state. A protein molecule in its nature state has a highly
ordered structure, and denaturation will alter this ordered arrangement
so it becomes less ordered and more irregularly arranged. This change
or transition of phase might thus have a decreasing effect on the ther
mal conductivity of materials as it is found that crystalline materials
nave higher thermal conductivity than amorphous materials.
Both predenaturation transitions and denaturation normally are
reversible. However, following denaturation, the proteins will often
interact either with themselves or other molecules to form aggregates
(precipitates, gels, etc.) and these post denaturation reactions

(►-"4
34
(aggregation, precipitation or gelation) are virtually irreversible and
can occur spontaneously following denaturation. The formation of these
aggregates often has a marked effect on the physical properties of a
foodstuff.
Furthermore, if the heat supplied to the protein is excessive,
then convalent bonds may rupture leading to thermal degradation of the
molecules. This thermal degradation can also lead to changes in seme
physical properties.
It should be noted that the reactions discussed above are those
which may occur in relatively pure protein systems. When other sub
stances are present in the system, some interactions between proteins
and other molecules could possibly occur. For example, the Maillard
browning reaction might occur, if proteins are present in the system
containing carbohydrate materals.
2. Effects of Heating on Carbohydrate
Carbohydrates are classified as follows:
1. monosaccharides (e.g., glucose, fructose, etc.).,
2. oligosaccharides (e.g., lactose, sucrose, raffinose, etc.). This
group can have a number of monosaccharide units up to 15 monosac
charide units, and
35
3. polysaccharides (e,g,- starch, cellulose- etc,). This group con
tains more than 15 monosaccharide units.
Monosaccharides and oligosaccharides can be crystallized. When
heat is applied to mono- and digo- saccharides, browning occurs. In
more detail, the effect of heat on simple sugars has been considered as
falling into three categories:
1. caramelization,
2. pyrolysis, and
3. the Maillard reaction.
Caramelization is the process of caramel formation. It is
believed that caramel formation results from loss of water from the
sugar molecule, followed by unknown reactions to give brown - colored
products.
Pyrolysis is referred to severe heating of sugar molecules which
also results in brown - colored products. However, due to severe heat
ing, carbon - carbon linkages are probably broken.
The Maillard reaction is the reaction between carbohydrates and
amines induced by heating which again give rise to brown colored pro
ducts .
These three categories of browning are all examples of dehydration
of the carbohydrate molecules due to heating, followed by seme complex
reactions.
36
In the case of polysaccharides, starch is considered very impor
tant in food because it provides a high proportion of the world’s food
energy intake. Starch is composed of two separable components:
awnylose and amylopectin. Starch is found in the form of granules,
either simple or compound granules. Under a polarizing microscope most
starch granules show two distinct types of structure in the starch
granule. Crystalline structure and amorphous structure. In the region
of crystalline structure, molecules are closely packed in order and are
tightly bonded together. On the other hand, in the region of amorphous
structure, molecules are loosely linked causing more open structure.
Starch granules are insoluble in cold water. When starch granules
are heated up in the presence of water, they take up water, swell and
finally at a certain temperature, the so-called gelatinization tempera
ture, material is leached from the granule, causing an increase in
viscosity. When starch is gelatinized, the crystalline region is dis
rupted and will gradually disappear. The gelatinization temperature
varies among types of starchs. It is found to vary over a range of 2°C
for individual starch granules of the same kind, and to vary a range of
4°C_10°C for the same kind of starch, if starch protein interactions
occur, they could also affect the gelatinization behavior of a starch.
When starch is heated alone (note heated in water), a series of
denydration reactions occur, similar to those for mono- and oligo- sac
charides, and a brown colored material is formed.
37
H. State of Water in Frozen Foods
The role of water in establishing the properties of a frozen food
is quite evident for several reasons. Since most foods to be frozen
have greater than 50% moisture content, water is the predominant com
ponent. In addition, the freezing process causes a change of phase in
the water and the properties of the frozen product are influenced sig
nificantly by the differences in the properties of water in the
unfrozen and frozen states. One of the characteristics of food freez
ing is the gradual change in temperature as change of phase occurs.
This observation implies that the fraction of water frozen changes con=
tinuously with temperature below the initial freezing point. Since the
product properties are closely related to the state of water in the
product, it is evident that they will vary with temperature and more
specifically with the extent to which the phase change of water has
occurred.
1^. Relationship Between Unfrozen Water Fraction and Temperature
During Food Freezing
Staph and Woolrich (1951) proposed that a gradual depression of
the freezing point in the unfrozen product fraction occurs throughout
the freezing process. The reduction in product temperature below the
initial freezing point produces ice and an unfrozen product fraction
with an increased concentration of product solids and solutes. The
38
increased concentration depresses the freezing point of the unfrozen
product fraction and additional freezing of ice will not occur until
the temperature is lowered an additional amount below the initial
freezing point. Each increment of temperature lowering increases the
amount of ice frozen, increases the concentration of solids and solutes
in the unfrozen fraction and depresses the freezing point of the
unfrozen fraction.
Based on the chemical potential of the pure solute and the chemi
cal potential of the pure liquid, the equation for freezing point
depression can be derived by introducing appropriate considerations for
molar free energies and enthalpies. As derived by Moore (1962), the
freezing point equation is:
=lnX* 1221
where:
^ : molal latent heat of fusion, Btu/lb mole
R : gas constant, Btu/lb mole °R
Tq : freezing point of pure liquid, °R
T : freezing point of solution, °R
: mole fraction of liquid in solution
The application being proposed involves use of equation [22] for
unfrozen water fractions at temperatures well below the initial freez
ing point. By the definition of mole fraction, the mole traction of
liquid in solution can be expressed in the following equation:
39
x = ma/M& [231
"ft m a/MA +
where:
m A : mass fraction of water in solution
nig : mass fraction of product solute in solution
i rnolsculsr vjsi^ht of v’stsE
Mg : effective molecular weight of product solute
Therefore, the frozen water fraction of a food system can be
predicted at a given temperature below the initial freezing point.
J_. Effects of Frozen Water on Thermal Properties of Frozen Foods
Since the thermal properties of frozen foods are significantly
dependent upon water content and the phase of water, knowledge of the
unfrozen water fraction and the thermal properties of water and ice
versus temperature relationship is essential.
One of the basic properties of a food product influenced by freez
ing is density. Since the density of water decreases significantly
during the phase change from liquid to solid, the influence on density
of the product will be noticeanle. Although the magnitude of change
will be dependent upon product freezing characteristics, the water con
tent of the product is the most influential factor.
40
The thermal conductivity of a frozen food is probably the most
complex property to describe or predict. Because of the nearly four
fold increase in thermal conductivity of ice compared to unfrozen
water, a dramatic change in thermal conductivity of the product occurs
during nhe freezing process.
Although there are several reports on measurement of thermal dif-
fusivities of food products, only Albin, et al., (1979) have attempted
to measure these values for frozen foods directly. The investigation
used temperature histories of the products during freezing and a non
linear least squares analysis to estimate thermal diffusivities for
model systems, mashed potatoes and shrimp.
Most reported values forapparent specific heats for frozen foods
have been computed from experimentally determined eutnalpy values. The
euthalpy or heat content of a frozen food is a combination of sensible
heat and latent heat. The sensible heat contribution to enthalpy is
related to temperature changes, while the latent heat contributions are
directly related to the magnitudes of the frozen waterfraction inthe
product. The totalenthalpy change (/^) can be expressed as tnesum of
enthalpy changes of the product components:
/$ = ^ ^ [24]
where:
</ ^ s : sensible heat change for product solids
: sensible heat change for unfrozen water
41
: sensible heat change for ice
; latent heat removed
Apparent specific heat can be calculated by equation [25] at given
temperature.
c m - 1 — [25]
up a u; m dT
Heldman (1982) reported that the specific heat of the frozen food
at very low temperature is lower than that of the unfrozen product. He
also reported that apparent specific heat is very large at the initial
freezing temperature.
K. Effects of Air on Thermal Properties of porous Foods
Porous foods refer to powdered granular and freeze-dried food
materials such as grains, seeds, flour and powder materials, and dried
products. These products can be considered a two-phase system, con
sisting of a solid phase and a gas phase (air). Since each phase con
tributes to the theraml properties, then any measured thermal proper
ties are apparent: so called effective thermal properties.
Several attempts have been made to study those factors which
influence the effective thermal properties of a two-phase system. It
has been found that the effective thermal properties of such materials
depends upon the properties of each phase, the fraction of the phases,
the particle size and the distribution of particle sizes in the mass.
It should be noted that bulk density which is the resulting physical
42
characteristic from the combinations of such properties as particle
size, distribution and porosity is unquestionably another factor
affecting the effective thermal properties.
Ojha, et al., (1967) determined the effective thermal conductivity
of non-fat dry milk (NFDM) and wheat flour by using a steady state type
heat conductivity test apparatus. The variables investigated included
temperature, bulk density and moisture content. It was observed that
tne effective thermal conductivity increased with an increase in mois
ture content, bulk density and tenperature. The bulk density of a
powder bed is affected by bed structure and particle structure.
Hayashi, et al., (1367) investigated the influence of spray drying
conditions on bulk density, void space and porosity of non-fat dry
milK. They found tnat:
1. bulk density increases as the particle size decreases,
2. bulK density increases as the particle size distribution
decreases,
3. bulk density increases as the porosity inside each particle
decreases.
This finding does indicate that bulk density is the resulting physical
characteristic from the combinations of particle size, particle size
distribution and porosity. These parameters can also be used for a
physical description of the materials and would affect their effective
thermal conductivity.
43
Farrall, et al., (1970) determined the thermal conductivities of
eiyht different types of powdered milk whose characteristics were some
what different by using the same steady-state heat conductivity test
apparatus. The effect of moisture content on thermal conductivity was
also investigated by varying moisture content from about 2% up to 12%.
The results showed tnat different types of powdered milk have different
thermal conductivities. This might be due to differences in particle
size and porosity. It was also found that all of the powdered milk
investigated showed increased thermal conductivity as the moisture con
tent increased, and as the bulk density was increased. This result
confirms the significant effects of moisture content and air fraction
on the erEective thermal conductivity of powdered materials.
Fortes and Okos (1980) reported on the thermal property changes of
corn during drying. Bulk density and effective thermal conductivity of
corn kernel were measured at different moisture contents from 5% to 30%
and at different drying temperature conditions from 32.2°C to 150°C.
It was found that bulk density of corn kernel decreases as drying tem
perature increases, since the kernel volume increases as drying tem
perature increases. The results on thermal conductivity indicate that
tnermal conductivity of corn kernel decreases as temperature increases
for lower moisture content. It points out that there is a great effect
of air on thermal conductivity for lower moisture content materials.
Wallapapan and Sweat (1980) determined the effects of bulk density
and moisture content on effective thermal conductivity of defatted soy
flour using the line heat source thermal conductivity probe method.
44
The results showed that the effective thermal conductivity did increase
witn increasing bulk density. An increase in bulk density of the flour
with the same moisture content means an increase in solid fraction, or
a decrease in porosity. It was also found that moisture content signi
ficantly affected the effective thermal conductivity of defatted soy
flour.
Arce, et al., (1981) measured thermal conductivity, thermal dif-
fusivity and specific heat of defatted soy flour for moisture contents
ranging from 13-15 percent and bulk mass densities from 960 to 1320
Kg/m3 . The results showed that the effective thermal conductivity
steadily increases with density and moisture content. Furthermore, the
data obtained were also used in an empirical polynomial least squares
fit using moisture and bulk density as the independent variables. In
this case, moisture content was found to be significant hp to the qua
dratic term, but density was only linearly significant.
L. Literature Models for Thermal Properties of Liquid Foods
1. Thermal Conductivity
Riedel (1949) developed a model to predict thermal conductivity of
fruit juices, milk and sugar solutions of various water contents on the
basis of thermal conductivity of pure water by means of the following
relationship:
45
K = [326=58 + 1.0412T - 0.00337T2 ] x[0.4S + 0.54 Xw]xl.73xl0~3 [26]
Riedel reported that this model has an accuracy of about 1% error at
the temperature range from 0°C to 80°C.
Anderson (1950) proposed an empirical relationship to compute the
unknown thermal conductivity by thermal conductivities of water and
solids as follows:
K = KwXw + Ks(l-Xw) [27^
Anderson reported that this model is an additive method for determining
conductivity of biomaterials and its validity needs to be established.
Thermal conductivity of the solids was assumed to be 0.259 W/M°C which
is not a function of temperature in this method, but literature values
indicate that thermal conductivity of the solids is affected by tem-
4. perature.
Spells (1960) suggested that water content is probably a major
factor in determining the thermal conductivity of the fluids. A linear
equation was used to correlate water content with thermal conductivity
of liquid biological materials having water contents greater than 50
percent:
K = 0.056 + 0.57 Xw [281
Spells reported that thermal conductivity of the sample below 50% water
does not agree well with the correlation proposed, so that it would be
necessary to investigate this matter further.
Fernandez-Martin, et al. (1972), developed models to predict ther
mal conductivities of skim milk, Half-Half milk and whole milk for the
46
temperature range from 5°C to 75°C and the solid content range up to
40%.
K = (bQ + b xS) + (b + b 3S) T + (b4 + b 5S) T 2 [29]
where S is % total solids content and K is in cal/s cm°C. The coeffi
cients of equation [29] are listed in Table 2.
TaDle 2. The Coefficients of Fernandez-Martin Model
Stand
ard
Type of Milk Error
bo bi b2 b3 b4 b5
Skim Milk 13.00 -0.0401 0.0521 -0.00012 -0.000178 0.0000003

Half-Half Milk 12.61 -0.0492 0.0724 -0.00156 -0.000328 0.0000112 0.10
Whole Milk 13.21 -0.0768 0.0770 -0.00135 -0.000507 0.0000121 0.14
This parametric equation was reported to fit the experimental data
for any miI k and temperature within 3% error.
Fernandez-Martin, et al. (1977), reported a model for the thermal
conductivity of cream as a function of temperature and volume fraction
of tne fat pnase.
K = [12.63 + 0.051 T - 0.000175 T 2] x
[1 - (0.843 + 0.0019 T)f] x 4.18 x 10-2 [30]
where f is fat volume fraction.
Sweat, et al. (1978), developed a linear model depending on water
content from the measured data for dairy products and margarines. A
47
linear regression line was fitted to most of the data:
K = 0.141 + 0.412 Xw [31]
The accuracy of the thermal conductivity data was estimated as 5%.
The effect of temperature was not emphasized.
Choi, et al. (1983), developed a model for tomato juices for the
temperature range from 20°C to 150°C and the water content range from
20% to 95.2%.
[32]
Ks = 5.9975 x 10"* + 1.5933 x 10~J T + 1.6389 x 10“° T
The standard errors of estimate were 0.0018 W/M°C and 0.0102 W/M°C on
Kw and Ks , respectively.
2. Thermal Diffusivity
Riedel (1969) reported that thermal diffusivity is strongly depen
dent on water content like other thermal properties of food by means of
the following equation:
c( = 0.088 x 10"6 + (o^ - 0.088 x lO-6) ^ [33]
This expression encompasses a wider range of food products with the
limitation of water contents above 40% and has an accuracy of about 5%
error. Dickerson and Read (1975) used the above model and found good
48
agreement with experimental values of thermal diffusivity for a variety
of meats.
Martens (1980) found that temperature and water content are the
major factors affecting thermal diffusivity using statistical analysis.
Martens performed multiple regression analysis on thermal diffusivity
of avariety of food products and obtained the following regression
equation:
c( = [0.057363 Xw + 0.000288 (T + 273)] x 10-6 [34]
The standard error of estimate was 0.014 x 10-6 m 2/sec. . Martens also
proposed the thermal diffusivity model as a function of basic com
ponents of foods such as water, fat, proteins and carbohydrates. The
regression equation was (20°C)
c( = (0.146 Xw + 0.100XF + 0.075Xp + 0.082Xc ) x 10-6 [35-

1
The standard error of estimate was 0.0006 x 10-6 M 2/sec.
Choi, et al. (1983), reported on the thermal diffusivity of tomato
juices for the temperature range from 20°C to 150°C and the water con
tent range from 20% to 95.2%.
c( = cfwXw + c(sxs ^36]
where = (1.3628 x 10-1 + 4.8754 x 10~4 T - 1.6316 x 10~6 T 2) x 10~6
c(s = (9.5075 x 10"3 + 2.3474 x 10~4 T + 1.7608 x 10"6 T 2) x 10_6
The standard errors of estimate were 0.0004 x 10~6 m 2/sec and 0.0032 x
10~6 m 2/sec on and c(s , respectively.
49
3= Density
Riedel (1949) reported that density versus index of refraction
curves for sugar solutions may be used to calculate density of juices
from measured values of index of refraction, and suggested the follow
ing equation to predict the density of fruit juices:
p = [(n2 - l)/(n2 + 2)] x (62.4/0.206) x (16.0185) [37]
where n is index of refraction of the fruit juice.
Short (1955) developed an accurate model for determining the den
sity of milk for the temperatures between 10°C and 45°C.
For full milk p = 1035.0 - 0.358T + 0.0049T2 - 0.00010T3 ^38^
For skimmed milk p = 1036.6 - 0.146T + 0.0023T2 - 0.00016T3 *-39^
Watson (1961) presented density models for milk as a function of
temperature (1 to 10°C) and fat (3.1 to 6.4%)and nonfat solids (8.2 to
10.2%) and total solids (11.6 to 16.1%). If only the fat content is
considered, the function is:
p = 1028.863 - 0.195T + 143.2 ^ [40]
When only the nonfat content is considered, the similar function
p = 1.006.83 - 0.179T + 314.4 X^, [41]
If both fat and nonfat are considered, the best fitting function
50
p = 1003 =073 - Q.179T - 36.82^ + 374. 4 3 ^ [42]
If nonfat solids and fat are considered together as total solids
(S), then the corresponding fitted function becomes:
p = 1021.11 - 0.188T + 104.6XS [43]
Phipps (1969) reported a model for the density of cream at any
temperature between 40°c and 80°C and for any fat content up to 40%.
p = 1038.2 - 0.17T - 0.003T2 - [(133.7 - 475.5/T)]Xp [44]
The accuracy of this model was estimated as + 0.45%.
Roy, et al. (1971), developed density models for centrifuged buf
falo milk fat and centrifuged cow milk fat for the temperature range
from 15°C to 50°C.
For buffalo milk p = 923.84 - 0.44T ^45^
For cow milk p = 923.51 - 0.43T ^46^
The standard error of estimate was within 2.57 kg/M3.
Munro (1980) reported on the densities of sodium caseinate and
calcium caseinate solutions for the temperature range from 16°C to
50°C.
For sodium caseinate p = 1384.4 - 0.923 (T-20) ^47-*
For calcium caseinate p = 1430.5 - 0.900 (T-20) ^48^
51
Kubota, at al. (1980), developed models to predict densities of
sugar, salt and skim milk solutions for the temperature range from 10°C
to 50°C.
For sugar solution (S = 0-30%)

[49]
p = 1098 + 4.26S - 0.349(T + 273)
For salt solution (S = 0-24%)
p = 1118 + 7.46S - 0.411(T + 273)
For skim milk solution (S = 0-25.3%)

[51]
p = 1096 + 3.88S - 0.339(T + 273)
Choi, et al. (1383), devsiOped a model for tomato juice ror the
temperature range from 30UC to 80°C and the water content range from
20% to 95.2%.
p = pwXw + psXs ^52^
where pw = 9.9989 x 102 - 6.0334 x 10-2T - 3.6710 x 10-3T2
Ps
darci
pw and p s>- respectively.
4. Specific Heat
Siebel (1892) developed an equation for the calculation of
specific heat values for above freezing point, as follows:
C = 0.837 + 3.349XW [53]

P
52
This expression was limited to high moisture foodproducts*
Ward, et al.(1950), reported on the specific heat models of
hydrogenated and unhydrogenated peanut oils.
For unhydrogenated peanut oil (26.84°C - 56.84°C)
C = 2.057 + 0.00167T [54]

P
For hydrogenated peanut oil (46.84°C - 76.84°C)
Cp=1.97 + 0.00489T [55]
The specific heats of the unhydrogenated oils were found to be less
than that of the hydrogenated oils in the liquid state.
Dickerson (1968) presented the following expression which has been
used considerably in higher moisture food products:
C = 1.675 + 2.512XW [56]

P
This expression has been applied to fruit juices which have moisture
contents greater than 50%.
Charm (1971) reported the following model which is somewhat more
dependent on specific heats of product components:
C p = 2.093 X_, + 1.256Xs + 4.187XW [57]
Charm expanded this concept to incorporate specific heats of more basic
components of the product to give the following expression.
C = 1.424X_ + 1.549X + 1.675X„ + 0.837X + 4.187X [58]

P C p T a w
Fernandez-Martin (1972) derived a single expression relating
specific heat, temperature and total solids content for the three milk
sets such as skim milk, Half-Half milk and whole milk. The overall
53
regression coefficient was found for the temperature range from 40°G to
80°C and the total solids content range from 8% to 40%.
C = 4.187X + (1.373 + 0.0113T)X [59]

p w s
This relationship was reported to fit the experimental data for above
temperature and total solids content range within 1.5% error.
Lamb (1976) suggested that a reasonable approximation to specific
heats of food-stuffs above freezing point from fractional water content
was given by:
Cp = 1.465 + 2 . 7 2 3 ^ [60]
Choi, et al. (1383), presented the following model for the
specific heat of tomato juice as a function of temperature and total
solids content.
Cp = CpwXw + CpsXs [61]
where Cpw = 4.1878 - 7.4504 x 10~4T + 9.8593 x 10-6T2
Cps = 1.5785 + 1.0956 x 10-2T - 2.1627 x 10_5T2
The standard error of estimates were 0.0015 KJ/Kg°C and 0.0019 KJ/Kg°C
on Cpw and Cps, respectively. All these thermal property models are
summarized in Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Table 3. Literature Models for Thermal Conductivity of Liquid Foods
Product Formula, K(W/M C) Limitations Errors,
Fruit Juices, Milk K =[326.58 + 1.0412T - .00337 T ] :<
Sugar Solutions [0.46 + 0.54 Xw] x 1.73 x 10“3
Biomaterials K = KwXw + Ks (1-Xw) Anderson (1950)
Biomaterials K= 0.056 + 0.57 Xw S: 0 - 50% 5 Spells (1960)
Milk K= (bQ + bjS) + (b2 + b3S)T + T; 5°C - 75°C 3 Fernandez--Mar tin,
(b4 + b5S)T2 S: 0% - 40% et al. (1972)
Cream K = [12.63 + 0.051T - 0.000175T2] x T: 5°C - 75°C 10 Fernandez-Martin
[1— (0.843 + 0.019T)f] x 4.184 x 10“2 f: 18% - 40% (1977)
Dairy Products K = 0.141 + 0.412 Xw 5 Sweat, et al.

(1978)
Tomato Juices K = K X + K X T :20°C - 150K°C .37 Choi, et al.

w w s s
Kw = 0.5747 + 0.001723T - 0.000006722T2 S: 4.8% - 80% (1983)
K = 0.05998 + 0.001593T + 0.000001639T'

M
Table 4. Literature Models for Thermal Diffusivity of Liquid Foods
Formula, c((M /S) Limitations Errors
General c( = 0.088 x 10-D + (o(w - 5 Riedel (1969)
General c( = [0.057363 Xw + 0.000288 (T+273)] x 10-6 10.4a Martens (1980)
General c( = (0.146 Xw + 0.100 Xp + 0.075 Xp + 0.082 Xc ) x 10“6 T: 20°C 4.8b
Tomato c( = c(w Xw + c(sXs T: 20UC - 150 C .81 Choi, et al.

Juices = (0.1363 + 0.0004875T - 0.000001632T^) x 10"° S: 4.8% - 80% (1983)
(0.009508 + 0.0002347T + 0.000001761T2) x 10“'
% Error was calculated by the assumed average value of

thermal diffusivity
a. .135 x 10"® M 2/S

b. .125 x 10_b m /S
(k -»
Table 5. Literature Models for Density of Liquid Foods
Formula, p(Kg/M~*7~ Limitations Errors,,% Author
Fruit Juices p = [(n2 - l)/(n2 + 2)] x (62.4/0.206) ~ 2 Riedel (1949)

k (16.0185)
Full Milk p = 1035.0 - 0.358T + 0.0049T2 - 0.00010T31 T: 10 - 45°C .5 Short (1955)
1
Skimmed Milk
Milk
P‘ 1036.6 - 0.146T + 0.0023T2 - 0.00016T3
1028.863 - 0.195T + 143.25C, T: 1 - 10°C
.5
.38a Watson (1961)
1006.83 - 0.179T + 3 1 4 . 4 ^ NF: 8.2 - 10.2% .17a
1003.073 - 0.179T - 36.8JC, F: 3.1 - 6.4% .15a
^ 314.4X..„
p = 1021.11 - 0.188T + 104.6Xg S: 11.6 - 16.1% .29a
p = 1038.2 - 0.17T - 0.003T2 - T: 40° - 80°C .45 Phipps (1969)
'[(133.7 - 475.5/T) ]Xp
F: 0 - 40%
Buffalo p = 923.84 - 0.44T T: 15 - 50 C .28 Roy, et al.
Milk Fat (1971)
Cow Milk Fat p = 923.51 - 0.43T .26a
Sodium p = 1384.4 - 0.923(T-20) T: 16-50°C .07 Munro (1980)
Caseinate S: 0-15%
Calcium Caseinate p : 1430.5 - 0.900(T-20) .07
Sugar Solutions p : 1098 + 4.26S - 0.349(T+273) T: 10-50°C •19a Kubota, et al.
S: 0-30% (1980)
Salt Solutions p = 1118 + 7.46S - 0.411(T+273) T: 10-50°C .18a
S: 0-24%
Skim Milk p = 1096 + 3.88S - 0.339(T+273) T: 10-50°C .13a
S: 0-25%
Tomato Juices p = pwXw + psXs T: 20-150°C .35 Choi, et al.
bw =' 999.891 - 0.06033T - 0.003671TZ (1983)
ps = 1469.3 + 0.5467T - 0.006965T2 S: 4.8-80%
% Error was calculated from the standard error.

►!t;S
Table 6. Literature Models for Specific Heat of Liquid Foods
Formula, Cp(KJ/KGuC) Limitations Errors,% Author
General Cp = 0.837 + 3.349XW Siebel (1892)
Unhydro. Cp = 2.057 + 0.00167T T: 25-60 C Ward, et al.

Peanut Oil (1950)
Hydro. Cp = 1.97 + 0.00489T T: 45-50°C

Peanut Oil
General Cp = 1.675 + 2.512 Xw S: 0-50% 7.9 Dickerson (1968)
General Cp = 2.093 X + 1.256Xs + 4.187Xw 6.4a Charm (1971)
General Cp = 1.424Xc + 1.549Xp + 1.675X 4.9a

+ 0.837Xa + 4.187XW *
Milk Cp = 4.187XW + (1.373 + 0.0113TJX T: 40-80 C Fernandez-Martin

Ss 8-40% (1972)
General Cp = 1.465 + 2.721Xw 6.3
Tomato Cp = CpwXw + CpsXs T: 2C .69 Choi, et al.

Juices Cpw = 4.1878 - 0.000745T + 0.000009859T S: 4.8-80% (1983)
Cps = 1.5785 + 0.01096T : 0.00002163T2
a. % Error was calculated by the assumed average

value of specific heat, 3.55 KG/kg C.
b. % Error was calculated from the deviation data
58
IV. EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
A. Measurement Procedure of Thermal Properties
Thermal property values for pure component suspensions of each
major component of food products were measured at the water contents
from 40% to 90% and at the temperature range from -40°C to 150°C. In
general, the major pure components of food products were considered as
water, protein, fat, carbohydrate, fiber and ash.
1. Unfrozen Foods
The line heat source probe was employed for the simultaneous
determination of thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity. This
method has been used in recent years for the determination of thermal
conductivity and thermal diffusivity of Silicone Rubber by Nix, et al.,
(1967).
The thermal conductivity probe approximates a line heat source.
The theory of this method has been reviewed by Van der Held and Van
Drunen (1949), Hooper and Lepper (1950), Nix et al., and Reidy and Rip-
pen (1969). The theory is based on the fact that the temperature rise
^ at a point close to a line heat source,. in a semi-infinite solid
59
subjected to a step change in temperature.- is a function of time,- the
thermal properties of solid, and the source strength. The equation
from which the thermal conductivity may be obtained is expressed in the
equation [6]. Details of the theory are given in the paper by Nix et
al., (1967) and Baghe - Khandan (1978). Using the slope of the linear
portion from a plot of temperature versus the logarithm of time, equa
tion [7] was used to calculate the thermal conductivity of the sample.
The statistical coefficient was used to check the linearity of log
time-temperature data. Any set of readings giving a correlation coef
ficient less than 0.98 was discarded.
Thermal diffusivity of samples was determined by iterative solu
tion of equation [12] after measuring the thermal conductivity. For
each trial, on assumed thermal diffusivity, c( at a given particular
time, t (approximately 10 sec), and a given thermocouple distance, r,
yield a value of p which together with known heat source strength, Q,
and measured thermal conductivity, K, can be solved for temperature.
The calculated temperature is then compared with the measured tempera
ture. A new value of thermal diffusivity is generated based on the
disagreement between these temperatures, and this process is continued
using a Linear Search Method (Interval Halving) to adjust a thermal
diffusivity value until the temperatures agree (difference is less than
0.0001 deg.).
The details for a probe and a electrical circuit of thermal con
ductivity and thermal diffusivity measurement apparatus are in the
M.S.E. Thesis of Choi (1981) and in the paper of Choi, et al., (1983).
60
A copy of the computer program used for thermal conductivity and
thermal diffusivity measurements is in Appendix C.
Data was collected for the temperature range of 10°C up to 150°C
at various concentrations by the probe method. The sample was warmed
up from 10°C at the rate of less than l°C/min for the next measurement
in an ethylene glycol bath until it reached 150°C. Since the sample
was heated slightly by the probe during testing, a mean value of ini
tial and final probe temperature was used as the temperature of sample
at each time. To overcome the problem of water vaporization at tem
peratures above 90°c a pressure holder vessel was used in this experi
ment. Thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity of samples were
also measured during reheating and recooling periods to determine the
effect of temperature history on thermal properties.
In milk products, the coagulation by heat is a function of nonfat
milk solids concentration as well as of the temperature and time of
heating. The way in which increases in concentration of nonfat milk
solids cause the product to coagulate at successively lower tempera
tures is shown in Figure 1. The relationship is generally linear with
respect to temperature and logarithmic with respect to heating time.
Therefore, thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity of fresh milk
at high temperatures should be measured during very short time periods
at lower solids contents.
61
100
c
£
20
o
o
c
8
60 100 120 140
‘ 160
Tenperature of Coagulation, °C
Figure 1. The General Relationship Between the Heat Coagulation Area

of Milks, Concentration of Non Fat Solids and the Time and
Temperature of Heating,
Density of samples in this study were measured by a volumetric
pycncmeter after weighing the samples. For a low solid content sample,
a 28 ml volumetric pyenometer was used at the temperature range of 10°C
to 100°C. For a high solid content sample a 12 ml pyenometer, which is
made of aluminum alloy and used for determinations on semi-fluids, was
used at the above tenperature ranges. The density values of samples
over 100°C were determined indirectly by using the thermal property
relationship, p = K/c( C^, after measuring thermal conductivity, thermal
diffusivity and specific heat, since it was difficult to measure den
sity values above 10Q°C due to water vaporization.
62
Specific heat values of samples were measured by the method of
differential scanning calorimetry. DuPont 990Thermal Analyzer was
used in this study at the temperature range of 10°C to 150°C. Specific
heat can be determined by measuring the difference in Y-axis displace
ment (calorimetric differential) between the sample and blank curves at
any desired temperature in the output of the thermal Analyzer. This
difference is then substituted into the following equation:
60 E A < 3S a y r621
Cp = (4.1868) (--- — 5) A X [62]
where: Cp = Specific heat, KJ/KG°C
E = Calibration coefficient
£ S s = Y-axis range setting, (mcal/sec)/inch
= Heating rate, °C/min
= Difference in Y-axis deflection between sample and
blank curves, inch
m = Sample weight, mg
A calibration coefficient (E) curve can be determined as a func
tion of temperature using materials of known heat of fusion by using
equation [62] . In this study, a sapphire was used in determining a
calibration coefficient. The specific heat values of samples were then
determined at the aoove temperature range after measuring the differ
ence in Y-axis deflection between sample and blank curves at the tem
perature of interest.
63
2. Frozen Foods
Thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity data were collected
for the temperature range of -40°C to 0°C by the probe method. The
sample was heated up from -40°C in an ethylene glycol-water (50%/50%)
oath at the heating rate of less than l°C/min.
In determining density values, since it was difficult to measure
the volume of sample below 0°C, the density values were indirectly
determined after measuring thermal conductivity at two different water
content samples with the proposed following thermal conductivity model:
K = K J Xj + Kw xj + KsXg [63]
XV = ________ V P s ________ [64]
^ Xl/Pl+ + </Ps
The only unknown values in the equations [63] and [64] are thermal
conductivity and density of pure solids. However, the density value of
pure solid at given specific temperature should be the same value.
Therefore, the density of the pure solid at given specific temperature
can be determined from the measured thermal conductivities at two dif
ferent water content conditions.
Specific heat values of samples below 0°C were determined
indirectly by using the thermal property relationship, Cp = K/pc(, with
the other property data, since the measured specific heat data below
64
0°C by DuPont 930 DSC had a high deviation and they were supposed to be
inconsistent.
B. Sample Preparation
Food products usually have different kinds of pure components.
For protein, casein and whey protein are in milk products, and myofi
brillar, sarcoplasmic, stroma, and albumin are in meat and poultry pro
ducts and very low amounts of protein are in fruits, vegetables and
juice products, and plant proteins are in grain and flour food pro
ducts, There exists different kinds of carbohydrate, such as dextrose,
lactose, sugar and starch, in the different food products. There are
also different kinds of fat and ash in different kinds of food pro
ducts.
1. Preparation of Proteins
The major components of milk protein are casein and why protein.
The principal protein in milk, casein, is present in the form of
micells made up of the various components of casein bonded together as
calcium caseinate and complexted further with calcium, phosphate, mag
nesium and citrate ions. Therefore, salt-casein serum was made by
dialyzing skim milk with a salt solution using a 50,000 molecular
weight cut-off membrane. It was dialyzed for 48 hours with the salt
solution being changed every 6 hours. Then, by placing it in a
65
freeze-u.i.yer fot 48 hours, salts—casein powder was obtained. Proteins
remaining after the casein has been removed from skim milk are known as
whey protein or milk serum proteins. Therefore, for whey protein
powder, after precipitating skim milk by 0.5N HC1 at pH = 4.6, through
the centrifuge at 2400 rpm for 15 min., the casein was removed. Then,
it was dialyzed with a 3,500 molecular weight cut-off membrane for 48
hours with distilled water being changed every 6 hours. Finally it was
placed in a freeze-dryer for 48 hours, and whey protein powder was
obtained. The schematic processes of dialysis and preparation of
casein-salts powder and whey protein powder are shown in Figures 2 and
3 respectively.
1
For casein + salts For whey protein
Salts Distilled
Solution Water
50,000 M.W. Cut off 3,500

Membrane
Figure 2. A Schematic Process for Dialysis
66
PR E C IP IT A T IO N AT pH =
SKIM MILK
4.6 by HC1________
SALTS SOLUTION
CENTRIFUGE
D IA L Y S IS
PAPER F ILTR A TIO N
D IS T IL L E D WATER
CASEIN - SALTS ~]
i SERUM , D IA L Y S IS
WHEY PROTEIN
FREEZE SERUM
DRYER
FREEZE
DRYER
CASEIN - SALTS
POWDER
WHEY PROTEIN
POWDER
L
“ "1
10, 30, 60% | | 10, 30, 60%
Figure 3. A Schematic Process for Casein - Salts Powder and Whev

Protein Powder
67
The whole protein-salts serum is also made by dialyzing skim milk
with salts solution using 3,500 molecular weight cut-off membrane, and
then through freeze-drying the protein-salts powder was obtained.
Meat proteins can be categorized on the basis of their origin and
soluoility as myofibrillar, sarcoplasmic and strom proteins. Myosin,
which is the major component of myofibrillar protein, contains two
identical polypeptide chains and each has a high degree of c(-helical
structure. Some components of the muscle cell are not soluble in
either water of dilute salt solutions or in the concentrated salt solu
tions. Soluble proteins of the muscle cell are usually from 15 to 30%
of the total proteins. Since it is very difficult to separate each
pure meat protein from the muscle, the whole meat protein was prepared
from groundbeef in this study.
Groundbeef (approximately 2 lbs) was purchased from the Department
of Animal Science, Meat Science Laboratory, Purdue University. The
sample was ground by blending for 1 min in a Waring Blendor with two
parts of distilled water by volume. The mixture was centrifuged at
2500 x G for 10 minutes at 20°C. After centrifuging the top layer,
which is composed of fat, was discarded. The soluble meat protein
suspension was in the middle layers, and the insoluble meat protein was
in the residue. Both soluble and insoluble meat protein was centri
fuged 3 times. Before centrifuging the insoluble protein residue, two
parts of distilled water by volume was added and stirred gently for 1
nour. Then, by placing them in a freeze-dryer for 48 hours, both inso
luble and soluble meat protein powder were obtained. It was found that
68
84.4% of total meat protein was insoluble protein and the other 15.6%
was soluble protein. The schematic drawing for the process of meat
protein preparation is shown in Figure 4.
Egg albumin powder for egg white protein and gluten powder for
plant protein were purchased from Fisher Scientific Company and Sigma
Chemical Company, respectively.
Then, for tne thermal property measurements in this study, protein
suspensions at 10%, 30% and 60% solids content for the above prepared
each protein were made by rehydrating the powders with distilled water.
2. Preparation of Fats
T
A
Fats are defined as esters of fatty acids with blycerol. Trigly
cerides are quantitatively the most important constituents of natural
fats. Many combinations of fatty acids are possible in a triglyceride.
The arrangement of the fatty acids on the blycerol molecule affects the
performance of fats in food preparation by creating differences in cry
stal formation as well as melting point. The distribution of fatty
acids in natural triglycerides varies widely but appears to be highly
organized in most fats. Liquid fats at ambient temperatures are com
monly referred to as oils.
For a milk fat, butter oil was used for the measurement of thermal
properties in this study. . Butter oil is a refined product made by
,-y. separating the milk fat from high fat cream. The product contains only
Groundbeef
je-Distilled Water
Waring Blendor
I
Cengrifuge > Discard Top Fat
vl
Soluble Protein Residue
•Distilled Water
Discard Top Fat^-Centrifuge Centrifuge — > Discarci Top

0-______________ Fat
Soluble Protein Residue Residue Soluble Protein

I I____ .___ I
Distilled Water
Discard Top Fat<-Centrifuge Centrifuge ^.Discard Top Fat

, I_____ ^ -------
Soluble Protein Residue Residue Soluble Protein
Freeze Dryer ; Dryer

4.
Insoluble Meat Soluble Meat
Protein Powder Protein Powder
I
____ _________ I
Total Meat Protein Powder
1
10, 20, 30% Suspension
Figure 4. A Schematic Process for Total Meat Protein Powder
70
small amounts of moisture and protein. The composition is 99.5% milk
fat, 0.2% moisture 0.3% protein.
Commercial oil products, such as corn oil for grain foods, veget
able oil for vegetable foods and lard for mead foods, were used for the
measurement of thermal properties of the fat component of food pro
ducts.
3. Preparation of Carbohydrates
Different kinds of carbohydrate exist in different kinds of food
products. The principal carbohydrate of milk is lactose, although
trace amounts of glucose, galactose and other sugars are present.
Sources of lactose other than milk foods are rare. In fruits and
vegetables the major carbohydrates are sugar and starch, with consider
able amounts of polysaccharides such as pectin and cellulose as fiber
materials.
In this study, commercial pure cane sugar and corn starch powder
was used for the measursnent of thermal properties of carbohydrates.
For monosaccharides, dextrose powder was purchased from Fisher Scien
tific Company. For milk carbohydrates, lactose powder was also pur
chased from pfanstichl Laboratories, Inc. Pectin powders which was
made by Sigma Chemical Company and microcrystalline cellulose powder
which was made by FMC Corporation were used for the thermal property
measurements of fiber materials.
71
Then, 10%, 30% and 60% solids content carbohydrate suspensions for
each prepared dextrose, lactose and sugar carbohydrate sample were made
by rehydrating the powders with distilled water. However, interactions
between water and polysaccharides are comparably very strong. Water
forms hydrogen bonds with the hydroxyl groups of polysaccharides in the
same way that it does with hydroxly groups of other molecules. So, the
polysaccharide molecule can associate with itself to from loops or hel
ices, or possibly even double helices with other coiled macromolecules.
By stretcning out it can align to form crystalloid regions, called as
micelles. The growth of micelles results in the gel becoming a firmer
suspension at a low water content. Therefore, the polysaccharide
suspension samples, such as starch, pectin and microcrystalline cellu
lose, were prepared at a low solid content such as 10%, 20% and 30%
solids content for the thermal property measurements.
4. Preparation of Salts
The salt components for all the food products are comprised of
some of the chlorides, phosphates, citrates and sulfates along with
such elements as sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, phosphorus and
sulfu. The amounts of each salt component are very slightly different
in different kinds of food products. Also, the percentage of salg com
ponents among food products is very small compared to the other major
components of food products. Therefore, the milk salts, which have all
72
the above salt components and can be easily prepared,- were assumed as a
basic salt for all kinds of food products.
Jenness (1962) reported on the preparation of a salt solution,
which simulates milk salt solutron, by using a dry blended mixture.
Each granular chemical listed in Table 7 was ground in a motar and
mixed thoroughly in a dry blender. For 1 liter of solution, 7.59 gr.
was weighed out and dissolved in 975-990 ml of distilled water. Since
the pH of milk is 6.6, the pH of the solution was adjusted to 6.6 with
1.0 N KOH, and then distilled water was added to make 1 liter. A
period of 30 to 60 minutes was necessary to effect the solution,
oecause the magnesium citrate dissolves very slowly.
Table 7. The Quantities of Chemicals for Making Milk Salt Solution
Chemicals Quantity (g) Chemicals Quantity (g)
KH2P°4 1.580 CaCl2 - 2H20 1.320
K 3 citrate - H 20 0.508 Mg3 citrate - H 2 0 0.502
Na^ citrate - 5 ^ 0 2.120 k3 co 3 0.300
0.180 KC1 1.078

K 2S°4
The summary of samples used in this study for the thermal property
measurements of major pure components in different food products is
listed in Table 8.
73
Table 8. Samples Used in This Study for the Thermal Property

Measurements of Major Pure Components in Different
Food Products
Food Products Protein Fat Carbohydrate Ash
Milk and Casein

Milk Products Whey Protein Milkfat Lactose Milksalts
Fruits Sugar
Vegetables (low) Vegetable Oil Starch Milksalts
Pectin
Juices Cellulose
Meat Meat Protein

Poultry Albumin Lard (low) Milksalts
Fish
Grain Sugar
Flour Gluten Corn Oil Starch Milksalts
Others — — Dextrose __
5. Preparation of Product Samples
The thermal property values obtained by the models which were
determined by the measured value of thermal properties for each pure
component will be compared to the literature and experimental thermal
property values for food products.
For the measurements of food products, commercial food products
such as evaporated milk in dairy products and concentrated orange juice
in juice products and bratwurst sausage purchased from Dept, of Animal
Science, Meat Science Laboratory, Purdue University, were prepared in
this study. This sausage was made by adding water, salt, sucrose and
74
very small amounts of the other ingredients to the 18.5% of ground beef
and 72.25% of ground pork. The compositions of major components in
these product samples are listed in Table 9.
Table 9. The Compositions of Major Components for the Food Products

Used in This Study.
Food Products Water Protein Fat Carbohydrate Fiber Ash

% % %
Evaporated Milk 69.86 8.0 10.0 12.0 0 .14
Concentrated 58.2 2.3 .2 37.8 .2 1.3

Orange Juice
Bratwurst
Sausage 53.04 15.07 28.91 .45 0 2.53
C. Prediction of the Unfrozen Water Fractions During Food Freezing
Use of equations [22] and [23] requires knowledge of the product
freezing point depression and the water content of the unfrozen pro
duct. In the first step, the initial freezing point of a suspension,
which was a mixture of one pure component with water, was established
with known values of the water content of an unfrozen suspension and
solute molecular weight. The molecular weights of pure components used
in this study, are listed in Table 10.
75
Table 10. Average Molecular Weights of Pure Components Used in

This Study.
Components M.W. Components M.W.
Albumin 45,000 Dextrose 180

Whey Protein 30,000 Lactose 342
Casein 1,000,000 Sugar 342
Meat Protein 350,000 Starch 300,000
Gluten 60,000 Pectin 50,000
Milksalt 158 Cellulose 300,000
From both equations [22] and [23], the following expression can be
written:
is, ,J, - -i, = f , K51

“ o *t' + W
where parameters with subscript i take on different values during the
freezing process. By decreasing the pseudo-freezing point (T^) for the
unfrozen product fraction, the mass fraction of water (nu) in the
unfrozen product fraction decreases. Equation [65] describes a con
tinuous function of rrn versus T- which was used to predict the rela
tionship between percent unfrozen water versus temperature during
freezing of a food product.
In general, the methods or techniques used to measure thermal pro
perties of frozen foods are not different from methods used for
unfrozen foods. The uniqueness of frozen food property data is in the
interpretation of the results and in assuming that data represent the
true properties of the product. With known unfrozen water fraction at
a given temperature during food freezing, the thermal properties of the
product can be determined using appropriate model equations and thermal
properties of the product solids, ice and water. Therefore, the ther
mal properties of various frozen foods can be predicted as a function
of temperature between -40°C and the initial freezing point of the pro
duct.
77
V. MODELING FOR THE THERMAL PROPERTIES
A. Model for Thermal Conductivity
Several different approaches and models have been applied to
predicting the thermal conductivity of foods by the function of tem
perature and each composition with weight fraction or volume fraction.
Based on the theoretical view of the rate of heat transfer to the
material, the structural arrangement of the constituents should be con
sidered in the model to predict thermal conductivity.
For the parallel structural arrangement, the rate of heat transfer
is:
_ k A /\J! kl A 1 ^ K2 A 2 & K3 A 3 [66]

' L ~ L L + L
For the perpendicular structural arrangement, the rate of heat
transfer is :
^ k,
k , A
h kk2
2 aA kk-,
,. aA
Q =
: — At = —=— A t . =
- -Lf
- I — A t, = — —
- - L ^ ® 2 = -TJ- ^ 3
a t [6 7 ^
Mathematically, the thermal conductivity for both parallel and
perpendicular structural model can be derived, as shown in Table 11.
78
Table 11. Heat Conduction Models for Three-Component Systems
Model Theoretical Equation = 1)
K 1 X 1 + K 2 X 2 + K3 X3
Perpendicular
± ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The weight fraction of each major component of food materials is
usually reported and also is a easily measurable factor compared to the
volume fraction. In the thermal conductivity model, each volume frac
tion can be expressed in terms of the weight fraction and density of
each pure component.
XI / P l
'Pi'
A.
79
Several investigators have proposed other models for predicting
the effective thermal conductivity (Ke) based upon several other dif
ferent types of structural arrangements. For a porous material com
posed of two phases, the individual regions of each phase are assumed
sufficiently large that they may be characterized by the thermal con
ductivities of the solid phase (K ) and the gas phase (K ). Brailsford

s g
and Major (1964) derived several expressions describing the effective
thermal conductivity of two-phase media based on a structural arrange
ment having random distribution of solid spheres in a continuous
medium. Their derivations resulted in a model for a fluid continuous
system of material (solid spheres randomly distributed in a continuous
gas phase) and a model for solid continuous system of material (gas
phase in spherical shape randomly distributed in acontinuous solid
The model proposed for parallel structural arrangement:
and the model proposed for perpendicular structural arrangement;
-£ + -a
K * K
s g
and tne model proposed for fluid continuous system of material:
= kg [(1 - 2X^ ---- ^ / (l + x*
2 + 1T 2 + 1T
3 3
and the model proposed for a solid continuous system of material:
80
ke = ks 1 ^ +2Xs d - l j l ' t 3 - x^(l-^)] 1721
and tne model proposed for arandom mixture of the two phases:
ke “ l ! <3XS " 11 Ks + (3Xg - U kg + 1 < [3Xs " U ks + ^
l3Xg - » V 2 + 8 ks kgl1/2l
Another type of models based on a packed bed system of material
have been proposed by Yagi and Kunii (1957), Kunii and Smith (1960),
Okazaki, et a l., (1977) and Chen and Heldman (1972). Generally speak
ing, these models are complicated. A number of experiments and calcu
lations are required to obtain the necessary input data. They are less
applicable for practical applications, but may provide insights to
basic researchers.
Based on the literature and experimental data of the thermal con
ductivity of food material, the model having a better fit to the actual
values will be tested.
Poppendiek, et al., (1966) evaluated the thermal conductivity of
biological fluids (water, human blood, egg yolk) and proposed a model
oased on the assumption that the constituents are positioned parallel
to the neat flow. They reported that this model is a realistic
representation of an actualsystem composed of a uniformly mixed
heterogeneous grouping of two or three constituents. The values
obtained from their model deviated less than 3% from the experimental
values for 11 samples studied in the temperature range of 24°C to 38°C.
€
■• .
a
81
On the frozen food, the same model which was used in the unfrozen
food was used after adding an ice term in the model with known values
of thermal conductivity, density and weight fraction of ice at the tem
perature range of -40°C to 0°C.
The thermal conductivity model of each pure component was assumed
to depend on temperature. Both first order and second order terms were
considered when developing models. It was found that a linear model is
not good for the thermal conductivity of pure components, because the
thermal conductivity - temperature data showed that they are not in a
linear relationship. Therefore, a quadratic model was assumed to
predict the thermal conductivity of each pure component in this study.
K = Af + a 2T + A3T2 t74]
The coefficients of this model for each pure component at the tem
perature range of -40°C to 150°C were determined by subroutine OPT
(Box's Complex Method of Constrained Minimization) which is in the
files of the School of Mechanical Engineering, Purdue University. This
OPT method which was designed by Box to be applied to nonlinear pro
gramming problems with inequality constants is a modified complex
method to be handled with constraints by the use of a flexible search
pattern. In -this method the feasible points of variables are set on
the vertices of the initial polyhedron based on the upper and lower
bounds of the variables. The vertex having the worst value of an
objective function is replaced by a new vertex located along the line
joining the rejected point and the centroid of the remaining points.
The search is terminated when the complex of points has shrunk so that
82
the points are sufficiently close together or if the differences
between the function values at the points become small enough. The
computer program called the OPT subroutine is included in Appendix G.
The correlation coefficients between these modeling values and
experimental values in the thermal conductivities of pure components
were expressed as standard error and standard % error. Standard error
is defined by the following equation:
Ymod “ Yexp)2 [75j

Standard Error = . ---- — ---P—
\| N
Standard % error is defined as the standard error divided by the aver
age experimental value.
B. Models for the Other Thermal Properties
Based on the definition of density, density of a sample is deter
mined by dividing the weight by the volume. Therefore, the density
model for all the cases in this study was assumed to be a function of
volume fractions and densities of the major pure components in food
products. By the definition of density, however, the model can be
expressed in terms of easily available weight fractions of major pure
components:
1 - 1
P - VT - - X, [76]
"Pi H p i Pi
83
Since a specific heat values is,- however, based upon the '-.'eight of
a sample, the specific heat model for all the cases in this study was
assumed:
C =
Cp
"5C x
2 CpiX i
[77]
After determining all the models for thermal conductivity, density
and specific heat, the thermal diffusivity can be predicted by using
the thermal relationships as a function of temperature and each compo
sition of pure component:
K (T,X.)
c( (T,X.) [78]
p <T,X.) Cp (TfX.)
The denominator of equation [78] which is a product of density and
specific heat in a factor based upon volume. Since both numerator and
denominator in equation [78] are based upon volume, the thermal dif
fusivity model was also assumed to be based upon the volume fraction in
tnis study:
[79]
The volume fractions of the components in the equation [79] can be
determined by the equation [68]. Thermal diffusivity models of pure
components based upon weight fractions were also considered when
developing models.
The density, specific heat and thermal diffusivity models of pure
components were considered as both linear and quadratic models for tem
peratures at the range of -40°C to 150°C. It was found that a qua
dratic model has a better fit for the thermal diffusivity and specific
heat of each pure component from the data set of their experimental
values versus temperatures. However, the density versus temperature
data set showed that it is in a linear relationship. Therefore, the
following models were assumed for the thermal diffusivity, density and
specific heat of each pure component:

[80]
c( = B + B T + B T"
S1 -r °2 3
[81]
P “ C 1 + C, T
[82]
The coefficients of tne three models for each pure component at
the above temperature range were also determined by the same OPT sub
1 routine as used in thermal conductivity models. Standard error and
standard % error were also used in presenting the deviation between
experimental and model values.
•T
VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
A. Thermal Property Data of Food Products in the Literature
All the available data for the thermal properties of food com
ponents and products were collected through literature survey. Thermal
properties of foods were considered in the following six categories:
1. Air, Ice and Water
2. Salt, Sugar and Their Derivatives
3. Fruits, vegetables and Juice Products
4. Milk Components and Products
5. Meat Components and Products
6. Oil Products
All these values were listed in Appendix A.
86
B. Results of Thermal Property Measurements
1. Thermal Conductivity and Thermal Diffusivity
Thermal conductivities and thermal diffusivities for pure protein
suspensions of albumin, salt-casein, and whey protein were measured at
different concentrations such as 10%, 30%, 60% at the temperature range
of -40°C to 150°C. as shown in Figures 5 and 6, thermal conductivity
and thermal diffusivity of whey protein suspensions decrease below
their initial freezing points and increase at the above their initial
freezing points so temperature increases. Thermal conductivity and
thermal diffusivity of sample suspensions at the temperature below ini-
X tial freezing point were much higher than that at the temperature above
initial freezing point. Because the thermal conductivity of ice at 0°C
is approximately four times that of water at the same temperature,
indicating tnat ice conducts heat energy at a much faster rate than
immobilized water, and ice has a thermal diffusivity approximately nine
times greater than that of water, indicating that ice, in a given
environment, undergoes a temperature change at a much greater rate than
water. These sizeable differences in thermal conductivity and thermal
diffusivity values of water and ice provide a sound basis for explain
ing why in general freezing is more rapid than thawing at given equal
temperature differentials.
Thermal conductivities and thermal diffusivities of prepared meat
protein and gluten suspensions for the thermal properties of meat and
Suspensions
Protein
of Whey
Conductivity
Thermal
5.
Figure
-* in
in a in in a 1
3.0
<3 W/M) ^TAt-q.onpuoQ f o u w e m
Suspensions
" C
Temperat-ure
Protein
of Whey
Diffusivity
Thermal
6.
Figure
J !------1------1------i------1------1------1----- 1------1------1____I___ ' 1 1 1 §
(S/2**W 9 - * * 0 D [DiuJeLn
plant proteins were also measured at different solid contents such as
10%, 20% and 30% at the above temperature range. All the experimental
thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity values of prepared pure
proteins are listed in Appendix B.
Thermal conductivities and thermal diffusivities of prepared fats
such as milkfat, vegetable oil, lard and corn oil were measured at the
temperature range of -40°C to 150°C. As shown in Figures 7 and 8,
thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity of milkfat decrease very
slightly as temperature increases. Fats are relatively poor conducts
of heat. Thermal conductivity of milkfat in liquid state at the melt
ing point of 34°C is 6.1% lower than that in solid state. For thermal
diffusivity, liquid milkfat has a 5.1% lower thermal diffusivity than
X solid milkfat at the melting point. All the experimental values for
fats are also listed in Appendix B.
For mono - and di- saccharide components,thermal conductivity and
tnermal diffusivity were measured on 10%, 30% and 60% solid content
suspensions of dextrose, lactose and sugar at the above temperature
range. For polysaccharide components such as starch, cellulose and
pectin, it was measured at 10%, 20% and 30% concentrations. Since
polysaccharides have a very strong interaction to water inside of their
molecules, they need much water to make suspensions. Therefore, the
thermal properties of polysaccharide suspensions were measured at high
water content to be in a homogeneous condition. Thermal conductivity
and thermal diffusivity of dextrose suspensions among six carbohydrate
samples are shown in Figures 9 and 10, respectively. All the
90
of Milkfat
Conductivity
Thermal
7.
Figure
19.6
m m (M
c5 d et ai d d
(3 W/M) X^tAtônpuoQ x ou,J® H l
91
of Milkfat
Diffusivity
Thermal
8.
Figure
in
f\l S O) GO i
(O
92
(3 ■_!
TO •“
3.0
G W/M) ^ T A t ^ o n p u o Q xOSUJ®Hl
93
Suspensions
•• C
Tornperaturo
of Dextrose
Diffusivity
Thermal
10.
Figure
X X 1 X 1 1 1 X J L X
(S/2**W 9 ~ * * 0 D ^ ? A Psnii?a rDB,jam
94
experimental data of prepared carbohydrate suspensions are listed in
Appendix B.
Thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity of milk salt suspen
sions were measured at the concentrations of 10%, 30%, and 60% at the
above temperature range, as shown in Figures 11 and 12. The experimen
tal data of milk salt suspensions are also listed in Appendix B.
Thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity of 30% solid content
suspensions of whey protein, milkfat, lactose, starch and milk salts
were measured in the test run of heating, cooling, reheating and
recooling. The cycling results on milkfat, lactose and milk salts
suspensions snow that the heating and cooling do not have a significant
effect on the thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity of samples,
as shown in Figures 14, 15, 17, and 19. For whey protein suspension,
thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity have a 4.9% - 11.7% lower
value in the recycling process below 70°c, as shown in Figures 13 and
18, because of thermal denaturation. Thermal denaturation of protein,
which usually occurs at 60°C - 70°C, is a radical change in the protein
structure. This change has a decreasing effect on the thermal conduc
tivity and thermal diffusivity. In the case of polysaccharides, starch
is gelatinized at the temperature between 62°C and 70°C. When starch
is gelatinized, the crystalline region is disrupted and will gradually
disappear. As shown in Figures 16 and 20, thermal conductivity and
thermal diffusivity of c o m starch suspension were 3.6% - 10.8% lower
in the recycling process below 60°C.
95
Suspensions
Salt
L
of Milk
@
a..
Conductivity
Thermal
11.
Fiyure
in in cs in
3.0
C9
nJ -S -«
(3 M/M) X^tAtônpuoQ xDlujeHi
96
Suspensions
Salt
of Milk
Diffusivity
Thermal
12.
Figure
■J in
(\l ca 03 ts 1
(S/2**W 9~**0F) ^ T A FsîiT0 [Duu©4i
97
m m- -
C C -a
4> f-4 0 0
i-t 0 0 _C 9
LU g o 9 0
U I U E £
& 0 <} +
Protein
V/hey
Solid
30%
of
Conductivity
Thermal
13.
Figure
8*0
a W/M) ^TAtônpuoQ j e w o © ^
98
of Milkfat
Conductivity
Thermal
14.
Figure
is
in cn CM cs
si dl di d ea d»
(3 W/M) ^T^tônpuoQ xou,o0H l
99
Suspensions
- C
Lactose
Tomperatur©
Solid
30%
of
Conductivity
Thermal
15.
*+
Figure
G W/M) ^TAtônpuo3 {emujeqj_
100
g r u c i x
B
a ifl
G W/M) ^ T A r^ o n p u o Q fD uio© m
101
Suspensions
He 0
~ C
Salt
T©t»ip©raturs>
Solid
30%
of
Conductivity
Thermal
17.
Figure
cs
CD © in m
O W/M) ^TAtônpuoQ jouuj©ujj_
102
g X U K C
Protein
Whey
Solid
30%
of
Diffusivity
Thermal
18.
Figure
E3
Q CO
0 .18
d a ea d a
(S/2**W 9— ^tAr©nj.j.TQ
103
Suspensions
Lactose
Solid
30%
of
Diffusivity
Thermal
19.
Figure
B
00 B CO
B B B B B B
(S/2**W 9 ~ * * 0 D ^ !A ?®nj.j.t g fouiu©m
104
Suspensions
Starch
30% Solid
of
Diffusivity
Thermal
20.
Figure
13
n (M (3 m
ca s is ta a
(S/2**W 9 - * * 0 D ^ T A T®nj.j.rg l o m ^ m
105
For the comparison of model values based on the properties of
major pure components of foods to the experimental values, thermal con
ductivity and thermal diffusivity of evaporated milk, concentrated
orange juice, and a bratwurst sausage were also measured at the tem
perature range of -40°C to 150°C. All these experimental data are
listed in Appendix B.
2. Density
Densities of all the prepared 16 pure component suspensions were
measured at the same concentration of each sample as used in thermal
conductivity measurements at the temperature range of 10°C to 100°C.
Since water is vaporized at the above 100°C, the volume of the suspen
sions can not be measured at the atmosphere pressure at a given
specific temperature above 100°C. Therefore, the density values of the
suspensions above 100°C were determined by the thermal relationship
with the measured values of thermal conductivity, thermal diffusivity
and specific heat. As shown in Figures 21, 23 and 24, the predicted
density values by the model at the temperatures below the initial
freezing point increase as temperature increases. These figures also
show that the densities of suspensions slightly decrease as temperature
increases above the initial freezing point. The density of corn oil,
as shown in Figure 22, exhibits a substantially linear variation with
106
Suspensions
of Albumin
Density
21.
Figure
1
0091
(£**W/3>1) 'Wtsu©!]
107
uj UJ u
Oil
of Corn
Density
22.
Figure
IS H
00 5
(£**W/3>D ^ F * u ®0
108
Suspensions
Dextrose
of
Density
23.
Figure
in
ca is Q Q
U1 2U
Suspensions
Salt
of Milk
Density
X
1
( £ * * w / 3M) ^ ? suen
H, owner Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
110
temperature of l°c . All the experimental density data of pure com
ponent suspensions and product samples are listed in Appendix 3.
3. Specific Heat
Specific heat values of all the prepared pure component suspen
sions were measured at the same concentration of each sample as used in
thermal conductivity measurements at the temperature range of 10°C to
150°C. The properties of sample below 0°C, were determined by the
thermal property relationship. As shown in Figures 25, 27 and 28, the
specific heats of suspensions slightly increase as temperature
increases with rapid increases right above the initial freezing points,
because the specific heat of water is almost two times of that of ice
at 0°C. For the specific heats at the temperature below 0°C, high con
centrated suspensions have little higher values than low concentrated
suspensions at very low temperatures, because the specific heat value
of supercooled water is much higher than that of ice.
When fats are heated to high temperatures, some decomposition
occurs and eventually a point is reached at which visible fumes are
given off. This is the smoke point. The smoking temperature of most
fats are between 170°C and 230°C. Thus, the specific heat values of
fats were also measured at the temperature range of 10°C to 150°C.
Liquid fats usually have higher specific heat values than solid fats.
For corn oil, as shown in Figure 26, the specific heat value of liquid
at 0°C was 4.3% higher than that of solid at -10°C. All the
1 11
Suspensions
of Albumin
Heat
Specific
25.
Figure
1 -L 1 X
0'S
(3 3X /rH ) ©TiTo©cfs
112
Oil
of Corn
Heat
Specific
26.
Figure
-> in
IS C9 Q s1
a 3M/rH) *o &h otj.to®as
113
Suspensions
Dextrose
of
Heat
Specific
27.
Figure
in
s ES a
in -a-' m r3
(3 3H/fM) ^DeH OTiT<>®«*S
114
Suspensions
~
T©rtip«ratur<a
Salt
of Milk
Heat
Specific
28.
Figure
(3 3X/f>0 ^°®H ®FiF
115
experimental specific heat data of pure component suspensions and pro
duct samples are listed in Appendix B.
The thermal properties of prepared powdered materials, such as
whey protein and casein powders in proteins, and dextrose and starch
powders in carbohydrates, were also measured at the temperature range
of -40°C to 150°C. The particle sizes of these porous samples were
between 195 and 221 microns. However, for the study on the effects of
air on the thermal properties of all the porous foods, the thermal pro
perties of more porous samples up to corn kernel size at different void
fractions should be measured. Therefore, more indepth studies are
desired on the effects of air on the thermal properties of all kinds of
food products in future research.
I
Co Results of Thermal Property Modeling
The general procedures used in this study for the thermal property
determination of each major pure component solid at the temperature
below initial freezing point from the experimental values of sample
suspensions are described as the following three steps. For the tem
perature above initial freezing point, step 2 and step 3 were used.
The procedures are:
Step 1. Calculating the unfrozen water fraction at given temperatures
by the freezing point depression equation.
c-
116
Step 2. Calculating the volume fraction of each component at given
temperatures with known values of the weight fractions and the
density values.
Step 3. Calculating the thermal properties of pure component solids by
appropriate models with the properties of water and ice.
1. Models of Water and Ice
The models for thermal conductivity, thermal diffusivity,- density
and specific heat for pure liquid water and ice were determined from
the literature data at the temperature range of -40°C to 150°C and of
jp -40°C to 0°C, respectively. The thermal property data of supercooled
water were used for liquid water below 0°C in this study. The density
and specific heat data of ice were fitted in the models, which were
dependent linearly on temperature, within 0.07% error. For the other
models, it was found that a linear model was not good, Decause the
other thermal property - temperature data showed that they were not in
a linear relationship. Therefore, quadratic models for the other ther
mal properties of liquid water and ice were developed within 2.15%
error, as shown in Table 12. Water has an unusual density maximum at
3.98°C and an unusual attribute of expanding upon solidification,
because the distance between the nearest neighbors inside the water
molecules is minimum at 3.98°C. Water has another unusual attribute of
specific heat minimum at 35°C. The specific heat data of liquid water
/*■. increase slightly as temperature increases above 35°C, and increase
Table 12. Thermal Property Models of Water and Ice
Thermal Property Models Standard Standard

Error % Error
{%)
Kw = 5.7109 x 10-1 + 1.7625 x 10“3 T - 6.7036 :: 10-6T 2 .0028 .45
= 1.3168 X 10"1 + 6.2477 x 10“4 T -2.4022 x 10~6 T 2 .0022 x 10“^ 1.44
Water pw = 9.9718 x 102 + 3.1439 x 10~3 T -3.7574 x 10~3 T 2 2.1044 .22
Cpwi* = 4 -0817 - 5.3062 x 10"3 T + 9.9516 x 10"4 T 2 .0988 2.15
Cpw2* = 4 *1762 “ 9 *0864 x 10~5 T +5.4731 x 10"6 T2 .0159 .38
Kj. = 2.2196 -6.2489 x 10“3 T + 1.0154 x 10-4 T2 .0079 .79
c<1= 1.1756 -6.0833 x 10~3 T + 9.5037 x 10_5 T 2 .0044 x 10-6 .33
Ice pj = 9.1689 X 102 -1.3071 x 10_1 T .5382 .06
C = 2.0623 + 6.0769 x 10-3 T .0014 .07
. ' '' “ ' , '..O .0 ..

*C ^ = For the temperature range of -40 C to
Cl” 2 = For the temperature range of 0°C to 150°C
118
slightly as temperature decreases below 35°C until Q°ChH o w e v e r t h e
specific heat values increase rapidly below o°C as temperature
decreases. Therefore, two different specific heat models for liquid
water were developed: one is for the temperature range of -40°C to 0°C
and the other is for the temperature range of 0°C to 150°C.
2. Models of Each Pure Component of Foods
The density values of pure component solids were calculated from
the assumed model, which was based on weight fraction of each pure com
ponent, at the temperature range of 10°C to 100°C, using the experimen
tal values of three different solid content suspensions with the known
■v
X water fraction and density model of water.
Xs
?s 7 - 5 1831
P'Pw
The density values of pure component solids below 0°C were deter
mined by equations [63] and [64] with the experimental values of the
thermal conductivity of sample suspensions. For the temperatures above
100°C, density values were determined by using the thermal property
relationship.
The density values of pure component solids for all the samples
except fats and casein solid were determined by the above procedure.
The densities of fats were directly measured, since the samples were
assumed to be approximately 100% pure materials. For the density of
119
casein solids, the following equation was used in calculating the den
sities of casein solids from the experimental data of suspensions,
because salt-casein powder was used in this study.
p*■r 5 i 1841
P Pw Pa
It was found that these calculated density data from three dif
ferent solid content suspensions for each pure component solid showed
that they ware dependent linearly on temperature, as shown in Figures
29, 30 and 31 of albumin solids in proteins, dextrose solids in car
bohydrate and milk salt solids, respectively.
Using thesecalculated density data at the temperature range of
-40°C to 150°C, the coefficients of the density model for each pure
component were determined by the OPT subroutine. The density models of
pure components of foods are listed in Table 13.
The thermal conductivity values of pure component solids, such as
casein, whey protein, lactose and milkfat, were calculated from the
assumed both parallel and perpendicular models at the temperature range
of 10°C to 150°C, using the experimental values of three different
solid content suspensions with known weight fractions of components and
thermal conductivity of water and the determined density models of
water and pure components. The volume fractions of components at each
temperature were calculated by equation [68]. It was found that the
parallel model has a better fit to the actual data than the perpendicu
lar model, as shown in Table 14.
120
Solids
of Albumin
Density
29.
Figure
-* UJ
1
1320
S B
§
Solids
of Dextrose
Density
30.
Figure
_L
1760
122
Solids
Salt
of Milk
Density
31.
Figure
1 -L
2480
123
Table 13. Density Models of Pure Components of Foods
Pure Standard Standard

Components Density Models Error % Error
(Kg/m ) (%)
Albumin
P = 1.3899
1.2795 X 103 - 5.2551 x 10"1 T 4.0593 .32
Casein
P = 1.3397 X 103 -4.9763 x 10"1 T 2.4641 .18
Whey Protein
P = 1.3437 X 103 - 5.5918 x 10-1 T 3.1630 .24
Meat Protein
P= X 103 - 5.1945 x 10-1 T 12.2116 .93
Gluten
P = 1.2946 X 103 - 4.5829 x 10-1T 13.9105 1.10
Milkfat
P = 9.1989 X 102 - 4.2054 x 10-1 T 1.0216 .11
Vegetable Oil
P = 9.2427
9.2859 X 102 - 4.1089 x 10"1 T 1.0182 .11
Lard
P = 9.2862 X 102 - 4.1896 x 10"1 T 1.1819 .13
Corn Oil
P= X 102 - 4.1214 x lO-1 T 1.0904 .12
Dextrose
P = 1.6834 X 103 - 3.3501 x 10_1 T 2.9494 .18
Lactose
P = 1.6826 X 103 -3.2495 x 10"1 T . 4.2414 .25
Sugar
P = 1.6829 X 103 - 3.3557 x 10-1 T 2.0264 .12
Starch
P = 1.3501 X I03 - 3.0304 x 10-1 T 3.7448 .28
Cellulose
P = 1.3192 X 103 - 3.7607 x 10-1 T 4.1978 .32
Pectin
P = 1.3039 X 103 - 3.5629 x 10-1 T 4.2431 .33
Milk Salt
P = 2.4238 X 103 - 2.8063 x 10-1 T 2.2315 .09
124
Table 14. Comparison of Perpendicular and Parallel Models in

Thermal Conductivity
Perpendicular Model Parallel Model

Pure Standard Standard Standard Standard
Components Error % Error Error % Error
(%) (%)
Casein .0234 6.04 .0056 2.17

Whey Protein .0219 5.72 .0047 1.75
Lactose .0194 4.95 .0059 2.11
Milk Salt .0141 3.01 .0065 1.55
Since there was few data available for the thermal conductivity
values of pure component solids in the literature, the thermal conduc
tivity' of butter, 'which is composed of butteroil and 'water, 'was com
pared to the proposed five models. Sweat, et al., (1978) reported that
thermal conductivity of butter was .21 W/M°C at 20°C. This value was
compared to the five model values which were calculated at different
water contents, as shown in Figure 32. It was found that the parallel
model value has a best fit among the proposed models to the literature
value at 16.5% water content.
For the comparison of the parallel model to the other models,
thermal conductivities of powders (dextrose, starch, whey protein and
casein) were measured at the temperature range of -40°C to 150°C, as
shown in Table 15.
125
Table 15. Thermal Conductivity Data of Powder Samples
Dextrose Starch Whey Protein Casein
T K T K T K T K
°C W/M °C W / M °C W/M °C °C W/M°C °C W/M °C
-36.32 .114 -38.37 .087 -36.98 .083 -38.81 .093
-10.17 .146 -11.23 .119 -12.29 .113 -11.02 .109
21.04 .174 22.39 .139 21.34 .129 22.98 .137
52.19 .186 49.83 .161 54.33 .152 52.29 .149
79.07 .201 83.27 .174 81.23 .169 78.36 .156
101.34 .219 99.39 .176 102.37 .173 101.28 .176
122.26 .222 120.38 .187 121.26 .186 119.23 .182
148.63 .224 147.93 .189 148.93 .192 147.37 .186
For the purpose of the effects of air on the thermal properties of
powders in this study, the samples were prepared by filling gently in a
vessel without tapping. The samples were composed of pure solid parti
cles and air. The literature thermal conductivity data of air were tne
values of dry air at atmospheric pressure. However, since the actual
air has 0.6 w t . % water vapor (at the humidity of 30% at 25°C), this
amount of water in the gas phase of the powder samples was also con
sidered in predicting the thermal conductivities using the proposed
models. It was found that the water in the gas phase did not affect
significantly in the prediction of thermal conductivity, because it
caused only a 0.68% increase on the average (in the range of 0.47% to
0.81%). The volume fractions of air were calculated with their easily
measurable bulk density data and with known values of air density at
different temperatures. The measured bulk density values of prepared
samples are in Table 16.
126
•i
20
at
of Butter
£3 £
D
Conductivity
Thermal
32.
Figure
X i -L i X J. j L X
to in m im
a 3 a a d
CO W/M) ^ T A tq .o n p u o 3 fDUKJ0tJj>
127
Table 16<. Bulk Density Data of Powder Samples
Dextrose Starch Whey Protein Casein
T
P T p T p T p
°C Kg/m3 °C Kg/m3 °C Kg/m3 °C Kg/m3
-37.99 1210.2 -36.82 1061.8 -37.61 851.3 -37.20 929.4
-10.19 1205.4 -11.09 1054.4 -12.19 838.4 -11.42 911.8
20.54 1192.8 21.62 1039.3 22.45 826.9 21.48 899.6
50.79 1185.6 50.73 1036.7 51.49 814.5 51.23 891.2
80.73 1171.9 81.58 1019.3 80.40 797.4 80.41 874.3
100.80 1160.6 99.81 1012.3 100.83 781.3 101.62 861.4
121.47 1154.8 121.22 1003.3 121.59 776.4 121.09 853.4
150.29 1149.2 149.31 996.3 150.19 769.4 148.52 846.8
Using these measured bulk density data at the temperature range of
-40°C to 15G°C, the coefficients of the bulk density modei were deter
mined by the OPT subroutine, as shown in Table 17. The density and
thermal conductivity models of air were also determined by OPT subrou
tine from the literature data, as shown in Table 18.
Table 17. Bulk Density Models of Powder Samples
Powders Density Models Standard Standard

(Kg/nr5) Error % Error
(%)
Dextrose
P = 1.997 x 103 - 3.5118 x 10-1 T 2.5212 .21
Starch
P = 1.0488 x 103 - 3.7076 x 10_1 T 4.2458 .41
1!
Whey Protein 8.3443 x 102 - 4.6063 x 10-1 T 3.3759 .42

—o
Cl_
Casein 9.1014 x 102 - 4.4878 x 10_1 T 2.7933 .32

II
128
Table 18a Thermal Conductivity and Density Models of Air
Thermal Models Standard Standard

property Error % Error
Thermal K = 2.4041 x 10~2 + 7.6034 x 10-3 T .0001 ,50

Conductivity
Density p = 1.2847 - 3.2358 x 10-3 T .0239 2.17
The air fractions of these samples were calculated by equation
[85] at different temperatures from the measured bulk density data with
the known density values of air and pure component solid.

[85]
where p.Q : bulk density

f
: density of air
Xv . : volume fraction of air
With calculated values of air fractions in the samples at dif
ferent temperatures, the five proposed model values were calculated by
the equations [69], [70], [71], [72], and [73]. The experimental ther
mal conductivity values of dextrose powder were compared with the five
proposed model values at the temperature range of -40°C to 150°C, as
shown in Figure 33. It was found that the parallel model has a less
error of 4.7% than the other models. The statistical comparison of the
experimental thermal conductivity values of prepared powder samples to
the five proposed model values are listed in Table 19. Based on these
results and simplicity in models, the parallel model was proposed in
129
Powder
of Dextrose
Conductivity
Thermal
l U l J z
33.
Figure
0.30
(3 W /M ) ^ T A t^ o n p u o Q J D U IJ © ^
130
Table 19. Comparison of Experimental Thermal Conductivity of

Powder Samples to the Five Proposed Models.
Powder Model No.* Standard Standard

Samples Error % Error
(%)
M 1 " .0087 4.70

M 2 .1113 59.91
Dextrose M 3 .0674 36.30
M 4 .0112 6.04
M 5 .0191 10.30
M 1 .0080 5.22
M 2 .0931 60.45
M 3 .0586 38.05
Starch M 4 .0111 7.22
M 5 .0215 13.96
M 1 .0093 6.21
M 2 .0908 60.70
M 3 .0574 38.33
Whey Protein M 4 .0105 7.25
M 5 .0213 14.26
M 1 .0100 6.72
M 2 .0915 61.61
M 3 .0591 39.78
Casein M 4 .0107 7.24
M 5 .0231 15.58
*M 1 : Parallel Model
M 2 : Perpendicular Model
M 3 : Fluid Continuous Model
M 4 : Solid Continuous Model
M 5 : Random Mixture Model
this study for the prediction of thermal conductivity of foods.
With the weight fractions and the determined density models of
each pure component, the volume fractions of each pure component were
calculated by equation [68] at the temperature range of -40°C to 150°C.
Then the thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity of pure component
solids were calculated from the assumed models, which were based on
volume fraction of each pure component, at the above temperature range,
using the experimental values of three different solid content suspen
sions with the known volume fractions and the determined thermal con
ductivity and thermal diffusivity models of water and ice. The
unfrozen water fractions of sample suspensions below the initial freez
ing points were determined by equation [65] with the molecular weights
A- of pure components listed in Table 10.
All the thermal conductivities and thermal diffusivities of pure
component solids were determined by the above procedures at the tem
perature range of -40°C to 150°C. For the casein solids below the ini
tial freezing point, the thermal conductivity was determined by the
following equation, because the samples composed of salt and casein
solids, unfrozen water and ice.
.r
132
Since the calculated thermal conductivities and thermal diffusivi-
ties of pure component solids from three different solid content
suspensions showed tnat they were not dependent linearly on tempera
ture, a quadratic model was proposed for both thermal conductivity and
thermal diffusivity of pure solids. The thermal conductivities and
thermal diffusivities of albumin, dextrose and milk salt solids were
plotted in Figures 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39.
In order to check the possible water content of the sample powders
prepared in this study, approximately 8 g of each sample powder were
reweighted after drying the samples in an oven at 80°C for 36 hr. The
average water content in the sample powders was 0.75% (in the range of
0.09% to 1.70%). It was found that the remaining small amount of water
"A in the powders did not affect significantly the thermal conductivity
prediction of pure component solid. The thermal conductivity values of
pure component solids determined with the consideration of water con
tent in powders decreased only 0.91% on the average. The largest
error was 2.76% in the gluten powder; the smallest error was 0.16% in
the lactose powder.
The coefficients in the proposed thermal conductivity and thermal
diffusivity models of each pure component solid at the temperature
range of -40°C to 150°C were determined by the OPT subroutine from the
calculated these thermal property - temperature data. The obtained
thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity models of pure components
of foods are listed in Table 20 and 21, respectively.
133
Solids
~
Temperature
of Albumin
Conductivity
Thermal
34.
Figure
1 -L
tn
0.6
cj
d d
(3 W/rt) ^tAtônpuoQ {Diuae^
134
Solids
of Dextrose
Conductivity
Thermal
35.
Figure
irt cs l
0.0
m CM
d d d el d d
(3 W /M ) ^ T A t^ o n p u o Q j©uKJotjj_
135
~ C
Solids
T@ttipcirature
Salt
of Milk
Conductivity
Thermal
36.
Figure
m (M iin1
E3
0 ,0
a W/M) X^?AT^npuo3
136
13
Solids
of Albumin
Diffusivity
Thermal
37.
Figure
1 1
ta a d is cs d
(S/2**W 9— * * 0 O [ouio©m
137
Solids
■*
Tempor'atura
of Dextrose
Diffusivity
Thermal
38.
Figure
CM IS
a. 14
CO
« ~ aa h o
d d s ts
(S/2**W 9-**0l) ^ J A ?«ni£FQ rDU,oeHl
138
Solids
Salt
of Milk
Diffusivity
Thermal
39.
Figure
(S/Z**W 9-**0I) ^ ? A ?snii-TO [oujaeH|
0^4 0-4
Table 20. Thermal Conductivity Models of Pure Components of Foods.

Components Thermal Conductivity Models Error % Error
(W/M °C) (%)
Albumin K = 1.8068 X 10" + 1.1462 X 10"3 T .. 2.6888 X lo"6 T 2 .0086 3.84

Casein K = 1.7813 X 10" + 1.1234 X 10"3 T - 2.4592 X 10"6 T 2 .0066 2.98
Whey Protein K = 1.8627 X 10" + 1.2444 X 10"3 T - 2.9499 X 10"6 T 2 .0060 2.57
Meat Protein K = 1.6266 X 10" + 1.1726 X 10"3 T - 2.3735 X 10"6 T 2 .0129 5.49
Gluten K = 1.8671 X 10" + 1.3229 X 10"3 T - 3.4197 X 10"6 T 2 .0108 4.58
Milkfat K = 1.7809 X 10“ - 2.4381 X 10"4 T - 5.5169 X 10"7 T2 .0020 1.23
Vegetable Oil K = 1.8224 X 10" - 2.1949 X 10"4 T - 7.3411 X 10"7 T 2 .0041 2.39
Lard K 1.8220 X 10" - 2.0565 X 10"4 T - 7.3267 X 10"7 T 2 .0020 1.18
Corn Oil K = 1.8109 X 10" - 2.0145 X 10"4 T - 7.8395 X 10"7 T 2 .0035 2.15
Dextrose K = 2.1277 X 10" + 1.2946 X 10"3 T - 3.9135 X 10"6 T2 .0133 5.19

Lactose K = 1.9898 X 10" + 1.4760 X 10"3 T - 4.5666 X 10"6 T 2 .0079 3.16
Sugar K = 2.0456 X 10" + 1.3774 X 10"3 T - 4.2079 X 10"6 T 2 .0066 2.62
Starch K = 1.9001 X 10" + 1.3698 X 10"3 T - 4.4318 X 10~6 T 2 .0125 5.33
Cellulose K = 1.7944 X 10" + 1.2169 X 10"3 T - 3.2086 X 10"6 T 2 .0110 4.92
Pectin K = 1.8644 X 10" + 1.2914 X 10"3 T - 3.1286 X 10"6 T 2 .0112 4.78
Milk Salt K = 3.2962 X 10" + 1.4011 X 10"3 T 2.9070 X 10"6 T 2 .0083 2.15
4
►
• * ■
>
Table 21. Thermal Diffusivity Models of Pure Components of Foods.

Components Thermal Diffusivity Models Error % Error
_____________________________________ (x IQ M 2/S)_________________________ (x 10~6) (%)
=6.8609
o>
1
Albumin X 10"2 + 4.6513 X 10"4 T - 1.3685 X T2 .0029 3.37
o
Ci
Casein c( = 6.7010 X 10"2 + 4.8916 X 10'4 T - 1,5164 X 10-6 T 2 .0033 3.95
Whey Protein c( = 7.1005 X 10-2 + 4.4448 X 10~4 T •- 1.1217 X lO"6 T 2 .0018 2.03
Meat Protein c( = 6.4727 X 10“2 + 4.7811 X 10"4 T - 1.3773 X io-6 T 2 .0032 3.91
Gluten C( = 7.2129 X lO"2 + 4.9581 X 10”4 T - 1.8567 X lO"6 T 2 .0036 4.15
140
Milkfat « = 9.8514 X 10~2 - 1.0405 X 10-4 T - 1.5590 X 10-7 T 2 .0014 1.53
Vegetable Oil c( = 9.8888 X 10"2 - 5.4195 X 10-5 T - 6.6961 X 10"7 T 2 .0026 2.78
Lard C( = 9.9719 X 10"2 - 6.5479 X 10"5 T - 4.3242 X 10“7 T 2 .0024 2.53
Corn Oil C( = 9.4123 X IO-2 - 1.5958 X 10"5 T - 3.9922 X 10“7 T 2 .0042 4.94
Dextrose C( = 8.5340 X 10"2 + 5.2033 X 10-4 T - 2.1663 X 10-6 T 2 .0025 2.53

Lactose « = 7.9723 X 10-2 + 5.0988 X 10“4 T - 2.1430 X 10-6 T 2 .0022 2.38
Sugar C( = 8.3948 X 10“2 + 4.7982 X 10"4 T - 1.7738 X io-6 T 2 .0027 2.76
Starch C( = 7.2978 X 10-2 + 4.8956 X 10-4 T - 1.9715 X io-6 T 2 .0031 3.44
Cellulose c( =7.2421 X 10-2 + 4.9180 X 10"4 T - 1.9850 X io-6 T 2 .0040 4.64

Pectin C( = 7.3389 X 10“2 + 4.9195 X 10“4 T - 1.9484 X IO"6 T 2 .0038 4.30
Milk Salt c( = 1.2461 X lO"2 + 3.7321 X 10"4 T - 1.2244 X io-6 T 2 .0022 1.61
141
All the specific heat values of pure component solids were calcu
lated from the assumed model, which was based on weight fraction of
each pure component at the temperature range of -40°C to 150°C, using
the specific heat data of three different solid content suspensions
with the known water fraction and the determined specific heat models
of water and ice.
The calculated specific heat values of pure component solids by
equation [77] from three different solid content suspensions at the
above temperature range also indicated that they were not dependent
linearly on temperature. Therefore, a quadratic model was also
employed for the prediction model of specific heat of each pure com
ponent of foods. The specific heat data of albumin, dextrose and milk
salt solids were plotted in Figures 40, 41 and 42, respectively.
With these calculated specific heat data at the above temperature
range, the coefficients of the specific heat model for each pure com
ponent solid were determined by the OPT subroutine. The obtained
specific heat models of pure components of food are listed in Table 22.
Based on the theoretical view of the rate of heat transfer to the
materials, thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity models are sup
posed to be based on the volume fraction of each major component of
food materials rather than the weight fraction. However, the weight
fraction of each major component of foods is usually reported and also
is a easily measurable factor compared to the volume fraction.
142
Solids
of Albumin
Heat
Specific
40.
Figure
J. 1
G 3M/T>i) V*0H otj.ro
Solids
of Dextrose
m H-
Heat
Specific
41.
Figure
os C
O rsj
rvi —I —! —1 ^4
G 3>1/f>1) ^DeH orj.roâS

&■
144
Solids
Salt
of Milk
Heat
Specific
42.
Figure
in
co to fM i
a oo
(3 3>l/fM) *DeH o r j.ro©aS
Table 22. Specific Heat Models of Pure Components of Foods.

Components Specific Heat Models Error % Error
____________________________________ (KJ/KG°C)______________________________________ (%)
Albumin 2.0160 + 1.5082 X IO"3 T - 2.6010 : 10"7 T 2 .0522 2.56

Cp =
Casein
Cp =
2.0057 + 1.7209 X 10"3 T - 2.9356 : 10"6 T 2 .0404 2.04
Whey Protein 2.0120 + 2.2863 X 10“ 3 T - 6.5394 : io"6 T 2 .0542 2.64
Cd
P =
Meat Protein 2.0218 + 1.6580 X IO”3 T - 8.9490 : io"7 T 2 .0454 2.16
v
Gluten C = 2.0211 + 1.3395 X 10"3 T - 5.7052 : 10"7 T 2 .0486 2.32
P
Milkfat 1.9805 + 1.6576 X 10”3 T - 3.8980 : IO"6 T 2 .0252 1.24
CP =
Vegetable Oil c = 1.9978 + 1.6135 X 10"3 T - 7.8045 i 10"6 T 2 .0362
145
1.78
p
Lard 1.9635 + 1.1530 X 10"3 T - 1.1217 : IO"6 T 2 .0324 1.61
cp =
Corn Oil c = 1.9980 + 1.5987 X 10"3 T - 7.7144 i io-6 T 2 .0336 1.64
p
Dextrose
Cp
D =1.4872 + 1.9062 X 10"3 T - 4.6265 io-6 T 2 .0273 1.79
Lactose
CD
P =1.4069 + 2.3932 X 10"3 T - 4.5 2 2 0 J io"5 T 2 .0397 2.66
Sugar
CD
P = 1.4573 + 1.8762 X 10"3 T - 4.4101 ? 10"6 T 2 .0439 2.87
Starch 1.8194 + 1.6335 X 10"3 T - 5.9686 io-6 T 2 .0406 2.18
CP
D =
Cellulose CD
P =1.8588
+ 1.7129 X 10"3 T - 4 .8 7 0 3 io"6 T 2 .0223 1.16
Pectin 1.8353 + 2.3002 X 10"3 T - 7.7 7 4 9 IO"6 T 2 .0202 1.06
CD
P =
Milk Salt + 1.6576 X 10"3 T - 3 .8 9 8 0 2 10"6 T 2
CJB. =1.9805 .2052 i.24
146
According to the definition of density and specific neat, density
model is supposed to be based on the volume fraction and specific heat
model is supposed to be based on the weight fraction of each pure com
ponent of foods.
For the comparison of the thermal property models based on both
weight and volume fractions, the thermal conductivity, thermal dif
fusivity and specific heat values of sample solids such as whey pro
tein, lactose, cellulose and milk wait were calculated at the tempera
ture range of 10°C to 150°C by the assumed both weight and volume frac
tion models from the experimental values of three different solid con
tent suspensions. The density values of above sample solids were also
calculated at the temperature range of 10°C to 100°C for both assumed
models from the experimental values of three different solid content
suspensions. The calculated thermal conductivity values of whey pro
tein solids for both models are listed in Table 23 and 24. The values
of pure solids calculated from 10, 30 and 60% solid content suspensions
at given specific temperature should be approximately same with a small
error. The thermal conductivity values in Table 23 indicated that the
thermal conductivities of whey protein solid at given specific tempera
ture decreased as the solid content increased in the suspension. How
ever, the thermal conductivity values given in Table 24 showed that the
thermal conductivities at given temperature were close to one value
with a small error. For the thermal conductivity model of whey protein
solids, as shown in Table 25, the model based on volume fraction has
lower standard % error of 1.75% than the 5.53% of standard % error in
147
the model based on weight fraction. It was the same on the thermal
conductivities of the other sample solids. With these reasons, the
thermal conductivity model based on volume fraction was suggested for
the prediction model in this study as it was expected.
For the thermal diffusivity and density models, the models based
on the volume fractions of pure components were suggested for the pred
iction models with the same reasons as in the thermal conductivity
model. For the specific heat model, the model based on weight fraction
was suggested with the same reason.
These suggested models for thermal conductivity, thermal dif
fusivity, density and specific heat coincided with the theoretical view
and the definitions on the thermal properties.
3. Group Models of Major Components of Foods
The compositions of food produces are usually reported in terms of
major components such as water, protein, fat, carbohydrate, fiber and
salt. The weight fractions of these major components in food samples
are more conveniently obtainable factors than the volume fractions of
pure components in each major component. Therefore, the thermal pro
perty models of these major component solids were developed at the tem
perature range of -40°C to 150°C from the thermal property data of pure
component solids in each major component group. For the protein group,
the thermal conductivity model was determined within 5.91% error from
148
Table 23, Thermal Conductivity of Whey Protein Solids by the Model

Based on Weight Fractions.
10% Suspension 30% Suspension 60% -Suspension

T K T K T K
°C W/fo°C °C W/M°C °C W/M°C
10.18 .285 11.14 .267 10.47 .246

20.61 .299 21.68 .276 20.62 .257
30.41 .314 31.14 .298 31.48 .270
41.49 .326 39.68 .319 41.12 .284
50.19 .336 49.72 .322 49.87 .297
60.48 .341 61.12 .335 60.68 .304
71.12 .347 69.68 .337 70.72 .307
79.69 .359 81.19 .340 79.88 .309
89.12 .366 91.04 .346 90.12 .35
100.48 .365 100.98 .358 100.41 .328
110.12 .375 110.19 .364 111.68 .332
121.49 .383 121,48 =375 119.12 ,341
131.12 .387 129.62 .377 130.68 .349
139.48 .401 141.08 .382 140.12 .352
149.17 .406 149.69 .386 149.68 .357
Table 24. Thermal Conductivity of Whey Protein Solids by the Model
Based on Volume Fractions.
10% Suspension 30% Suspension 60% Suspension

T K T K T K
C W/M°C °C W/M°C °C W/M°C
10.18 .193 11.14 .191 10.47 .199

20.61 .207 21.68 .198 20.62 .210
30.41 .223 31.14 .223 31.48 .224
41.49 .235 39.68 .247 41.12 .238
50.19 .246 49.72 .248 49.87 .251
60.48 .250 61.12 .261 60.68 .259
71.12 .254 69.68 .262 70.72 .260
79.69 .267 81.19 .264 79.88 .261
89.12 .273 91.04 .269 90.12 .267
100.48 .270 100.98 .282 100.41 .280
110.12 .280 110.19 .288 111.68 .284
121.49 .288 121.48 .299 119.12 .293
131.12 .291 129.62 .300 130.68 .300
139.48 .308 141.08 .304 140.12 .304
149.17 .313 149.69 .307 149.68 .308
150
Table 25. Comparison of Thermal Property Models Based on Both

Weight and Volume Fractions
Thermal Pure Based on Based on

Property Component Weight Fraction Volume Fraction
Standard Standard Standard Standard
Error % Error Error % Error
(%) (%)
Whey Protein .0185 5.53 .0047 1.75

K Lactose .0274 6.95 .0059 2.11
Cellulose .0161 5.14 .0091 3.92
Milk Salt .0210 3.97 .0065 1.55
Whey Protein .0036 x io- 3.27 .0015 x ioi 1.87

c( Lactose .0043 x 3.54 .0019 x 2.12
ioi ioi
Cellulose .0049 x 5.14 .0032 x 10-6 3.83
io1
Milk Salt .0027 x 10"6 1.94 .0018 x 10~6 .144
Whey protein 15.4913 1.24 2.9833 .23

P Lactose 47.7702 3.28 4.8803 .29
1 Cellulose 5.1648 .42 3.6714 .28
Milk Salt 118.6810 6.87 2.5310 .11
Wney Protein .0492 2.32 .1468 8.79

c Lactose .0318 2.27 .2243 15.58
P Cellose .0211 1.03 .0667 4.49
Milk Salt .0249 1.21 .1952 15.69
151
315 thermal conductivity - temperature data of all the protein samples
used in this study, such as albumin, whey protein, casein, meat protein
and gluten. All the other group models were determined within 6%
error. The obtained group models for the thermal properties of major
components are listed in Table 26.
A. Comparison Between Model and Literature Values for Liquid Foods
Using all tne developed thermal property models with known weight
fraction of each major component, the thermal conductivity, thermal
diffusivisity, density and specific heat values were calculated and
compared to the literature values of liquid foods at the temperature
range of 10°C to 150°C. Since there are only a few data available in
the thermal properties of foods in the literature at the temperature
below 0°C, tne literature values of listed liquid foods in Table 27
were compared to the model values at the above temperature range.
However, in most reports on thermal property data in the litera
ture, there was no mention about the composition of each pure component
of sample products. Therefore, the composition of each major component
for the liquid foods was obtained from the Table of composition of
foods (Ref. No. 124, Table 1), as shown in Table 27.
With these compositions of liquid food products, the thermal- pro
perty values by the proposed group models of major components in this
study were within 4% error to the literature values, as shown in Table
28.
04 ¥
Table 26. Group Models of Major Components of Foods.
Tnermal Major Group Models Standard Standard

Property Component Error % Error
(%)
Protein K = 1.7881 x 10-1 + 1.1958 x 1<TJ T - 2.7178 x 10~6 T 2 .0142 5.91

Fat K = 1.8071 x 10"1 - 2.7604 x I0-3 T - 1.7749 x 10-7 T 2 .0032 1.95
K Carbohydrate K = 2.0141 X 10-1 + 1.3874 x 10-3 T - 4.3312 x 10-6 T 2 .0134 5.42
Fiber K = 1.8331 X 10-1 + 1.2497 X 10-3 T - 3.1683 X 10-6 T 2 .0127 5.55
Asti K = 3.2962 x 10"1 + 1.4011 x 10-3 T - 2.9069 x 10-6 T 2 .0083 2.15
Protein c( = 6.8714 x 10-2 + 4.7578 x 10~4 T - 1.4646 x 10"6 T 2 .0038 4.50

c( Fat c( = 9.8777 x 10-2 - 1.2569 x 10~4 T - 3.8286 x 10-8 T 2 .0020 2.15
Carbohydrate c( = 8.0842 x 10-2 + 5.3052 x I0-4 T - 2.3218 x 10-6 T 2 .0058 5.84
152
Fiber o( = 7.3976 x 10“2 + 5.1902 x 10~4 T - 2.2202 x 10-6 T 2 .0026 3.14
Ash c( = 1.2461 x 10_1 + 3.7321 X 10~4 T - 1.2244 x 10"6 T 2 .0022 1.61
Protein p = 1.3299 x 103 - 5.1840 x 10-1 T 39.9501 3.07
P Fat p = 9.2559 x 102 - 4.1757 x 10_1 T 4.2554 .47

Carbohydrate p = 1.5991 x 103 - 3.1046 x 10_1 T 93.1249 5.98
Fiber p = 1.3115 x 103 - 3.6589 x 10-1 T 8.2687 .64
Ash p = 2.4238 x 103 - 2.8063 x 10_1 T 2.2315 .09
Protein Cp = 2.0082 + 1.2089 x 10-3 T - 1.3129 x 10~6 T 2 .1147 5.57
cp
Fat Cp = 1.9842 + 1.4733 x 10~3 T - 4.8008 x 10-6 T 2 .0236 1.16
Carbohydrate Cp = 1.5488 + 1.9625 x 10-3 T - 5.9399 x 10-6 T 2 .0986 5.96
Fiber Cp = 1.8459 + 1.8306 x 10-3 T - 4.6509 x 10-6 T 2 .0293 1.66
Ash Cp = 1.0926 + 1.8896 x 10"3 T - 3.6817 x 10~6 T 2 .0296 2.47
153
Table 27. Composition of Liquid Food Products
Foods Water Protein Fat Carbohydrate Fiber Ash

% %
Apple Juice 87.93 .06 .11 11.47 .21 .22

87 .06 .12 12.35 .23 .24
70 .15 .27 28.51 .52 .55
36 .32 .58 60.82 1.11 1.17
Cherry Juice 84.95 .91 .02 13.59 .22 .31
Grape Juice 84.12 .56 .08 14.95 0 .29
Pear Juice 86.47 .34 .07 12.44 .49 .19

85 .38 .08 13.79 .54 .21
60 1.01 .21 36.78 1.44 .56
39 1.53 .32 56.08 2.21 .86
Tomato Juice 93.6 .9 .1 4.1 .2 1.1

70,9 4,09 .46 18.64 .91 5.0
60 5.63 .63 25.63 1.25 6.86
40 8.44 .94 38.44 1.88 10.3
20 11.25 1.25 51.25 2.5 13.75
Albumin Solution 40.0 60.0 0 0 0 0
Butter 15.87 .85 81.11 .06 0 2.11
Fat 0 0 100 0 0 0
Honey 17.2 .3 0 82.3 0 .2
Lactose Solution 90 0 0 10 0 0
80 0 0 20 0 0
70 • 0 0 30 0 0
60 0 0 40 0 0
Salt Solution 90 0 0 0 0 10
76 0 0 0 0 24
Sugar Solution 90 0 0 10 0 0
70 0 0 30 0 0
50 0 0 50 0 0
Whey 90 1.32 .44 7.5 0 .74
€'
154
Table 27. Continued
Foods Water Protein Fat Carbohydrate Fiber Ash

% % % %
Condensed Milk 90 2.69 3.0 3.71 0 .6

65 9.4 10.5 13.0 0 2.1
Evaporated Milk 73.8 7.0 7.9 9.7 0 1.6
Half - Half 80.2 3.1 11.5 4.5 0 0.7

70 4.7 17.42 6.82 0 1.06
Skim Milk 90.8 3.41 .18 4.85 0 .76

80 7.41 .39 10.54 0 1.66
75 9.27 .49 13.18 0 2.06
70 11.12 .59 15.82 0 2.47
Whole Milk 90 2.66 2.97 3.79 0 .58

87.69 3.28 3.66 4.65 0 .72
80 5.33 5.95 7.55 0 1.17
70 7.99 8.92 11.33 0 1.76
60 10.66 11.89 15.11 0 2.34
155
Table 28. Comparison Between Model and Literature Values of

Thermal Properties for Liquid Foods
Thermal No. of Standard Standard

Property Data Error % Error
(%)
K 300 .0172 2.91 (.31 - 5.86)

c( 115 .0053 x 10-b 3.81 (.85 - 6.94)
P 165 20.1924 1.98 (.18 - 6.59)
148 .1172 3.21 (.37 - 6.72)
_5. Comparison Between Model and Experimental Values for Food Products
The measured thermal properties of evaporated milk, concentrated
orange juice and bratwurst sausage were compared to the model values
iL which were based on weignt fraction and thermal property of each pure
component of the products, as shown in Figures 43, 44, 45 and 46.
Since it was difficult to measure the exact values of densities and
specific heats below 0°C, the determined density and specific heat data
at the temperature range of 10°C to 150°C were compared to the model
values. For the thermal conductivities and thermal diffusivities of
the samples, the experimental data at the temperature range of -40°C to
150°C were compared.
F o r .the predicition of the unfrozen water fractions of food pro
duct samples at the given specific temperature below initial freezing
point, either the effective molecular weight of the initial freezing
point of the product sample should be a known value. However, both
|T values are unknown values. Therefore, the following model was proposed
156
E 0
Samples
Product
of Food
ES
TO t—
r—
Conductivity
Thermal
43.
Figure
-* UJ
in s in 8 in B1
o W/M) ^ r A fq .o n p u o Q [DUKj»m
C
157
% 0
Samples
— C
Product
Tan»p©i-'cit.ur'Q
of Food
Diffusivity
Thermal
44.
Figure
-> in
(M ES CO (O ca 1
( S /2 * * W 9 —* * 0 D X 'q .tA rsn j.j.rQ ^diuuol | |

►'"S
158
Samples
Product
of Food
Density
45.
Figure
00EI
Q B
IS
159
Samples
Product
of Food
Heat
Specific
46.
Figure
B
in
a 3M/fH) ^DeH orj.ro»cfS
160
for the prediction of the effective molecular weight of the samples.
From both equation [65] and [87] , the initial freezing points of
food products were determined. Since the molecular weights of pure
components in carbohydrate were spread in a very wide range, the molec
ular weight of a major carbohydrate component among carbohydrates in
food products was used in equation [87]. The approximate carbohydrate
compositions in different food types are listed in Table 29.
Table 29. Approximate Carbohydrate Compositions in Different

Food Types.
Carbohydrate Cereal Legumes Milk Fruits Vegetables

Grains
% % % % %
Monosacchar ides 0.3 - 0.9 Trace Trace 1.5 - 2 1.1 - 1.6
Disaccnarides 1- 2 5 - 7 4-13 4.5 - 8.2 1.5 - 6.5
Polysacchar ides 56.8 - 71.5 35 - 40 Trace 0.3 - 1.3 0.4 - 1.2
Total 58 - 72 38 - 45 4.1 - 13.2 6.0 - 11.3 2.8 - 9.1
Then, the calculated initial freezing points of the listed food
products in Table 30 with the molecular weights listed in Table 10,
were compared to the literature values. The predicted values by the
model were within 4.65% error. With the unfrozen water fractions of
foods samples by equation [65] and [86], the thermal conductivity and
T thermal diffusivity values of food product samples can be determined by
161
the models at the temperature below initial freezing point.
The model values, which were based on weight fraction and thermal
property of each pure component of the products, were within 4.7%
error, as shown in Table 31, to the experimental values of the food
product samples.
162
Table 30* Comparison Between Model and Literature Values of Initial

Freezing Points
Initial Freezing Points

Foods
Literature Values Model Values
(°C) ( C)
Apple Juice -1.44 -1.46

Applesauce -1.67 -1.52
Cherry Juice -1.44 -1.43
Grape Juice -1.78 -1.82
Orange Juice -1.17 -1.19
Peaches -1.56 -1.49
pears -1.61 -1.54
Raspberries -1.22 -1.16
Strawberries -0.89 -0.81
Tomato Pulp -0.72 -0.59
Evaporated Milk -1.4 -1.40
Whole Milk -0.6 -0.59
Cottage Cheese -1.2 -0.99
Limburger Cheese -7.4 -7.09
Ice Cream (10% Fat) -5.6 -5.48
Condensed Milk -15.0 -14.82
Egg, white -0.6 -0.49
Standard Error .1239

Standard % Error, % 4.65
163
Tabla 31. Comparison Between Model and Experimental Values of

Thermal Properties for Food Products
Thermal Foods Standard Standard

Property Error % Error
(%)
Evaporated Milk .0289 3.52

K Concentrated Orange Juice .0227 2.94
Bratwurst Sausage .0291 4.54
Evaporated Milk .0121 x 10“6 3.59

3 Concentrated Orange Juice .0083 x 10~6 2.79
Bratwurst Sausage .0123 x 10"6 4.64
Evaporated Milk 15.1727 1.45

P
Bratwurst Sausage 10.6841 1.06
Evaporated Milk .0456 1.31

Concentrated Orange Juice .0372 1.22
Cp
Bratwurst Sausage .0718 2.56
T
a .
164
VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
All the reliable thermal conductivity, thermal diffusivity, den
sity and specific heat data of food components and products in the
literature were collected.
The thermal property values for pure component suspensions of each
major component of food products were measured at the solid contents
from 10% to 60% and at the temperature range of -40°C to 150°C, and the
same properties in food product samples. Then, the thermal properties

If
^ of pure component solids were determined by the proposed model at the
above temperature range from the experimental values of three different
solid content suspensions.
A study of the effect of temperature on the thermal properties of
pure component solids of food products was conducted at the above tem
perature range. Densities of pure component solids were found to
decrease linearly with increase in temperature. For the other thermal
properties, however, quadratic models were employed to predict the
thermal properties of pure component solids in this study.
General mathematical models to predict the thermal properties of
food products were developed on the basis of the thermal properties of
165
each pure component and its weight fraction which is a easily measur
able factor compared to the volume fraction. For the frozen foods, the
unfrozen water fractions at the different temperatures below the ini
tial freezing point were determined by the product freezing point
depression. The thermal property models of each pure component of
foods were developed within 5.5% error. For the practical uses, group
models for the thermal properties of major components, such as protein,
fat, carbohydrate, fiber and ash, are more applicable than the models
of each pure component in predicting the thermal properties of food
products, because the weight fractions of these major components in
food samples are more conveniently obtainable factors tnan the weight
fractions of each pure component among each group. Therefore, the
group models were also developed within 6% error. The thermal property
values- by the proposed group models of major components were predicted
within 3.9% error to the literature values of liquid foods, and within
4.7% error to the experimental values of the food product samples.
166
VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
This author feels that there are three areas that should be
emphasized in future research of the thermal properties of food pro
ducts.
1. More indepth studies are needed on the density measurement of
food components and products at the temperature below the initial
freezing point.
2. Further studies are desired on the effects of air on the thermal
properties of all kinds of porous food products at different void
fractions and different particle size from powder particle size
to corn kernel size.
3. There needs to be development of more generalized model which can
be applied to the prediction of thermal properties for all the
food products including the effect of air on the properties.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
16 7
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Albin, F.V., K.B. Narayama, S.S. Murthy and M.V.K. Murthy. 1979.
Thermal Diffusivities of Some Unfrozen and Frozen Food Models.
J. Food Technol. 14: 361-367.
2. Anderson, S.A. 1950. Automatic Refrigeration. MacLaren and Son

Ltd. for Don foss. Norberg, Denmark.
3. Arce, J.A., V.E. Sweat and K. Wallapapan. 1981. Thermal Dif-

fusivity and Conductivity of Soy Flour. ASAE Paper No. 6528.
4. ASRE. 1949. The Refrigerating Data Book. The Am. Soc. of

Refrigerating Engineers. West 40th St., New York.
5. A3TM Standard C-177. 1970. Thermal Conductivity of Materials by

Means of the Guarded Hot Plate. Annual ASTM Standards 1(14):17.
6. Baghe-Khandan, M.S. 1978. Experimental and Mathematical

Analysis of Cooking Effects on Thermal Conductivity of-Beef.
Ph.D. Thesis. Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN.
7. Baghe-Khandan, M.S., Y. Choi and M.R. Okos. 1981. Improved Line

Heat Source Thermal Conductivity Probe. J. of Food Sci., 46:
1430-1432.
8. Bhowmik, s.R. and K.I. Fayakawa. 1979. A New Method for Deter
mining the Apparent Thermal Diffusivity of Thermally Conductive
Food. J. of Food Sci., 44(2): 469-474.
9. Brailsford, A.D. and K.P. Major. 1964. The Thermal Conductivity

of Aggregates of Several Phases, Including Porous Materials.
Brit. J. App. Phys. 15: 313-319.
10. Buma, T.J. and J. Meerstra. 1969. The Specific Heat of Mil*
Products and of Some Related Materials. Neth. Milk Dairy J.
23:124-127.
11. Buma, T.J. 1980. Viscosity and Density of Concentrated Lactose

Solutions and of Concentrated Cheese Whey. Neth. Milk Dairy J.
34:65-68.
168
12. Carslav.', H.S. and J.C. Jaeger. 1353. Conduction of Hsat in

Solids. Oxford Univ. Press.
13. Cerella, E.G. and H.A. Massaldi. 1978. Protein Extraction from
Meat and the Postmortem Permeability of Muscle Fibers. J. of
Food Sci. 43: 1382-1385.
14. C h a m , S.E. 1971. The Fundamentals of Food Engineering. 2nd

Edition. The AVI Publishing Company, Inc., Westport, CT.
15. Chen, A.C. and D.R. Heldman. 1972. An Analysis of the Thermal
Properties of Dry Food Powder in a Packed Bed. Trans, of ASAE
15(5): 951-955.
16. Choi, Y. 1981. Effects of Water Content and Temperature on the

Thermal Properties of Tomato Juice. M.S.E. Thesis. Purdue
Univ., W. Lafayette, IN.
17. Choi, Y. and M.R. Okos. 1983. The Thermal Properties of Tomato
Juice Concentrates. Trans, of ASAE 26(1):305-311.
18. Clarx, P.E., C.R. Waldeland and R,p, Cross. 1946. Specific Heat
of Vegetable Oils from 0° to 280°C. Ind. Eng. Chem. 38:350.
19. Cox, H.E. and D. Pearson. 1962. The Chemical Analysis of Foods.
Chemical Publishing Co., Chapter 12:333-384.
20. Dickerson, R.W. 1965. An Apparatus for Measurement of Thermal

Diffusivity of Foods. Food Technology 19(5):198-204.
21. Dickerson, R.W. 1968. Thermal Properties of Foods. The Freez

ing Preservation of Foods, volume 2, 4th Edition. The AVI Pub
lishing Company, Inc., Westport, CT.
22. Dickerson, R.W. and R.B. Read. 1968. Calculation and Measure
ment of Heat Transfer in Foods. Food Technology 22:37-52.
23. Eisenberg, D. and W. Kauzmann. 1969. The Structure and Proper

ties of Water. Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
24. Farrall, A.W., A.C. Chen, P.Y. Wang, A.M. Dhanale, T. Hendrick
and D.R. Heldman. 1970. Thermal Conductivity of Dry Milk in a
Packed Bed. Trans, of ASAE 13(3): 39-394.
25. Fennema, O.R. 1976. Principles of Food Science. I. Food Chem

istry. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.
26. Fernandez-Martin, F. 1972. Influence of Temperature and Compo

sition on Some Physical Properties of Milk and Milk Concentrates.
I. Heat Capacity. J. of Dairy Res. 39:65-73.
169
27. Fernandez-Martin, F. and F. Montes. 1972. Influence of Tempera

ture and Composition on Some Physical Properties of Milk and Milk
Concentrates. III. Thermal Conductivity. Milc'nwissenschaft
27(12):772-776.
28. Fernandez-Martin, F. and F. Montes. 1977. Thermal Conductivity

of Creams. J. of Dairy Res. 44:103-109.
29. Fitch, A.L. 1935. A New Thermal Conductivity Apparatus. Ameri

can Physics Teacher 3(3):135-136.
30. Fortes., M. and M.R. Okos. 1980. Changes in Physical Properties

of Corn During Drying. Trans, of ASAE 23(4): 1004-1008.
31. Frechette, R.J. and J.W. Zahradnik. 1968. Thermal Properties of

the McIntosh Apple. Trans, of ASAE 11(1): 21-27.
32. Gane, R. 1936. The Thermal Conductivity of the Tissue of

Fruits. Report of the Director of Food Investigation. Vol. 5.
pp. 211-212.
33. Geankoplis, C.J. 1978. Transport Processes and Unit Operations.

Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
34. Govorkov, B. 1950. Physical Constants of Milk Products. Molo-

cnnaya Prom. 10:37.
35. Hammer, B.W. and A.R. Johnson. 1913. The Specific Heat of Milk
and Milk Derivatives. Iowa Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 14.
36. Hatfield, H.S. 1953. An Apparatus for Measuring the Thermal

Conductivity of Animal Tissue. J. of Physiology. 120(4): 35-36.
37. Hay, J.D., R.W. Currie and F.H. Wolfe. 1973. Effect of Postmor-
tan Aging on Chicken Muscle Fibrils. J. of Food Sci. 38: 981-
986.
38. Hayasni, H . , D.R. Heldman and T.I. Hedrick. 1967. Physical Pro
perties of Non-Fat Dry Milk as Influenced by Spray Drying Condi
tions. ASAE Paper No. 833.
39. Heldman, Dennis R. 1982. Food Properties during Freezing. Food

Tecnnol. 36(2): 92-96.
40. Heldman, D.R. and R.P. Singh. 1981. Food Process Engineering.
The AVI Publishing Company, Inc. Westport, Connecticut.
41. Helvey, T.C. 1954. Study on Some Physical Properties of Honey.

Food Res. 19:282-292.
170
42. Higgs, S.J. and S.P. Swift. 1975. Investigation into the Ther
mal Conductivity of Beef Using the Line Source Techniques. Pro
cess Biochemistry, pp. 43-45.
43. Hill, J.E., J.P. Leitman and J.E. Sunderland. 1967. Thermal
Conductivity of Various Meats. Food Technology 21(8): 1143-1148.
44. Holman, J.p. 1976. Heat Transfer. McGraw-Hill, New York.
45. Hooper, F.C. and F.R. Lepper. 1950. Transient Heat Flow
Apparatus for the Determination of Thermal Conductivities. ASFfiTE
Trans. 56: 309-324.
46. Hooper, F.C. and S.C. Chang. 1953. Development of the Thermal
Conductivity Probe. ASHVE Trans. 59:463.
47. Ingersoll, L.R., O.J. Zobel and A.C. Ingersoll. 1954. Heat Con
duction with Engineering, Geological and Other Applications.
Univ. of Wisconsin Press: 284-290. International Critical
Tables. 1926. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.
48. International Critical Tables. 1926. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New

York.
,49. Jenness, R. and J. Koops. 1962. Preparation and Properties of a

Salt Solution Which Simulates Milk Ultrafiltrate. Neth. Milk and
Dairy J. 16(3): 153-164.
50. Jowitt, R . , F. Escher, B. Hallstrom, H. Meffert, W. Spiess, and

G. Vos. 1983. Physical Properties of Foods. Applied Science
Publishers. London and New York.
51. Kaye, G.W.C. and W.F. Higgins. 1928. The Thermal Conductivities
of Certain Liquids. Proceedings of Royal Society of London.
A117:459-470.
52. Keller, G.J. and J.H. Ballard. 1956. Predicting Temperature

Changes in Frozen Liquids. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry
48(2): 188^196.
53. Keppeler, R.A. and C.W. Hall. 1969. Determining Thermal Con
stants of Crystallizing Solutions. Food Technol. 22(6): 126.
54. Keppeler, R.A. and J.R. Boose. 1970. Thermal Properties of

Frozen Sucrose Solutions. Trans, of ASAE 13: 335-339.
55. Kern. D.Q. 1950. Process Heat Transfer. McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
New York.
56. Khelemshii, M.Z. and V.Z. Zhadan. 1963. The Effect of Dry
Solids Concentration in Beet Juice on its Thermophysical Proper
ties. Sakharnaya Promyshlennost. 37(6):23-27.
57. Kong, J., 0. Miyawaki and T. Yano. 1980. Effective Thermal Dif-
fusivities of Some Protein Gels.Agric. Biol. Chem. 44(8):1905-
1910.
58. Kubota, K . , T. Matusmoto, S. Kurisu, K. Suzuki and H. Hosaka.

1980. The Equations Regarding Temperature and Concentration of
the Density and Viscosity of Sugar, Salt and Skim Milk Solutions.
J. Fac. Appl. Biol. Sci. Hiroshima Univ. 19:133-145.
59. Kunii, D. and J.M. Smith. 1960. Heat Transfer Characteristics

of Porous Rocks. AICHE J. 6(1): 71-78.
60. Lamb. J. 1976. Influence of Water on the Thermal Properties of

Foods. Chemistry and Industry 24:1046-1048.
61. Lees, C.H. and J.D. Chorlton. 1896. On a Simple Apparatus for
Determining the Thermal Conductivities of Cements and Other Su d -
stances Used in the Arts. The Philosophical Magazine 41:495-503.
62. Leidenfrost, W. 1959. Measurements of the Thermal Conductivity

of Milk. ASME Symposium on Thermal Properties. Purdue Univ., W.
Lafayette, IN.
63. Lentz, C.P. 1961. Thermal Conductivity of Meats, Fats, Gelatine

Gels and Ice. Food Tech. 15:243.
64. Lewin, D.N. 1962. Plant Handbook Data. Food Eng. 34(3):89-97.
65. Martens, T. 1980. Mathematical Model of Heat Processing in Flat

Containers. Ph.D. Thesis. Katholeike Univ., Leuven, Belgium.
66. Miller, H.L. and J.E. Sunderland. 1963. Thermal Conductivity of

Beef Food Technology 17(4): 124-126.
67. Mohsenin, N.N. 1980. Thermal Properties of Foods and Agricul

tural Materials. Gordon and Breach Sci. Publishers, Inc.
68. Moline, S.W., J.A. Sawdye, A.J. Short and A.P. Rinfret. 1961.
Thermal Properties of Foods at Low Temperatures. I. Specific
Heat. Food Technol. 15: 228.
69. Moore, W.J. 1962. Physical Chemistry. 3rd Edition, Prentice-

Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
70. Morley, M.J. 1966. Thermal Conductivities of Muscles, Fats and

Bones. Food Technology 20(1): 303-311.
:C-
■A.
172
71. Munro, p.A. 1980. The Densities of Casein Curd Particles and
Caseinate Solutions. New Zealand J. of Dairy Sci. and Tech.
15(3):225-238.
72. Narayana, K.B. and M.V.K. Murthy. 1981. Heat and Mass Transfer
Characteristics and the Evaluation of Thermal Properties of Moist
Food Materials. Trans, of ASAE 24(3):789-793.
73. Nix, G.H., G.W. Lowery, R.I. Vachon and G.E. Tanger. 1967.
Direct Determination of Thermal Diffusivity and Conductivity with
a Refined Line Source Technique. Progress in Aeronautics and
Astronautics: Thermophysics of Spacecraft and Planetary Bodies.
20:865-878.
74. Ojha, T.P., A.W. Farrall, A.M. Dhanak and C.M. Stine. 1967. A
Method of Determining Heat Transfer Through Powdered Food Pro
ducts. Trans, of the ASAE 10(4): 543-544.
75. Okazaki, M., I. Ito and R. Toei. 1977. Effective Thermal Con
ductivities of Wet Granular Materials. AICHE Symposium Series
No. 163. vol. 73: 164-176.
76. Oliver, G.D. and A.E. Bailey. 1944. Thermal Properties of Fats
and Oils. v. Heat Capacity and Heat of Fusion of Highly Hydro
genated Cottonseed Oil. Oil and Soap, 21:297.
77. Olson. F.C.W. and O.T. Schultz. 1942. Temperatures in Solids

During Heating and Cooling. Ind. Eng. Chem. 34:874.
78. Ordinanz, W.O. 1946. Specific Heats of Foods in Cooking. Food

Inds. 18:1869.
79. Palacios, L.G. 1981. Measurement of Modeling of Thermal Proper

ties of Sorghum and Soy Flours. M.S. Thesis. Ag. Eng. Dept.,
Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX.
80. Paul, P.C. and H.H. Paulmer. 1972. Food Theory and Applica
tions. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
81. Perry, R.L., F.M. Turrell and S.W. Austin. 1964. Thermal Dif
fusivity of citrus Fruits. A paper from Heat Transfer, Thermo
dynamics and Education by H.A. Johnson. pp. 242-246. McGraw-
Hill Book Co., New York.
82. Petkunas, F. 1964. Determination of the Thermal Conductivity of

Liquid. M.S. Thesis. Northeastern Univ., Boston, MA.
83. Pflug, I.J., J.L. Blaisdell and I.J. Kopelman. 1965. Developing
Temperature - Time Curves for Objects That Can be Approximated by
a Sphere, Infinite Plate, or Infinite Cylinder. ASHRAE Trans.
71(1): 238-248.
173
84= phipps,- L.W, 1969. The Interrelationship of the Viscosity, Fat

Content and Temperature of Cream Between 40°C and 80°C. J. Dairy
Res. 36:417-426.
85. Polley, S.I., O.P. Snyder and P. Kotnouf. 1980. A Compilation

of Thermal Properties of Foods. Food Technol. 76-94.
86. Poppendiek, H.F., R. Randall, J.A. Breeden, J.E. Chambers and

J.R. Murphy. 1966. Thermal Conductivity Measurements and Pred
ictions for Biological Fluids and Tissues. Cryobiology 3(4):
318-327.
87. Qashou, M.S., R.I. Vachon, and Y.W. Touloukian.

Conductivity of Foods.
Properties
89. Rasmussen, D.H., A.P. Mackenzie, C.A. Angell and J.C. Tucker.
1973. Anomalous Heat Capacities of Supercooled Waterand Heavy
Waer. Science 181: 342-344.
90. Rao, M.A., J. Barnard and J.F. Kenny. 1975. Thermal Conduc
tivity and Thermal Diffusivity of Process Variety Squash and
White Potatoes. Trans, of ASAE 18(6): 1182-1192.
91. Reidy, G.A. and A.L. Rippen. 1969. Methods for Determining
Thermal Conductivity for Foods: I - Steady-State Methods: II -
Transient Method. ASAE Paper No. 69-383. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.
92. Riedel, L. 1949. Thermal Conductivity Measurement on Sugar

Solutions, Fruit Juices and Milk. Chemie-Ingenieur-Technik.
21(17):340-341.
93. Riedel, L. 1949. Refractive Index and Freezing Temperatures of

Fruit Juices as a Function of Concentration. L-ebensmittel
89:289-299.
94. Riedel, L. 1951. The Refrigerating Effect Required to Freeze

Fruits and Vegetables. Refrig. Eng. 59:670-673.
95. Riedel, L. 1969. Measurements of Thermal Diffusivity on

Foodstuffs Rich in Water. Kqltetechnik-Klimatisieuring.
21(11):315-316.
96. Rishoi, A.H. and P.F. Sharp. 1938. Specific Heat and the Physi
cal State of the Fat in Cream. J. Dairy Sci. 21:399.
97. Roy, N.K. 1968. Density ofCasein from Buffalo Milk. Mil-
chwissenschaft 23(12):741-744.
174
98. Roy/ N.K./ P.Ii. Qadav and R.N. Dixit. 1371. Density of Buffalo
Milk Fat. II. Centrifuged Fat. Milchwissenschaft 26(12):735-
738.
99. Roy, N.K. and S. Chandra. 1978. Variation in Physico-Chemical

Properties of Buffalo Milk with Temperature and Milk Consti
tuents. 3 Density. Milchwissenschaft. 33(11):690-692.
100. Sakiadis, B.C. and J. Coats. 1952. Studies of Thermal Conduc

tivity of Liquids. Part I. Louisiana State Univ. Eng. Exp. Sta.
Bull. No. 34.
101. Sandera, K. and A. Mircev. 1933. The Thermal Conductivity of

Sugar. Listy Cukrovar 51:302.
102. Schleirmacker, A.L.E.F. 1888. Vher die Warmeleitunger Gase.

Weidemann. Ann. Phys. 34:625.
103. Short, A.L. 1955. The Temperature Coefficient of Expansion of

Raw Milk. J. Dairy Res. 22:69.
104. Short, B.E. and L.H. Bartlett. 1944. The Specific Heat of
Foodstuffs. The Univ. of Texas, Publ. Mo. 4432. Bur. Eng.
Research, Eng. Research Series No. 40.
105. Siebel, J.E. 1892. Specific Heat of Various Products. Ice and
Refrigeration 2:256-257.
106. Smith, J.F.D. 1936. The Thermal Conductivity of Liquids. ASME

Trans. 58:719-725.
107. Smith, J.G., A.J. Ede and R. Game. 1952. The Thermal Conduc
tivity of Frozen Foodstuffs. Mod. Refrig. 55: 254-257.
108. Spells, K.E. 1960. Thermal Conductivity of Some Biological

Fluids. Phys. in Medic, and Biol. 5(7):139-153.
109. Stalhane, B. and 3. P v k . 1931. Mew Methods for Determining the

Coefficient of Thermal Conductivity. Tek-Tidskr. 61(28):328.
110. Staph, M.E. and W.R. Woolrich. 1981. Specific and Latent Heats
of Foods in the Freezing Zone. Refrig. Eng. 59: 1086-1089.
111. Suter, D.A., K.K. Agrawal and B.L. Clary. 1975. Thermal Proper
ties of Peanut Pods, Hulls and Kernels. ASAE Trans. 18(2):370-
375.
112. Sweat, V.E. 1974. Experimental Values of Thermal Conductivity

of Selected Fruits and Vegetables. J. of Food Sci. 39: 1080-
1083.
► <1
175
113. Sweat.- v.E, and C.G. Haugh. 1974. A Thermal Conductivity Probe
for Small Food Samples. ASAE Trans. 17(1):56-58.
114. Sweat, V.E. and C.E. Parmelee. 1978. Measurement of Thermal

Conductivity of Dairy Products and Margarines. J. of Food Pro
cess Eng. 2:187-197.
115. Swern, D. 1979. Bailey's Industrial Oil and Fat Products. Vol.
1. 4th Edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
116. Touloukian, Y.S., R.W. Powell, C.Y. Ho and P.G. Klemens. 1970.
Thermophysical Properties of Matter. Vol. 2. Thermal Conduc
tivity. Thermophysical Properties Research Center, Purdue
University.
117. Tressler, D.K., W.B. Van Arsdel and M.J. Copley. 1968, The
Freezing Preservation of Foods, vol. 2. Factors Affecting Qual
ity in Frozen Foods. The AVI Publishing Co., Inc., Westport, CT.
118. Unterberg, W. 1966. Thermal Properties of Salt Solutions.

British Chsm. Eng. 2(6):434-495.
119. Van der Held, E.F.M. and F.G. Van Drunen. 1949. A Method of
Measuring the Thermal Conductivity of Liquids. Physica. 15:865-
■i 881-
120. Wachsmuth, R. 1892. Research in the Field of Internal Heat Con-
ductiono Annalen der Physik 48:158-179.
121. Wallapapan, K. and v.E. Sweat. 1980. Thermal Conductivity of

Defatted Soy Flour. ASAE Paper No. 6506.
122. Ward, T.L. and W.S. Singleton. 1950. Thermal Properties of Fats
and Oils. VII. Hydrogenated and Unhydrogenated Oils. J. Am. Oil
Chan. Soc. 27:423.
123. Watson, P.D. and R.P. Tittsler. 1961. The Density of Milk at
Low Temperatures, j. Dairy Sci. 44: 416-424.
124. Watt, B.K. and A.L. Merrill. 1975. Composition of Foods. Agri
culture Handbook No. 8. U.S. Dept, of Agriculture.
125. WeDb, 3.H. and A.H. Johnson. 1965. Fundamentals of Dairy Chem
istry. The AVI Publishing Company, inc., Westport, Connecticut.
126. Weber, H . F . 1880. Untersuchungen Uber die Warmeleitung in Flus-

sigkeiten. Annalen der Physik 10(3):304-320.
127. Weber, H.F. 1886. The Thermal Conductivity of Drop Forming

Liquids. Exner's Repertorium 22:116-122.
176
128a Woodams, E.E. 1965. Thermal Conductivity of Fluid Food. M.S.

Thesis. Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY.
129. Woolf, J.F. and W.L. Sibbitt. 1954. Thermal Conductivity of

Liquids. Ind. Eng. Chem. 46;1947.
130. Yagi, S. and D. Kunii. 1957. Studies on Effective Thermal Con

ductivities in Packed Beds. AICHE J. 3(3): 373-381.
131. Yoncoskii, R.A. 1969. The Determination of Heat Capacities of

Milk Fat by Differential Thermal Analysis. J. of American Oil
Chem. Soc. 46(1):49-51.
132. Young, L.L. 1975. Aqueous Extraction of Protein Isolate from

Mechanically Deboned Poultry Meat. J. of Food Sci. 40: 1115-
1118.
APPENDICES
1
•
‘
vggs*
Appendix A
Literature Thermal Property Data of Foods
Table Al. Thermal Properties of Air, Ice and Water
Food T M.C. K C Comments Ref.

°C s- W/M°C 10"^M2/S Kg|/M3 KJ/Kg °C No.
Air -17.8 .0225 16.235 1.379 1.005 33

0 .0242 18.623 1.293 1.005
10.0 .0249 19.885 1.246 1.005
37.8 .0270 23.629 1.137 1.005
65.6 .0293 27.842 1.043 1.009
93.3 .0312 32.077 0.964 1.009
121.1 .0332 36.619 0.895 1.013
148.9 .0353 41.420 0.838 1.017
Ice -45.56 2.717 1.651 922.7 1.784 21

-23.33 2.406 1.361 919.5 1.922
-17.78 2.371 1.319 919.5 1.955
-12.22 2.319 1.268 919.5 1.989
-6.67 2.267 1.221 917.5 2.022
0 2.215 1.173 916.3 2.060
Supercooled -38 .498 .0773 990.3 6.50 65

Water -33 .506 .0931 992.6 5.48 89
-28 .514 .1065 993.3 4.86 116
-23 .523 .1161 995.2 4.53
-18 .531 .1234 996.4 4.32
-13 .539 .1286 997.8 4.20
-8 .547 .1311 998.5 4.18
-3 .555 .1322 999.4 4.20
178
Table Al. Continued
T M.C. K Ref.
Op o P 3
C -s W/M C 10“^M2/S Kg/M KJ/K§ °< No.
0 .566 .1340 999.8 4.225 Saturated

4.44 .575 .1367 999.8 4.208 Liquid
10.00 .585 .1396 999.2 4.195
15.56 .595 .1423 998.6 4.186
21.11 .604 .1449 997.4 4.179
26.67 .614 .1475 995.8 4.179
32.22 .623 .1502 994.9 4.174
37.78 .630 .1520 993.0 4.174
43.33 ,637 .1541 990.6 4.174
48.89 .644 .1560 988.8 4.174
54.44 .649 .1576 985.7 4.179
60.00 .654 .1592 983.3 4.179
65.55 .659 .1607 980.3 4.183
71.11 .665 .1625 977.3 4.186
75.67 .668 .1637 973.7 4.191
82.22 .673 .1654 970.2 4.195
37.78 .675 .1663 966.7 4.199
93.33 .678 .1674 963.2 4.204
104.4 .684 .1698 955.1 4.216
115.6 .685 .1720 946.7 4.229
126.7 .685 .1720 937.2 4.250
137.8 .685 .1728 928.1 4.271
148.9 .684 .1734 918.0 4.296
179
Table A2. Thermal Properties of Sait, Sugar and Their Derivatives
Food T M.C. K C Comments Ref.

°C % W/M°C 10“^M2/S Kgj/M3 KJ/Kg °C No.
Salt 83 .247 Unspecified Salt 61
0-100 1.130-1.339 78
-40 0.812 48
-62 0.715
NaCl 10 80 .568 .1359 1151.7 3.627 118

Solution 20 .583 .1406 1147.8 3.612
30 .599 .1459 1143.9 3.590
40 .514 .1499 1138.8 3.596
50 .626 .1524 1134.9 3.619
60 .637 .1550 1131.2 3.633
70 .649 .1574 1128.6 3.653
80 .656 .1596 1122.1 3.663
Salt 10 95 1039.0 58
Solution 20 1034.9
30 1030.8
40 1026.7
50 1022.5
10 90 1076.3
20 1072.2
30 1068.1
40 1064.0
50 1058.9
Salt 10 80 1150.9 58
Solution 20 1146.8
30 1142.7
40 1138.6
50 1134.4
10 76 1180.7
20 1176.6
30 1172.5
40 1168.4
50 1164.3
Sugar 0-100 1.260 78
85-90 .1731 tew Sugar 101
Table A2. Continued
% W/M C 10"* M /S Kg!f c 3 KJ/K§ C
Sugar .539
Solution .574
.607
.637
2 .450
20 .475
.501
.527
Sugar 0 .535 Cane Sugar 92

Solution 10 .550
20 .566
30 .582
40
50 .616
60 .622
70
80
.505 Cane Sugar

.519
.535
30 .547
40 .561
50 .571
60 .582
70 .592
80 .601
.474 Cane Sugar

10 .488
20 .500
30 .514
40 .526
50 .537
60 .547
70 .556
.562
181
Table A2. Continued
M.C. K c( 0 p C Comments Ref.

% W/M°C 10 M /S Kg/M KJ/Kg °C No.
Sugar 0 60 .443 Cane Sugar

Solution 10 .457
20 .471
30 .479
40 .492
50 .502
60 .512
70 .519
80 .526
0 50 .412 Cane Sugar

10 .426
20 .436
30 .448
40 .457
50 .467
60 .478
70 .485
80 .492
0 40 .382 Cane Sugar

10 .395
20 .405
30 .415
40 .419
50 .433
60 .441
70 .449
80 .455
Sugar 30 90 .133
Solution 85 .1311
80 .1293
75 .1256
70 .1231
65 .1193
60 .1177
Sugar 10 90 1041.8
Solution 20 1038.3
30 1034.9
40 1031.4
50 1027.9
182
Table A2. Continued
M.C. K Comments Ref.

% W/M°C 10~^M2/S KgJ/M3 KJ/K§ °C No.
10 80 1084.4
20 1080.9
30 1077.5
40 1074.0
50 1070.5
10 70 1127.0
20 1123.5
30 1120.1
40 1116.6
50 1113.1
Sucrose -37.2 96 2.205 1.2949 933.2 1.828

Solutions -33.1 2.073 1.1601 931.3 1.918
=27.5 1.S9S 1.0681 923.2 2.006
-21.9 1.856 0.9688 926.9 2.057
-16.4 1.713 0.8369 924.6 2.199
-10.8 1.513 0.6483 922.2 2.506
-5.3 1.315 0.3678 919.6 3.858
-37.2 90 2.112 1.1533 958.9 1.914

-33.1 1.984 1.0325 957.5 1.997
-27.5 1.914 0.9087 955.8 2.185
-21.9 1.784 0.7982 953.4 2.322
-16.4 1.654 0.6441 950.4 2.669
-10.8 1.461 0.4542 946.8 3.342
-5.3 1.328 0.1941 942.8 7.154
-37.2 80 1.774 0.9863 1007.6 1.785

-33.1 1.659 0.7639 1007.4 2.158
-27.5 1.540 0.6338 1006.6 2.410
-21.9 1.407 0.5296 1005.8 2.642
-16.4 1.266 0.3938 1004.8 3.193
-10.8 1.069 0.2416 1003.5 4.396
-5.3 0.895 0.0761 1002.1 11.701
Table A2. Continued
Food T M.C. K d 0 p C Comments Ref.

°C % W/M°C 10 M /S Kg/M KJ/K§ °C No.
Sucrose -37.2 65 1.306 0.6651 1092.6 1.824

Solutions -33.1 1.239 0.4945 1092.1 2.329
-27.5 1.107 0.3747 1093.2 2.742
-21.9 0.989 0.2947 1095.8 3.121
-16.4 0.881 0.2010 1099.9 4.071
-10.8 0.719 0.1045 1105.7 6.398
-5.3 0.552 0.0294 1113.1 17.428
Sucrose -27.5 80.4 .6736 2.709

Solutions -24.7 .6013 2.994
-21.9 .5497 3.111
-19.2 .4981 3.039
-16.4 .4232 3.802
-13.6 .3484 4.325
”10.8 .2709 5.259
-8.1 .1729 8.872
Lactose -27.5 89.3 .8103 2.161

Solution -24.7 .7174 2.391
-21.9 .6942 2.428
-19.2 .6374 2.458
-16.4 .5678 2.881
-13.6 .4774 3.141
-10.8 .4026 3.224
-8.1 .2607 4.459
Sugar -40 95 1.717

Solution -34 1.800
-28 1.884
-23 2.009
-17 2.177
-12 2.428
-6 3.894
-40 90 1.926
-34 2.009
-28 2.135
-23 2.303
-17 2.638
-12 3.308
-6 5.694
184
Food T M.C. K
°C % W/M°C 10 M /S Kgj/M3 KJ/K§ °C
-40 85 1.884
-34 2.009
-28 2.1777
-23 2.470
-17 2.931
-12 3.768
-6 6.238
Sugar -40 80 1.926

Solution -34 2.093
-28 2.345
-23 2.679
-17 3.224
-12 4.103
-6 8.039
-40 70 1.884
-34 2.219
-28 2.554
-23 3.056
-17 3.852
-12 5.485
-6 10.969
-40 50 1.884
-34 2.261
-28 2.721
-23 3.475
-17 4.479
-12 6.573
-6 13.398
185
Table A2 . Continued
Food M.C. K $ 2 p C Comments Ref.

£ W/M°C 10" M V S Kg/M KJ/K§ °C No.
Sugar 0-26 95 4.061 104

Solution 90 3.936
85 3.852
80 3.601
70 3.559
50 3.182
Corn -27.5 82 .9419 1.838 53

Syrup -24.7 .8852 2.186
-21.9 .8129 2.093
-19.2 .7768 2.265
-16.4 .7226 2.504
-13.6 .6581 2.667
-10.8 .5652 2.973
-8.1 .4103 4.174
Corn 27 19 .347 82
Syrup 52 .365
77 .385
27 89 .475
52 .496
77 .513
Honey 2 90 .530 41
21 .558 3.785
49 .593
71 .618
2 80 .501
21 .526 3.536
49 .558
71 .584
2 70 .471
21 .493 3.217
49 .525
71 .550
2 60 .440
21 .461 2.973
49 .490
71 .513
186
■X
Table A3. Thermal Proper ties of Fruits, Vegetables and Juice Products
Food J M.C. K c(„ P C Comments Ref.

C % W/M C 10 M /S Kg/M k j /k | °c No.
Apple 18 .418 32
4 .150 8
27 .120 83
28 88.5 .422 790 Green 112
« 28 84.9 .513 840 Red
16 .231 .0774 789.7 3.768 McIntosh 31
Banana 27 75.7 .481 980 112

5 .118 95
Grapefruit 8 .402 32
26 90.4 .549 950 Peeled 112
20 .316 .0914 Marsh 81
Lemon 20 .376 .1072 Eureka 81

28 91.8 .525 930 112
Orange 28 85.9 .580 1030 112

16 .415 .1254 877.8 3.768 117
20 .326 .0944 Valencia 81
20 .369 .1069 Navel
Peach 16 •85.1 3.768 94

28 88.5 .581 930 112
Pear 28 86.8 .595 1000 112

16 83.8 3.726 94
Pineapple 27 84.9 .549 1010 112
Strawberry 28 88.8 .462 900 112

16 89.3 3.936 94
5 .127 95
-15.5 1.125 800.9 107
Bean -12.7 .919 752.8 107
Carrot 16 -87.5 3.893 94

28 90.0 .605 1040 112
-17.2 .625 640.7 107
Cucumber 28 95.4 .598 950 112
Table A3. Continued
Food M.C. K c( Comments Ref.

* % W/M C 1 0 M / S Kgj/M3 KJ/K§ °C No.
Onion 16 85.5 3.809 94
28 87.3 .574 970 112
Pea 16 75.8 3.558 94

-16.1 .502 704.8 107
Potato -12.7 1.091 107

2 .479 22
71 .484
25 .170 90
Spinach 16 90.2 3.893 94
Squash 25 .156 90
Tomato 16 92.9 4.019 Pulp 94

28 92.3 .462 1010 Core 112
28 92.3 .527 1010 Side
4 .148 Cherry 8
Refractive
index (20°C)
Apple 20 87 .559 1.35 92

Juice 80 .631
20 70 .504 1.38
80 .564
20 36 .389 1.45
80 .435
Grape 20 89 .567 1.35

80 .639
20 68 .496 1.38
80 .554
20 37 .396 1.45
80 .439
Pear 20 85 .550 1.35

Juice 80 .629
20 60 .475 1.38
80 .532
20 39 .402 1.45
80 .446
Sugar 7 .575 1020 5 Brix 56

Beet 27 .607 90% purity
Juice 7 .517 1100 25 Brix
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
188
Table A3. Continued
Food T M.C. K d C Comments Ref.

°C W/M°C 10-5M2/S KgpM3 KJ/Kg °C No.
27 .547 91.4% purity

25 85 .585
80 .560
75 .535
Apple Juice 15.5 87.2 .553 .1367 1050.8 3.85 94, 117
Blueberry Juice 15.5 89.5 .553 .1367 1041.2 3.89
Cherry Juice 15.5 86.7 .553 .1367 1052.4 3.85
Grape Juice 15.5 84.7 .556 .1316 1062.0 3.81
Orange Juice 15.5 89.0 .553 .1367 1042.8 3.89
Raspberry Juice 15.5 88.5 .553 .1367 1046.O' 3.89
Strawberry Juice 15.5 91.7 .571 .1393 1033.2' 3.97
Orange -28.9 1.644 0.516 1009.2 3.768 20° Brix 52

Juice -23.3 3.202 1.084 1009.2 4.187
-17.8 2.388 0.542 4.605
-12.2 1.523 0.181 1017.2 6.280
-6.7 1.216 0.077 1033.2 17.166
-28.9 1.246 0.258 1121.3 4.187 40° Brix

-23.3 0.831 0.155 .1121.3 4.605
-17.8 0.554 0.077 1129.3 6.699
-12.2 0.548 0.052 1153.3 11.723
-6.7 0.129 1169.4
-28.9 0.519 0.090 1249.4 4.605 60° Brix

-23.3 0.866 0.103 1265.5 6.699
-17.8 1.212 0.077 1281.5 5.862
189
Table A3. Continued.
Food
°c
M.C.
%
K d
W/M C 10 M /S Kg/M
3 P C
KJ/Kg °C
Comments Ref.
No.
Tomato 30 95.2 .596 .1444 1018.1 4.052 17

Juice 86.1 .549 .1356 1062.2 3.811
70.9 .472 .1169 1136.0 3.553
60.0 .416 .1041 1188.9 3.361
40.0 .314 .0766 1285.9 3.185
60 95.2 .630 .1535 1006.3 4.079

86.1 .585 .1446 1051.8 3.846
70.9 .511 .1263 1127.0 3.587
60.0 .492 .1198 1163.7 3.527
40.0 .358 .0861 1279.9 3.246
25.2 .653 .1512 287.2 4.100

90 86.1 .612 .1510 1033.9 3.918
70.9 .542 .1334 1109.5 3.661
60.0 .492 .1198 1163.7 3.527
40.0 .400 .0955 1263.2 3.315
120 95.2 .665 .1661 963.5 4.155

86.1 .628 .1563 1008.3 3.983
70.9 .565 .1399 1082.2 3.732
60.0 .521 .1281 1137.1 3.575
40.0 .439 .1049 1235.7 3.385
150 95.2 .665 .1683 931.4 4.245

86.1 .634 .1599 975.3 4.064
70.9 .581 .1460 1048.6 3.798
60.0 .544 .1359 1101.2 3.631
40.0 .474 .1147 1197.6 3.449
190
Thermal Proper' ; of Milk Components and Products
Ref.
W/M C Kgj/M3 No.
.382
39 .389
51 .402
63 .408
75 .422
90 .425
83 .1182
80 .1135
70 .1085
65 .1055
20 1359 Buffalo 97
25 1292 Milk
30 1246
35 1245
1270
1290 Cow
30 1268 Milk
35 1255
40 1291
50 1349
Sodium 16 1384.4
Caseinate 30 1375.2
40 1365.9
50 1356.7
Calcium 20.5 1430.5
Caseinate 30 1421.5
40 1412.5
50 1403.5
55 997.9
15 2.303
14.2 2.881 83% Fat
13.5 2.332 85% Fat
13.6 2.403 84.5% Fat
16.5
20
-40 1.947
-62 1.390
-84 1.105
Margarine 0 .20
20 .19
191
Table A4. Continued
C Ref.
Kgj/M3 KJ/Kg c No.
15 916.4 Buffalo
20 914.7 Milk
25 913.2
30 911.7
37 908.3
50 900.9
15 918.0 Cow Milk 98

20 915.8
25 913.4
30 911.1
37 907.9
50 898.7
131
Butter .168 63
Fat .3 .163
16.9 .190
14.5 .208
15.3 .173
2.0 .093
15.6 .180
29.5 .345
32-46 2.052
40-60 2.152 35
Spray Lactose 18-30 1.256 10
20 90 1043
30 1040
40 1037
50 1034
1031
192
Table A4. Continued
Food T M.C. K d p C Comments Ref.

°C % W/M°C 10" M V S Kg/M KJ/Kg °C No.
Lactose 20 80 1082 11
Solution 30 1079
40 1076
50 1073
60 1070
20 70 1124
30 1120
40 1117
50 1114
60 1111
20 60 1173
30 1170
40 1167
50 1164
60 1161
% Fat
Dairy 0 .399 4 34
Products .336 20
(Based on .318 25
% Fat) .313 35
.299 45
.157 85
.132 100
% Fat
Dairy 20 .592 4 34
Products .382 20
(Based on .370 25
% Fat) .348 35
.324 45
.201 85
.168 100
Butter 1.1-20 .363 3.5 92

Milk 20 .554 96
87 3.768 4
•T
193
Table A4. Continued
M.C. K p - C Comments Ref.

* W/M C Cg/M^ KJ/Kg °C No.
Whole 22.6 90 .572

Milk 24.1 .569
36.7 .600
50.7 .618
7 83 .531
47 .558
47 .580
67 .600
87 .620
7 62 .463
27 .490
47 .509
67 .520
87 .535
Wnole 5 90 .534
Milk 20 .567
40 .601
60 .621
75 .629
5 80 .499
20 .526
40 .554
60 .574
75 .583
5 70 .464
20 .484
40 .508
60 .526
75 .537
40 90 3.962
50 3.959
60 3.975
70 3.980
40 80 3.730
50 3.740
60 3.764
70 3.782
194

°C % W/rTC 10~”M /S Kg/M KJ/Kg °C No.
40 70 3.497
50 3.520
60 3.552
70 3.583
Whole Milk 20 87.4 .550 .1299 1032 3.894
Skim 7 90 .547
Milk 27 .575
47 .600
67 .625
87 .642
20 .537
80 .540
15 3.936
40 3.977
60 4.019
40 90 3.986
50 3.991
60 4.004
70 4.007
40 80 3.744
50 3.761
60 3.779
70 3.798
40 70 3.501
50 3.532
60 3.554
70 3.589
Skim 5 90 .538
Milk 20 .567
40 .601
60 .629
75 .646
Table A4. Continued

°C % W/M°C 10 M /S Kg/M KJ/Kg °C NO.
5 80 .521
20 .549
40 .582
60 .609
75 .626
5 70 .504
20 .531
40 .563
60 .590
75 .606
10 95 1019.5
20 1016.1
30 1012.7
40 1009.3
50 1005.9
10 90 1038.9
20 1035.5
30 1032.1
40 1028.7
50 1025.3
10 80 1077.7
20 1074.3
30 1070.9
40 1067.5
50 1064.1
10 75 1097.1
20 1093.7
30 1090.3
40 1086.9
50 1083.5
196
Table A4. Continued
T M.C. K0 £ V p _ C Comments
°C % W/M C 10 M /J Kg/M KJ/ k £j °C
Condensed 24.2 90 .576 .1432 1032 3.984 19, 62

Milk 40.9 .601 .1496
59.6 .619 .1540
78.2 .634 .1579
26.6 80 .534
40.5 .559
59.4 .585
78.6 .601
22.9 67 .472
40.8 .504
60.0 .517
78.7 .527
26.0 50 .325
39.9 .340
59.5 .357
78.4 .364
Evaporated 1.5 .486

Milk 20 .505
50 .541
80 .566
Half-Half 5 90 .519
Milk 20 .551
40 .588
60 .617
75 .634
5 80 .495
20 .519
40 .548
60 .574
75 .591
5 70 .471
20 .487
40 .509
60 .531
75 .548
197
Table A4. Continued
W /M C 10 M /S
P3
Kg/M k j /k| c
Ref.
NO.
.43
.47
40 3.974
50 3.972
60 3.982
3.998
40 3.736
50 3.750
60 3.768
3.792
40 3.498
50 3.527
60 3.555
70 3.586
Buffalo 10 1034.4
Milk 20 1032.3.
30 1031.9
37 1030.6
50 1029.2
60 1026.9
Whey .568 64
.547 92
27 .575
47 .600
67 .625
87 .642
.539 96
.639
20 1101 11
40 1093
60 1085
20 1127
40 1120
60 1114
198

°C % W/M°C 10" M V S Kg/M KJ/Kg °C No.
20 65 1148
40 1142
60 1136
20 60 1172
40 1167
60 1161
199
Taole A5. Thermal Properties of Meat Components and products
Food M.C. K C Comments Ref.

% W/M°C 10~^M2/S KgpM3 KJ/Kg °C No.
Beef Fat 25 .222 36

-19 .268 Sirloin 70
16 .209
-8 9 .287 63
2 .217
Pork Fat -23 6 .210 63

-18 .217
-13 .222
-8 .222
-3 .220
2 .215
Beaf Lean -13 79 1.42 1.4% Fat 43

-8 1.33 Heat Flow
-3 1.20 Parallel to
7 .44 Fiber
-16.7 69.5 1.073 66

-12.2 1.056
-8.3 1.038
-4.4 1.021
2.7 .311
4.5 .320
Pork Lean -13 75 1.42 7.8% Fat 43

-8 1.33 Heat Flow
-3 1.20 Parallel to
7 .44 Fiber
Lamb Lean -13 71 1.26 9.6% Fat 43

—8 1.22 Heat Flow
-3 1.13 Parallel to
7 .41 Fiber
Veal Lean -13 75 1.44 2.1% Fat 43

-8 1.38 Heat Flow
-3 1.26 Parallel to
7 .44 Fiber
23.7 .45
Beef 15 75 .502 .1238 1153.2 3.516 Sirloin 117

74 .467 .1136 1166.1 3.516 Flank
76 .449 .1109 1151.5 3.516 Round
200
Table A5. Continued
Food M.C. K C Comments Ref.

tfC W/MC i o "^m 2/ s Kg^M3 KJ/Kg °C NO.
Beef 14.3 61.4 .465 5.8% Fay 42

21.7 .442 Chunk
36.8 .427 Steak
45.5 .411
66.8 .533
80.0 47.2 .557
Beef 38.6 63.4 .427 2.6% Fat 42

50.9 .450 Chunk Steak
61.5 .475
68.6 .505
Chicken 15 72 .415 .1084 1076.0 3.558 117
Sausage 25 65 .384 23% Fat 128

68 .427 16% Fat
Fish -23 83 1.55 Cool 63

-18 1.53
-13 1.48
-8 1.37
-23 67 1.27 Salmon 63
-18 1.25
-13 1.20
-8 1.11
-3 .97
Ground 30 74.6 .452 1057 6

Beef 50 74.0 .484 1054
60 72.65 .492 1050
70 70.3 .522 1015
80 68.21 .560 1009
90 66.50 .590 988
Whole 30 74.6 .475 1010 6

Beef 50 73.6 .492 1003
60 71.74 .504 997
70 68.56 .494 988
80 65.01 .507 985
90 59.94 .495 980
201
Table A6. Thermal Properties of Oil Products
Food T M.C. K & 0

C Comments Ref.
°C % W/M C 10 M/S Kgj/M3 k j /k| °c No.
Almond oil 4 .176. 920 100

Castor oil 27 .181 960 51
157 .171
Cod liver oil 35 .170 108
Lemon oil 5 .156 820 126
Nutmeg oil 4 .156 940 120
Olive oil 32 .168 910 51
187 .161
Peanut oil 3.9 .168 100
24.4 .168
40.6 .168
42.6 .171
Poppy oil 4 .176 910 120
Rapeseed oil 20 .160 910 127
Sesame oil 4 .176 920 100
Turpentine oil 15 .127 870 106
Lemon peel oil 6 .170 77
Mustard oil 25 .170 1020 127
Soybean 20 1.918 18
Oil 40 1.964
60 2.005
80 2.064
100 2.127
120 2.206
140 2.223
Castor 30 2.072 18
Oil 40 2.152
60 2.169
80 2.257
100 2.294
120 2.366
140 2.378
Cottonseed 80 2.177 Hydro-

Oil 100 2.232 genated
120 2.278
140 • 2.281
202
Table A6. Continued
. comments Ref.
Kg/M-3 KJ/Kg °C NO.
-70 1.218
-60 1.306
-50 1.377
-40 1.432
20 1.989
30 2.014
40 2.031
50 2.072
Olive 38.9 .169

Oil 42.2 .164
51.1 .159
28.3 .168
48.9 .166
100 .163
20 .168
100 .164
Linseed 1.938
Oil 1.993
60 2.108
80 2.035
100 2.156
120 2.173
140 2.227
Peanut -72.8 1.363 Hydro- 122

Oil -44.4 1.559 genated
47.2 2.203
57.2 2.252
67.2 2.303
77.2 2.349
-72.8 1.514 Unhydro

-47.8 1.719 genated
27.2 2.102
52.2 2.146
203

°C % W/M C 10 M /S Kg/M KJ/Kg °C No.
Perilla 6.1 1.733 18

Oil 18.9 1.763
37.2 1.825
80.0 1.901
151.7 2.014
Tung oil 21.7 1.821 18

37.2 1.938
70 2.043
80 2.059
100 2.102
120 2.156
140 2.198
Oleic Acid 72.5 .189 115

90 .178
106 .156
148 .116
Stearic 72.5 .160

Acid 90 .147
106 .132
148 .097
Oleic 10 1.934
Acid 50 2.047
100 2.299
150 2.546
Stearic 150 2.449

Acid 200 2.763
Oleic Acid 60 863

80 850
Stearic 75 843.1
Acid 80 839
IT-
204
Appendix B
Experimental Thermal property Data
Table Bl. Thermal Conductivity of Albumin Protein Suspensions
10% Solids 30% Solids 60% Solids

T K T K T K
°C W/M°C °C W/M°C °C W/M°C
-35.78 2.447 -38.12 2.026 -39.17 1.337

-31.66 2.346 -29.68 1.942 -28.66 1.274
-21.24 2.234 -21.76 1.875 -19.88 1.232
-12.31 2.152 -11.04 1.801 -11.14 1.191
-5.59 2.103 -4.98 1.762 -5.96 1.174
-1.24 "*.537 -1.66 *472 -1.27 .362
9.64 .556 10.16 .487 11.72 .374
18.78 .571 19.84 .502 22.66 .388
29.36 .585 31.27 .516 . 33.17 .398
1 37.76 .596 42.29 .529 39.64 .414
49.12 .609 53.17 .542 48.12 .425
62.04 .621 59.67 .551 58.74 .434
73.61 .630 69.66 .559 69.34 .439
80.66 .636 82.44 .562 81.27 .442
89.12 .643 93.67 .571 89.19 .448
101.34 .648 102.34 .578 99.66 .459
111.27 .651 113.05 .580 110.34 .465
121.63 .653 121.63 .583 122.66 .472
129.72 .655 131.14 .586 132.17 .475
138.12 .655 141.62 .588 139.19 .480
147.19 .655 147.88 .588 148.63 .481
205
Table B2. Thermal Conductivity of Casein Suspensions

T K T K T K
-39.84 2.475 -39.92 2.123 -39.72 1.451

-29.16 2.343 -31.41 2.033 -29.19 1.381
-19.74 2.244 -21.12 1.941 -19.17 1.329
-10.12 2.161 -10.84 1.864 -10.81 1.294
-5.84 2.130 -5.02 1.828 -5.12 1.272
-0.27 .545 -0.11 .487 -0.27 .385
10.12 ,559 10.61 .503 11.04 .399
19.88 .574 19.88 .511 21.67 .412
29.27 .592 29.72 .533 31.12 .427
39.59 .606 40.63 .548 40.78 .440
50.48 .619 50.71 .560 51.16 .452
5 G .9z .627 61.12 .569 59.48 .463
71.04 .639 69.81 .584 70.78 .472
79.81 .645 79.72 .588 80.49 .479
90.48 .650 90.48 .592 91.02 .486
101.12 .656 100.62 .591 101.14 .492
110.92 .657 111.12 .601 110.76 .497
120.47 .659 121.46 .603 120,02 ,501
131.14 .660 130.67 .601 131.49 .504
140.12 .661 140.12 .606 140.17 .507
149.87 .661 149.64 .607 149.81 .509
206
Table B3. Thermal Conductivity of Whey Protein Suspensions
10% solids 30% Solids . 60% Solids

T K T K T K
-39.84 2.454 -39.84 2.068 -39.72 1.366

-31.01 2.344 -31.02 1.977 -29.91 1.305
-19.84 2.225 -19.27 1.874 -21.04 1.257
-10.18 2.141 -10.84 1.808 -10.92 1.205
-5.42 2.103 -5.04 1.766 -5.19 1.162
-0.27 .541 -0.11 .479 -0.18 .370
10.18 .558 11.14 .493 10.47 .383
20.61 .574 21.68 .507 20.62 .396
30.41 .588 31.14 .523 31.48 .410
41.49 .602 39.68 .537 41.12 .423
50.19 .612 49.72 .546 49.87 .435
60.48 .622 61.12 .558 50.58 .444
71.12 .631 69.68 .564 70.72 .449
79.69 .638 81.19 .571 79.88 .453
89.12 .644 91.04 .577 90.12 .459
100.48 .649 100.98 .584 100.41 .469
1 110.12 .653 110.19 .588 111.68 .473
121.49 .656 121.48 .593 119.12 .479
131.12 .657 129.62 .594 130.68 .484
139.48 .658 141.08 .595 140.12 .486
149.17 .657 149.69 .595 149.68 .488
207
Table B4. Thermal Conductivity of Meat protein Suspensions

T K T K T K
-39.17 2.446 -40.19 2.274 -38.19 2.042

-28.64 2.316 -32.66 2.186 -28.18 1.942
-19.81 2.224 -18.42 2.047 -19.64 1.721
-11.96 2.158 -11.49 1.996 -11.41 1.811
-5.66 2.112 -6.06 1.959 -5.66 1.778
-0.04 .539 -0.12 .511 -0.16 .468
10.43 .557 11.29 .526 11.27 .485
21.27 .571 22.04 .543 22.09 .501
30.46 .585 31.27 .554 32.18 .515
38.94 .598 39.86 .567 42.19 .526
49.67 .612 48.74 .576 50.68 .538
51.46 .622 51.52 •5o 5 53.69 .548
70.68 .628 70.89 .592 71.42 .556
78.84 .635 78.64 .063 82.16 .567
89.12 .642 89.97 .611 91.49 .574
100.64 .647 101.42 .616 101.29 .581
1 111.18 .653 112.12 .619 111.48 .585
122.06 .656 121.46 .62 121.63 ,587
129.64 .655 129.63 .623 131.47 .587
138.17 .655 139.72 .626 139.64 .586
148.98 .656 148.17 .627 148.12 .586
'tf-
Table B5. Thennal Conductivity of Gluten

T K T K T K
-38.19 2.425 -39.19 2.244 -39.49 2.053

-28.12 2.308 -30.69 2.148 -28.42 1.945
-21.48 2.236 -19.81 2.046 -19.62 1.869
-9.98 2.135 -10.56 1.974 -11.49 1.815
-5.17 2.101 -6.14 1.945 -5.27 1.774
-0.02 .542 -0.09 .506 -0.08 .478
11.42 .555 11.96 .521 10,63 ,494
22.16 .574 21.49 .536 21.42 .507
28.66 .587 30.63 .551 28.14 .522
39.17 .598 38.19 .564 39.67 .533
51.42 .611 48.69 .579 50.42 .541
60.19 .522 53.14 .531 62.17 .557
71.42 .631 72.62 .596 72.69 .566
78.66 .639 80.86 .603 78.47 .572
88.92 .645 90.17 .609 88.12 .576
101.41 .648 102.06 .617 101.49 .579
111.49 .654 112.19 .623 111.66 .584
121.63 .655 121.48 .624 118.47 .586
129.77 .656 128.66 .624 128.12 .592
139.67 .657 138.17 .625 139.46 .596
148.19 .656 148.47 .625 149.68 .596
209
Table B6. Thermal Conductivity of Fats
Milk Fat Vegetable Oil Lard Corn Oil

T K T K T K T K
°C W/M°C °C W/M°C °C W/M°C °C W/M°C
-39.72 .185 -38.81 .195 -38.72 .191 -39.72 .194

-28.84 .186 -30.47 .194 -29.71 .190 -29.14 .190
-20.09 .183 -21.32 .191 -19.42 .185 -19.12 .189
-10.84 .179 -11.14 .188 -10.84 .183 -10.84 .188
-0.17 .179 -1.02 .178 -1.21 .181 -1.27 .177
10.84 .177 -10.17 .178 10.44 .179 10.12 .175
21.05 .176 21.44 .174 21.27 .178 20.84 .173
23.71 .174 29.79 .169 31.04 .174 31.72 .168
39.84 .164 41.41 .166 39.72 .174 41.64 .167
50.12 .162 49.84 .161 49.64 .172 52.05 .166
59.84 .159 60.17 .164 61.34 .170 59.09 .162
59.79 .158 70.84 •1.63 70.17 .151 71.43 .162
80.47 .153 79.69 .161 81.44 .159 81.67 .161
90.69 .154 89.71 .160 89.64 .155 90.14 .158
101.27 .149 101.34 .155 100.31 .154 100.34 .153
111.54 .145 111.27 .152 110.42 .149 111.27 .149
119.76 .140 120.69 .145 121.67 .144 121.69 .145
130.48 .135 129.17 .142 131.74 .143 131.71 .143
139.84 .134 139.84 .138 140.54 .142 141.02 .140
149.27 .130 149.16 .136 148.66 .138 149.84 .137
,<r-
210
Table B7. Thermal Conductivity of Dextrose Suspensions

T K T K T K
o„
W/M°C °C W/M°C °C W/f^C
-39.27 2.444 -38.97 2.036 -38.74 1.212

-29.04 2.308 -29.26 1.886 -29.19 1.027
-19.29 2.175 -20.07 1.709 -20.17 .735
-9.09 2.011 -9.09 1.344 -10.63 .377
-5.12 1.807 -5.63 .707 -4.97 .386
-0.32 .547 -1.27 .494 -1.09 .398
10.34 .567 10.63 .513 10.63 .409
19.74 .582 21.17 .528 22.17 .423
31.27 .597 30.61 .344 31.61 .441
39.48 .608 41.72 .553 42.27 .456
50.63 .620 49.63 .567 49.83 .464
59.72 .631 5S.72 .573 53.04 .476
68.34 .638 69.38 .588 71.27 .484
79.29 .647 81.64 .595 82.34 .492
88.63 .652 91.31 .602 88.94 .497
100.17 .658 102.27 .604 98.17 .503
111.67 .662 111.71 .607 109.34 .506
121.34 .664 120.36 .609 118.37 .508
129.72 .665 131.27 .612 130.16 .510
138.97 .665 141.31 .613 139.87 .514
148.64 .665 148.63 .615 148.64 .516
&
A
211
Table E8 . Thermal Conductivity of Lactoss Suspensions
10%„Solids 30% ..Solids 60% Solids

T K T K T K
°C W/tt°C °C W/M°C °C W/M°C
-39.84 2.468 40.18 2.099 -40.12 1.358

-30.41 2.343 -31.21 1.979 -29.84 1.228
-21.05 2.227 -19.84 1.828 -21.42 1.054
-10.21 2.088 -10.44 1.609 -10.14 .631
-5.05 1.963 -5.12 1.273 -5.62 .387
-0.11 .547 -0.24 .496 -0.14 .394
10.37 .563 11.37 ,511 11,12 .411
20.89 .577 19.84 .518 20.87 .424
31.33 .596 30.12 .543 31.43 .441
39.87 .610 41.81 .562 40.78 .454
50.34 .622 51.09 .568 50.21 .463
61.12 .631 53.34 .531 59.87 .474
71.49 .639 71.12 .587 70.12 .484
80.18 .647 81.48 .597 81.87 .491
89.64 .653 92.02 .599 91.12 .497
100.12 .658 100.18 .604 99.02 .503
111.31 .660 111.34 .607 110.12 .505
120.21 .661 121.12 .609 121.43 .508
129.14 .661 130.19 .609 130.59 .510
139.78 .662 139.81 .610 140.12 .511
149.14 .662 149.17 .611 149.19 .513
212
Table 39. Thermal Conductivity of Sugar Suspensions

T K T K T K
-38.47 2.435 -39.76 2.035 -39.84 1.212

-29.84 2.314 -30.16 1.887 -29.44 1.026
-19.17 2.174 -21.47 1.713 -18.64 .734
-10.84 2.016 -11.06 1.347 -11.47 .378
-5.79 1.810 -4.74 .709 -5.69 .387
-0.44 .547 -0.98 .495 -0.14 .397
11.07 .567 11.27 .513 10.84 .411
20.84 .582 21.64 .528 21.47 .424
31.72 .597 30.74 .543 31.62 .442
40.49 .608 40.63 .556 40.84 .455
51.69 .621 49.71 .567 49.12 .464
61.74 .631 59.84 .578 59.81 .475
69.62 .638 71.62 .587 71.47 .483
79.34 .646 81.72 .594 81.64 .491
89.12 .652 91.47 .601 90.38 .497
101.34 .658 101.62 .605 100.72 .502
110.16 .661 110.48 .608 111.42 .505
121.49 .664 119.12 .610 120.64 .509
129.64 .665 131.64 .613 131.47 .511
139.72 .665 141.02 .613 141.32 .513
149.44 .664 149.84 .613 149.63 .515
?¥.
4.
213
Table BIO. Thermal Conductivity of Starch Suspensions

T K T K T K
-39.09 2.444 -39.14 2.26 -39.67 2.067

-31.14 2.346 -29.74 2.157 -31.04 1.979
-19.17 2.222 -19.81 2.061 -19.64 1.833
-10.84 2.148 -10.12 1.987 -10.74 1.822
-5.17 2.106 -5.64 1.956 -5.14 1.789
-0.19 .541 -0.98 .512 -0.99 .480
10.12 .588 10.69 .529 11.27 .498
21.04 .574 21.04 .545 21.48 .523
29.97 .588 31.64 .588 29.12 .527
40.45 .603 39.92 .572 39.67 .542
49.18 .613 50.49 .583 51.49 .548
51.42 .625 60.71 .594 61.72 .561
70.83 .628 69.84 .598 69.84 .563
79.19 .634 81.27 .603 80.12 .566
91.47 .643 91.63 .611 91.42 .573
100.18 .649 101.34 .617 101.67 .579
111.18 .649 101.34 .617 101.67 .579
111.14 .657 111.27 .621 111.27 .584
120.39 .657 119.84 .627 121.48 .589
129.48 .658 129.72 .628 129.63 .592
139.12 .658 141.86 .628 139.12 .594
148.44 .657 148.94 .628 149.47 .596
;W-
%
214
Table 311. Thermal Conductivity of Cellulose Suspensions

T K T K T K
-38.17 2.430 -37.14 2.227 -39.19 2.051

-28.43 2.313 -29.63 2.145 -29.62 1.952
-19.82 2.223 -18.17 2.041 -22.31 1.893
-10.63 2.144 -9.86 1.978 -12.17 1.822
-5.17 2.105 -4.13 1.941 -6.03 1.785
-0.11 .541 -0.09 .507 -0.12 .478
11,24 =558 12 =06 .525 10.66 .493
22.17 .574 22.17 .542 21.34 .508
30.36 .586 29.86 .553 29.17 .522
39.84 .599 38.14 .565 38.64 .535
48.17 .610 52.66 .577 52.17 .542
62. 36 .623 61.27 .588 61.33 .553
70.18 .631 69.88 .597 72.47 .563
78.16 .637 79.62 .605 81.26 .568
91.36 .643 89.17 .610 91.34 .574
101.17 .648 10ll43 .614 101.27 .582
112.06 .652 112.17 .619 111.31 .588
119.78 .654 122,16 .622 121.62 ,589
128.63 .656 129.18 .624 129.86 .591
138.17 .657 138.79 .625 138.17 .592
148,66 .657 149.11 .624 147.19 .593
215
Table 312. Thermal Conductivity of Pectin Suspensions

T K T K T K
-38.17 2.428 -38.66 2.242 -39.19 2.045

-29.64 2.323 -29.16 2.136 -31.16 1.967
-21.36 2.237 -21.34 2.067 -21.34 1.884
-11.64 2.153 -12.17 1.989 -10.66 1.803
-5.17 2.103 -5.66 1.947 -4.98 1.769
-0.16 .541 -0.17 .511 -0.22 .476
11=24 .557 11.66 .528 10 =64 =494
21.67 .574 21.47 .543 21.17 .506
29.18 .586 29.63 .557 31.64 .521
38.61 .599 39.44 .566 42.47 .533
51.17 .611 51.27 .579 49.63 .546
62.33 .623 62.34 .588 61.49 .557
70.17 .632 70.66 .599 70,62 ,566
81.43 .637 82.17 =607 81.38 .574
88.69 .644 89.43 .611 89.92 .579
101.64 .649 100.17 .617 101.44 .588
112.17 .653 112.14 .622 111.69 .592
119.63 .656 121,27 =625 121.71 .593
129.14 .657 129.63 .626 128.44 .594
138.66 .658 138.14 .627 138.17 .594
148.17 .657 148.62 .628 147.62 .594
216
Table B13. Thermal Conductivity of Hilk Salt Suspensions

T K T K T K
-40.04 2".494 -39.84 2.153 -39.26 1.379

-29.92 2.350 -30.48 1.990 -29.71 1.148
-21.04 2.221 -19.27 1.769 -19.84 .679
-10.02 2.026 -10.44 1.347 -10.28 .463
-5.14 1.793 -5.02 .575 -5.11 .472
-0.12 .561 -0.21 .534 -0.31 .481
10.12 .575 10.19 .549 11.04 .494
21.04 .588 20.68 .564 21.12 .507
30.98 .607 31.42 .585 30.49 .522
39.72 .621 39.68 .594 40.54 .536
50.64 .635 49.72 .607 51.42 .549
50.78 .642 61.78 .614 60.18 .558
71.12 .651 71.62 .626 71.42 ,570
80.48 .659 80.12 .634 79.68 .576
91.69 .665 09.19 .640 89.46 .583
99.78 .672 101.48 .641 101.12 .590
110.12 .674 110.12 .649 111.49 .595
121.48 .675 121.48 .651 120.68 .599
130.54 .675 130.14 .654 130.47 .603
139.12 .676 141.42 .653 141.12 .604
149.68 .676 149.51 .654 149.81 .605
217
Table a i 4 . Thermal Diffusivity of Albumin Protein Suspensions

T c( T c( T c(
°C 10"5 m 2/ s °C 10-6 m 2/ s °C 10"6 m 2/ s
-39.92 1.4586 -38.41 1.1987 -39.46 .7814

-31.84 1.3621 -29.88 1.1172 -28.91 .7178
-21.61 1.2562 -21.89 1.0505 -20.12 .6739
-12.52 1.1778 -11.29 .9754 -11.42 .6361
-5.79 1.1287 -5.14 .9381 -6.21 .6152
-1.48 .1257 -1.89 .1151 -1.49 .0974
9.31 .1325 9.84 .1213 11.27 .1031
18.27 .1374 19.59 .1268 22.19 .1076
28.87 .1428 30.92 .1313 32.91 .1123
37.14 .1469 41.94 .1358 39.41 .1168
48.82 .1516 52.88 .1402 47.88 .1205
61.49 .1554 59.37 .1437 58.29 .1247
73 =36 =1587 69 =33 =1466 69.01 .1264
80.29 .1605 82.16 .1486 80.94 .1281
88.78 .1626 93.37 .1503 88.81 .1297
I 101.14
110.91
121.27
.1645
.1658
.1668
102.01
112.74
121.29
.1527
.1544
.1551
99.37
110.01
122.29
.1317
.1338
. .1364
129.29 .1671 130.86 .1558 131.89 .1377
137.84 .1672 141.27 .1566 138.89 .1376
146.86 .1671 147.61 .1564 148.44 .1378
218
Table B15. Therrral Diffusivity of Casein Suspensions
°c i o A 2/s °C 10“^ M 2/S °C 1 0 ~ ^ M 2/S
-39.51 1.4698 -39.66 1.2568 -39.49 .8499

-28.86 1.3446 -31.02 1.1693 -28.84 .7806
-19.47 1.2506 -20.85 1.0816 -18.82 .7251
-9.79 1.1706 -10.62 1.0087 -10.52 .6886
-5.58 1.1409 -4.78 .9731 -4.79 .6681
-0.02 .1276 -0.14 .1185 0.04 .1035
9.42 .1335 9.84 .1249 10.27 .1077
19.07 .1391 19.06 .1306 20.92 .1123
28.54 .1441 29.01 .1349 30.42 .1175
38.79 .1486 39.89 .1385 39.97 .1224
49.72 .1526 49.92 .1426 50.37 .1236
60,14 ,1563 60.34 .1461 58.74 •128 /
70.32 .1594 69.01 .1499 69.92 .1317
79.04 .1617 79.01 .1511 79.75 .1327
88.76 .1638 89.72 .1539 90.27 .1358
100.49 .1657 99.89 .1563 100.38 .1372
110.18 .1671 110.36 .1569 109.92 .1398
119.69 .1677 120.72 .1576 119.31 .1416
130,37 .1681 129.84 .1587 130.74 .1428
139.32 .1682 139.42 .1598 139.41 .1424
149.04 .1676 148.89 .1594 149.04 .1425
219
Table B16. Thermal Diffusivity of Whey Protein Suspensions

T c( T A T c(
°C 10-6 m 2/ s °C 10-6 m 2/ s °C 10-6 m 2/ s
-39.57 1.4588 -39.62 1.2234 -39.51 .7983

-30.74 1.3537 -30.69 1.1351 -29.64 .7369
-19.69 1.2418 -19.02 1.0385 -20.71 .6879
9.89 1.1602 -10.57 .9767 -10.68 .6385
-5.14 1.1253 -4.81 .9371 -4.98 .6043
-0.04 .1271 .14 .1169 0.02 .0997
9.36 .1330 10.38 .1225 9.69 .1049
19.89 .1384 20.92 .1278 19.88 .1096
29.67 .1431 30.41 .1325 30.68 .1138
40.69 .1479 38.92 .1367 40.34 .1181
49.38 .1517 48.99 .1408 49.02 .1222
59.72 .1555 60.38 .1443 59.89 .1256
70.36 .1583 68.92 .1472 69.92 .1278
78.92 .1607 80.47 .1491 79.02 .1294
88.42 .1631 90.24 .1515 89.41 .1316
99.69 .1648 100.12 .1536 99.68 .1338
109.41 .1661 109.41 .1553 110.82 .1358
120.74 .1672 120.72 .1566 118.42 .1377
130.47 .1675 128.91 .1572 129.82 .1393
138.76 .1674 140.27 .1571 139.49 .1394
148.38 .1671 148.88 .1572 148.92 .1395
220
Table B17. Thermal Diffusivity of Meat Protein Suspensions

T c( T c( T o(
°C 10"6 m 2/ s °c 10~6 m 2/s °C 10-6 m 2/ s
-39.48 1.4575 -40.54 1.3572 -38.53 1.2117

-28.99 1.3348 -32.96 1.2728 -28.51 1.1157
-20.19 1.2473 -18.71 1.1394 -19.98 1.0457
-12.31 1.1804 -11.72 1.0857 -11.82 .9891
-5.98 1.339 -6.32 1.0498 -5.99 .9541
-0.32 .1263 -0.49 .1218 -0.51 .1149
10.14 .1325 10.98 .1277 10.98 .1209
20.96 .1379 21.76 .1331 21.74 .1261
30.14 .1428 30.94 .1371 31.82 .1317
38.61 .1477 39.57 .1415 41.84 .1364
49.37 .1514 48.49 .1452 50.37 .1395
61.17 .1551 61.36 .1491 58.38 .1431
70.39 .1583 70.54 ,1529 71,14 ,1469
78.52 .1607 78.36 .1543 81.87 .1489
88.89 .1627 89.62 .1573 91.15 .1501
100.36 .1646 101.14 .1583 100.98 .1527
110.89 .1658 111.86 .1607 111.14 .1549
121.71 .1669 121=19 .1611 121.32 .1554
129.33 .1672 129.37 .1621 131.16 .1556
137.86 .1672 139.41 .1621 139.33 .1557
148.64 .1666 147.86 .1619 147.81 .1558
221
Table B18. Thermal Diffusivity of Gluten Suspensions
10% Solids 20% Solids 30% ■Solids

T
°c
A 2
10~5 m 2/s °Tc
A2
10"b M /S °rc
A 2
10"6 m 2/s
-38.51 1.4418 -39.49 1.3371 -39.81 1.2175

-28.47 1.3262 -30.92 1.2446 -28.76 1.1115
-21.76 1.2593 -20.14 1.447 -19.92 1.0393
-10.21 1.615 -10.87 1.0741 -11.76 .9826
-5.49 1.279 -6.51 1.0448 -5.54 .9451
-0.37 .1266 -0.42 .1216 -0.36 .1177
11.12 .1328 11.54 .1285 10.32 .1225
21.84 .1382 21.16 .1338 21.14 .1276
28.33 .1431 30.31 .1384 27.86 .1325
38.82 .1477 37.69 .1422 39.39 .1364
51.17 .1516 48.28 .1461 50.14 .1407
59.89 .1556 57.81 .1495 61.86 .1448
71.16 .1586 72.32 .1525 72.38 .1477
88.63 .163 89.91 .1572 87.83 .1527
101.14 .1647 101.73 .1596 101.14 .1543
111.16 .1662 111.86 .1609 111.37 .1554
121.32 .1669 121.19 .1617 118.19 .1553
129.44 .1671 128.37 .1618 127,86 .1554
139.32 .1670 137.89 .1615 139.14 .1554
147.88 .1664 148.13 .1613 149.31 .1549
A
,'T
Milk Fat Vegetable Oil Lard Corn Oil
e«o0
-Hou
ôU
-39.04 -39.98
-30.02 -29.42
-19.73 -19.41
-11.17 -11.17
-1.53 -1.54
-1.53 -1.54
20.96 20.56
30.73 31.43
39.47 41.27
49.31 51.78
61.02 58.81
69.83 71.14
222
81.17 81.39
89.31 89.86
100.01 100.04
110.14 110.96
121.36 121.38
131.46 131.42
140.23 140.73
3 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
43 iiiiliiiSSliiliiiiil
3 lalSIIIIIilllgltlSII
3 SIII11IIII1I11I88III
148.32 149.51
223
Table B20. Thermal Diffusivity of Dextrose Suspensions

T <c( 2
°C 10- 6 M 2/S C 10“^ M 2/S C 10“6^ M 2/S
-38.84 1.4455 -38.63 1.1884 -38.49 .6802

-28.69 1.3176 -28.98 1.0617 -28.87 .5423
-18.97 1.2032 -19.67 .9212 -19.82 .3414
-8.84 1.0678 -8.69 .6655 -10.32 .1036
-4.87 .9328 -5.37 .2597 -4.63 .1058
-0.02 .1286 -0.92 .1218 -0.78 .1085
10.02 .1346 10.29 .1283 10.29 .1147
19.38 .1403 20.86 .1336 21.88 .1199
30.96 .1455 30.27 .1387 31.29 .1256
39.14 .1496 41.36 .1425 41.98 .1299
50.36 .1538 49.29 .1468 49.58 .1325
59.41 • lo72 58.41 .1503 58.71 .1357
68.03 .1603 69.02 .1536 70.98 .1395
78.98 .1629 81.27 .1553 82.01 .1414
88.36 .1651 91.01 .1572 88.63 .1433
99.81 .1668 101.96 .1594 - 97.89 .1446
111.32 .1678 111.39 .1604 109.02 .1457
121,04 ,1686 120.04 .1608 118.08 .1464
129.37 .1688 130.99 .1614 129.89 .1458
138.64 .1688 141.01 .1613 139.63 .1461
148.29 .1684 148.37 .1610 148.29 .1458
224
Table ts2i. Thermal Diffusivity of Lactose Suspensions

T
°C 10“ ^ M 2/S C 1Q“^ M 2/S oTC
A 2
10-b M V S
-39.58 1.4709 -39.84 1.2388 -39.98 .7783

-30.11 1.3470 -30.98 1.1215 -29.61 .6742
-20.78 1.2336 -19.57 1.0041 -21.12 .5442
-9.88 1.1247 -10.16 .8398 -9.86 .2625
-4.79 1.0342 -4.84 .6185 -5.34 .1048
0.17 .1306 -0.02 .1225 0.15 .1076
9.52 .1342 10.59 .1265 10.38 .1125
20.03 .1399 19.08 .1321 20.12 .1176
30.59 .1448 29.37 .1374 30.69 .1227
39.06 .1493 41.02 .1414 39.92 .1264
49.57 .1536 50.27 .1458 49.47 .1308
60.34 .1571 53.13 .1491 59.02 .1334
70.67 .1602 70.38 .1523 69.34 ,1371
79.31 .1625 80.69 .1541 81.09 .1383
88.92 .1646 91.21 .1564 90.41 .1403
99.36 . .1665 99.38 .1577 98.27 .1418
110.54 .1675 110.54 .1587 109.42 .1425
119.48 .1682 120.38 =1598 120.64 .1432
128.37 .1685 129.41 .1602 129.79 .1435
138.99 .1684 139.04 .1599 139.41 .1436
148.38 .1677 148.46 .1597 148.38 .1435
225
Table B22. Thermal Diffusivity of Sugar Suspensions
£ 10“^ M 2/S 10
& 7
MVS 10
ff* 7
MVS
-38.12 1.4368 -39.39 1.1961 -39.61 .6869

-29.58 1.3271 -29.87 1.0684 -29.14 .5443
-18.86 1.2022 -21.14 .9316 -18.39 .3376
-10.61 1.0795 -10.72 .6734 -11.24 .1023
-5.52 .9359 -4.38 .2586 -5.38 .1066
-0.21 .1285 -0.62 .1219 -0.01 .1083
10.83 .1347 10.98 .1285 10.61 .1143
20.57 .1401 21.32 .1336 21.14 .1197
31.49 .1456 30.47 .1381 31.32 .1256
40.14 .1497 40.38 .1431 40.53 .1289
51.36 .1538 49.38 .1461 48.84 .1321
61. .3'y .1573 53.51 .1436 53.53 •1363
69.28 .1604 71.39 .1536 71.13 .1394
79.12 .1631 81.42 .1557 81.37 .1405
88.84 .1652 91.14 .1571 90.09 .1423
101.17 .1667 101.38 .1593 100.38 .1446
109.89 .1681 110.14 .1604 111.17 .1448
121.18 .1681 118.86 .1605 120.36 .1459
129.37 .1688 131.27 .1613 131.14 .1456
139.51 .1668 140.76 .1609 141.01 .1468
149.17 .1683 149.63 .1603 149.36 .1464
226
Table B23. Thermal Diffusivity of Starch Suspensions

T c( T « T c(
°C 10"6 m 2/ s °C 10 m 2/ s °C 10~6 m 2/ s
-38.71 .14486 -38.82 .13369 -39.39 1.2219

-30.79 1.3554 -29.47 1.2382 -30.76 1.1379
-18.86 1.2356 -19.63 1.1479 19.29 1.0425
-10.62 1.1679 -9.72 1.0725 -10.37 .9828
-4.89 1.1276 -5.36 1.0446 -4.86 .9509
-0.01 .1272 -0.69 .1224 -0.63 .1165
9.84 .1332 10.36 .1281 10.93 .1236
20.76 .1385 20.72 .1333 21.14 .1291
29.63 .1436 31.39 .1392 28.82 .1332
40.13 .1483 39.71 .1428 39.41 .1389
48.86 .1523 50.18 .1476 51.19 .1416
51.17 .1557 60.35 .1504 61.37 .1452
70.59 .1588 69.48 .1533 69 =52 =1484
78.82 .1612 80.96 .1563 79.89 .1501
91.14 .1633 91.32 .1584 91.17 .1529
99.86 .1651 101.09 .1592 101.36 .1533
I 110.89
120.02
.1663
.1668
110.94
119.49
.1603
.1617
110.94
121.16
.1551
.1553
129.14 .1671 129.37 .1615 129.37 .1566
138.89 .1672 141.44 .1622 138.84 .1558
148.16 .1666 148.59 .1618 149.13 .1557
227
I
Taoie a24. Thermal Diffusivity of Cellulose Suspensions

T c( T T c(
6* 2
°C 10"6 m 2/ s °C 10_D M V S °C 10"6 m 2/ s
-37.89 1.4363 -36.84 1.3104 -38.89 1.2128

-28.12 .3242 -29.37 1.2333 -29.37 1.1209
-19.54 1.2401 -17.86 1.1291 -22.04 1.0599
-10.37 1.1642 -9.54 1.0685 -11.89 .9867
-4.86 1.1256 -3.86 1.0332 -5.84 .9507
0.18 .1270 0.23 .1225 0.16 .1164
10.96 .1329 11.79 .1280 10.27 .1235
21.83 .1384 21.87 .1331 21.10 .1287
30.06 .1436 29.56 .1389 28.88 .1328
39.52 .1479 37.81 .1433 38.32 .1374
47.89 .1521 52.33 .1473 51.86 .1412
62.01 .1558 60.96 .1509 61.02 .1447
69.83 ,1587 69.54 .1538 72.14 .1483
77.81 .1611 79.31 .1551 80.89 .1506
91.04 .1631 88.83 .1572 91.01 .1525
100.83 .1648 101.16 .1597 100.98 .1537
111.79 .1661 111.83 .1607 111.01 .1538
119.49 .1668 121.81 .1615 121.36 ,1547
128.32 .1669 128.85 .1611 129.53 .1558
137.83 .1670 138.49 .1614 137.87 .1559
148.31 .1664 148.81 .1609 146.89 .1559
Table B25 . Thermal Diffusivity of Pectin Suspensions

T c( T d, T c(
- °C 10"6 m 2/ s °C 10"6 m 2/ s °C 10-6 m 2/ s
-37.8 9 1.4347 -38 . 3 7 1.3253 -38.91 1.2097

-29.31 1.3360 -28.81 1.2244 -30.89 1.1323
-21.0 8 1.2532 -21.01 1 . 1542 -21.11 1.0485
-11.3 7 1.1704 -11 . 8 3 1 . 0825 -10.37 .9737
-4.8 6 1.1245 -5 . 3 7 1.0385 -4.69 .9415
0.17 .1270 0.19 .1217 0.09 .1178
10.9 6 .1329 11.39 .1289 10.38 .1225
21.38 .1385 21.14 .1334 20.83 .1288
28.83 .1434 29.36 .1391 3 1 .41 .1329
38.29 .1479 39.14 .1435 4 2 .14 .1371
50.36 .1522 50.98 .1474 49.36 .1419
62.0 1 .1556 62.04 .1502 61.18 .1458
69.83 .1587 70.37 .1536 70.37 .1471
81.14 .1613 31.84 .1561 81.04 .1506
8 8.36 .1632 89.16 .1574 8 9 .63 .1527
101. 3 1 .1648 99.89 .1597 1 0 1.18 .-1533
■i 111.8 9 .1661 111.83 .1601 1 1 1.37 .1548
119.3 4 .1666 120.98 .1607 121.41 .1557
1 28.8 1 .1671 129.37 .1619 128.16 .1552
1 38.3 7 .1671 137.86 .1619 137.85 .1561
147.84 .1664 148.29 .1615 1 4 7.33 .1558
229
Table B26. Thermal Diffusivity of Milk Salt Suspensions

T cX T c( T o(
°C 10"6 M 2/S °C 10"6 M 2/S °C 10-6 M 2/;
-39.78 1.4798 -39.59 1.2609 -39.02 .7645

-29.76 1.3482 -30.19 1.1225 -29.49 .5921
-20.78 1.2337 -19.04 .9496 -19.67 .3291
-9.78 1.0787 -10.12 .6594 -10.01 .1237
-4.86 .9196 -4.79 .1596 -4.89 .1257
0.11 .1313 -0.01 .1307 -0.11 .1284
9.41 .1371 9.34 .1362 10.27 .1346
20.25 .1427 19.89 .1411 20.36 .1388
30.12 .1477 30.68 .1462 29.71 .1425
39.01 .1519 38.89 .1504 39.79 .1472
49.85 .1563 48.92 .1545 50.68 .1503
59.92 .1598 60.92 .1579 59.39 .1535
70.38 .1627 70.84 .1607 70.68 .1566
79.64 .1655 79.36 .1634 78.83 .1589
90.81 .1676 89.38 .1655 88.72 .1606
98.99 .1692 100.62 .1672 100.36 .1623
109.41 .1703 109.41 .1681 110.71 .1638
120.69 .1713 120.68 .1689 119.89 .1642
129.78 .1716 123.36 .1694 129.67 .1648
138.42 .1713 140.67 .1692 140.41 .1649
148.89 .1708 148.76 .1685 149.02 .1649
230
Table B27. Thermal Conductivity and Thermal Diffusivity of

Evaporated Milk
T K T c(
°C W/M°C °C 10"6 m 2/ s
-3 8 .9 4 1.965 -3 9 .1 9 1.2023
-2 9 .8 3 1.917 -3 0 .1 2 1.0923
-2 1 .1 6 1.817 -2 1 .3 2 .9876
-1 1 .4 2 1.626 -1 1 .6 9 .8563
-5 .2 6 1.412 -5 .5 1 .6878
0.11 .462 -0 .2 9 .1165
11.27 .474 11.02 .1198
20.48 .502 20.21 .1256
28.94 .522 28.72 .1323
39.17 .534 38.96 .1402
48.66 .536 48.39 .1411
61.42 .539 61.14 .1426
70.68 .542 70.36 .1456
79.19 =558 78.91 .1474
91.48 .563 9 1 .2 i .1498
101.22 .564 101.02 .1521
112.17 .562 111.98 .1527
121.33 .569 121.16 .1525
129.48 .574 129.21 .1527
138.62 .575 138.38 .1528
147.16 .575 146.96 .1531
231

Concentrated Orange Juice
T K T c(
°C W/M°C °C io-6 m 2/ s
-37.72 1.804 -37.92 1.0589

-31.14 1.729 -31.36 .9536
-21.62 1.634 -21.89 .8674
-12.17 1.366 -12.34 .6937
-5.96 .939 -6.09 .4261
0.12 .451 -0.09 .1145
11.42 .476 11.21 .1201
18.67 .484 18.42 .1254
27.86 .493 27.61 .1302
40.17 .523 39.96 .1378
52.63 .537 52.61 .1398
61.32 .547 61.12 .1432
71.69 .551 71.46 .1488
78.86 ,561 78.62 .1501
88.14 .564 87.96 .1517
101.42 .568 101.21 .1528
111.19 .573 111.01 .1537
120.86 .572 120.62 .1543
128.14 .575 127.96 .1546
139.66 .579 139.49 .1548
148.29 .582 148.02 .1553
■T
232
■'4.;
Bratwurst Sausage
T K T c(
°C W/M°C °C 10"6 M 2/S
-38.69 1.574 -38.91 .9103

-27.16 1.456 -27.42 .8127
-20.61 1.365 -20.86 .7562
-11.42 1.176 -11.64 .5867
-6.14 .859 -6.39 .4617
0.17 .386 -0.07 .1109
10.84 .399 10.61 .1135
21.27 .406 21.04 .1167
29.64 .416 29.47 .1223
38.84 .433 38.61 .1265
51.12 .439 50.89 .1287
60.72 .441 60.54 .1292
68.81 .446 68.59 .1279
79.74 .448 79,51 =1313
91.48 .452 91.19 .1327
102.11 .455 101.88 .1335
111.42 .462 111.24 .1339
119.84 .464 119.61 .1344
128,17 .466 127.98 .1347
141.62 .467 141.41 .1348
148.49 .468 148.27 .1351
233
Table B30. Density of Albumin Protein Suspensions
Temperature (°C) Density (Kg/m3)
10 1019.3 1067.3 1146.5

20 1017.6 1065.9 1144.1
30 1015.5 1061.3 1142.4
40 1012.7 1057.4 1137.4
50 1009.5 1053.3 1131.3
60 1005.6 1051.3 1126.3
70 - 1000.4 1046.3 1121.4
80 994.7 1038.3 1116.9
90 988 =3 1034.3 1108.3
100 981.4 1024.4 1102.7
Table B31. Density of Casein Suspensions

IS*
10 1032.2 1110.6 1254.3

20 1030.8 1109.4 1251.9
30 1028.8 1106.7 1248.4
40 1026.2 1103.7 1245.8
50 1027.8 1100.3 1240.3
60 1018.3 1095.4 1236.3
70 1013.2 1090.1 1229.5
80 1007.6 1084.3 1224.1
90 1001.3 1078.4 1218.7
100 994.5 1071.4 1212.4
234
Table B32- Density of Whey Protein Suspensions
10 1022.7 1078.4 1175.3

20 1021.6 1077.6 1173.2
30 1019.5 1074.3 1169.4
40 1016.4 1071.3 1165.4
50 1013.3 106/.I 1160.3
60 1008.7 1063.3 1156.3
70 1003.7 1057.4 1150.6
80 998.4 1051.5 1144.3
90 991.6 1045.1 1137.8
100 984.8 1038.6 1130.3
Table B33. Density of Meat Protein Suspensions
X Temperature (°C) Density (Kg/m )
10 1021.5 1051.3 1078.3

20 1019.4 1050.4 1077.3
30 1018.3 1047.5 1074.3
40 1017.2 1044.9 1071.3
50 1014.3 1041.9 1067.5
60 1010.3 1037.8 1062.4
70 1005.3 1033.1 1057.3
80 998.5 1026.4 1051.3
90 991.3 1019.4 1044.6
100 984.2 1013.4 1038.4
235
Table B34. Density of Gluten Suspensions
10 1019.1 1043.2 1073.3

20 1017.8 1041.4 1071.4
30 1016.1 1039.4 1068.9
40 1014.1 1036.6 1065.4
50 1008.4 1032.4 1061.3
60 1004.5 1028.7 1057.7
70 1001.3 1024.5 1053.4
80 994.3 1018.4 1048.5
90 989.3 1012.4 1043.3
100 981.4 1005.7 1035.4
Table B35. Density of Fats
Milkfat Vegetable Oil Lard Corn Oil
10 914.6 923.3 918.7 923.1

20 91.04 919.8 914.3 919.8
30 908.2 915.7 910.6 915.9
40 902.7 911.6 908.3 911.4
50 898.9 907.8 904.7 907.6
60 894.7 903.9 901.1 903.8
70 890.3 898.7 894.3 898.9
80 886.2 895.4 890.1 895.1
90 882.1 891.6 885.9 891.4
100 878.3 887.3 882.1 887.1
236
Table B36. Density of Dextrose Suspensions
10 1039.2 1135.3 1319.3

20 1037.9 1133.8 1316.3
30 1036.2 1131.7 1313.3
40 1033.4 1128.1 1311.4
50 1029.6 1124.2 1308.1
60 1025.7 1120.7 1304.2
70 1020.8 1116.4 1298.2
80 ■ 1015.4 1110.8 1293.5
90 1008.9 1104.3 1286.4
100 1001.8 1097.2 1281.5
Table B37. Density of Lactose Suspensions

•fp
Temperature (°C) Density (Kg/m )
10 1047.9 1142.6 1322.2

20 1042.7 1138.1 1318.3
30 1037.8 1132.9 1312.3
40 1032.8 1128.1 1308.9
50 1028.2 1123.8 1304.4
60 1022.7 1118.2 1299.8
70 1017.7 1113.4 1294.4
80 1013.0 1108.1 1289.9
90 1007.9 1103.6 1285.5
100 1003.0 1098.7 1281.2
237
■Jk-
Table B38, Density of Sugar Suspensions
10 1039.2 1135.3 1319.3

20 1037.9 1133.8 1316.3
30 1036.0 1131.7 1314.3
40 1033.1 1129.2 1311.6
50 1029.7 1125.3 1307.1
60 1025.6 1121.1 1303.1
70 1020.7 1116.4 1298.5
80 1015.3 1110.7 1293.5
90 1008.7 1104.3 1287.2
100 1001.7 1097.4 1281.3
Table B39. Density of Starch Suspensions

1sf
10 1023.2 1052.3 1081.2

20 1022.1 1049.5 1079.1
30 1020.4 1047.5 1077.1
40 1017.8 1045.3 1075.1
50 1014.5 1041.8 1070.3
60 1010.3 1037.2 1068.2
70 1005.3 1033.5 1062.9
80 999.8 1027.3 1057.8
90 993.6 1021.9 1052.8
100 986.7 1016.2 1046.3
238
Table B40. Density of Cellulose Suspensions
10 1021.4 1047.9 1074.2

20 1020.2 1045.8 1073.1
30 1018.3 1044.1 1070.3
40 1015.8 1041.8 1067.8
50 1012.2 1038.9 1063.9
60 1008.2 1034.8 1059.9
70 1003.8 1029.2 1056.3
80 998.3 1023.3 1050.2
90 991.7 1018.9 1044.2
100 984.7 1010.3 1037.3
Table B41. Density of Pectin Suspensions

if
■1
10 1020.6 1045.1 1071.3

20 1019.2 1043.3 1069.5
30 1017.3 1041.8 1067.3
40 1014.6 1039.1 1066.3
50 1011.5 1036.4 1061.9
60 1007.3 1033.3 1057.3
70 1002.5 1027.3 1054.3
80 997.4 1022.1 1047.5
90 990.7 1016.8 1042.9
100 984.2 1008.6 1035.2
,’T.
"k
239
'4
Table B42- Density of Milk Salt Suspensions
Tanperature (°C) Density (Kg/m3)
10 1067.9 1219.1 1548.2

20 1062.8 1214.0 1543.1
30 1057.8 1208.7 1538.5
40 1052.6 1203.5 1533.2
50 1047.6 1198.1 1528.1
60 1042.6 1192.6 1522.6
70 1037.4 1187.4 1516.1
80 1032.3 1182.2 1510.9
90 1027.3 1177.0 1504.8
100 1022.2 1171.4 1498.2
Table B43. Density of Food Product Samples
Evaporated Concentrated Bratwurst

Milk Orange Juice Sausage
10 1068.1 1203.1 1028.3

20 1667.2 1201.4 1027.3
30 1065.1 1198.3 1024.2
40 1063.3 1196.3 1021.2
50 1062.4 1191.6 1019.3
60 1056.2 1184.4 1012.4
70 1054.5 1181.3 1003.2
80 1044.3 1177.2 1001.8
90 1036.4 1173.9 995.3
100 1032.8 1169.4 993.2
240
Table B44. Specific Heat of Albumin Protein Suspensions
Temperature (°C) Specific Heat (KJ/Kg°C)
10 3.959 3.535 2.877

20 3.963 3.539 2.891
30 3.967 3.544 2.907
40 3.972 3.547 2.907
50 3.977 3.558 2.917
60 3.983 3.567 2.931
70 3.985 3.376 2.945
80 3.996 3.587 2.959
90 4.004 3.593 2.976
100 4.014 3.601 2.985
110 4.025 3.611 3.004
120 4.041 3.623 3.019
130 4.053 3.643 3.031
140 4.067 3.659 3.044
150 4 =082 3=674 3=054
1
Table B45. Specific Heat of Casein Suspensions
10 3.941 3.471 2.783

20 3.942 3.476 2.789
30 3.946 3.484 2.792
40 3.953 3.497 2.808
50 3.959 3.504 2.817
60 3.965 3.511 2.829
70 3.971 3.519 2.839
80 3.977 3.529 2.854
90 3.986 3.537 2.863
100 3.998 3.542 2.866
110 4.007 3.552 2.878
120 4.019 3.574 2.893
130 4 =033 3 =584 2=901
140 4.046 3.587 2.918
150 4.056 3.598 2.926
241
Table B46. Specific Heat of Whey Protein Suspensions
10 3.955 3.516 2.872

20 3.961 3.518 2.875
30 3.974 3.551 2.931
40 3.978 3.563 2.942
50 3.982 3.574 2.949
60 3.985 3.579 2.955
70 3.991 3.586 2.962
80 3.998 3.593 2.968
90 4.006 3.599 2.974
100 4.017 3.606 2.984
110 4.026 3.622 3.006
120 4.038 3.632 3.016
130 4.052 3.641 3.019
140 4.063 3.644 3.035
150 4=079 3.656 3.044
Table B47. Specific Heat of Meat Protein Suspensions
10 3.961 3.741 3.543

20 3.963 3.747 3.549
30 3.970 3.752 3.551
40 3.974 3.757 3.556
50 3.979 3.762 3.567
60 3.981 3.771 3.573
70 3.991 3.784 3.576
80 3.998 3.798 3.581
90 4.006 3.809 3.594
100 4.016 3.818 3.603
110 4.031 3.828 3.615
120 4.039 3.837 3.628
130 4.055 3.849 3.644
140 4.069 3.858 3.666
150 4.084 3.871 3.679
242
Table B48. Specific Heat of Gluten Suspensions
10 3.960 3.756 3.527

20 3.962 3.759 3.531
30 3.966 3.763 3.538
40 3.973 3.764 3.546
50 3.978 3.767 3.551
60 3.984 3.769 3.562
70 3.987 3.776 3.567
80 3.995 3.785 3.576
90 4.004 3.793 3.587
100 4.018 3.807 3.598
110 4.029 3.816 3.609
120 4.037 3.826 3.621
130 4.049 3.831 3.635
140 4.066 3.863 3.646
150 4.079 3.878 3.657
I
Table B49. Specific Heat of Fats
Milkfat Vegetable Oil Lard Corn Oil
10 1.979 2.047 1.971 2.044

20 1.988 2.049 1.975 2.047
30 1.993 2.051 1.979 2.049
40 2.057 2.053 1.982 2.052
50 2.066 2.056 1.993 2.053
60 2.078 2.058 2.008 2.057
70 2.086 2.060 2.068 2.059
80 2.097 2.062 2.077 2.063
90 2.103 2.065 2.079 2.066
100 2.111 2.068 2.083 2.069
110 2.119 2.071 2.085 2.072
120 2.123 2.074 2.088 2.074
130 2.128 2.077 2.091 2.077
140 2.131 2.080 2.093 2.079
150 2.133 2.083 2.096 2.082
Table B50. .Specific heat of Dextrose Suspensions
Temperature (°C) ________ Specific Heat (KJ/Kg°C)
10 . 3.907 3.371 2.575

20 3.912 3.377 2.587
30 3.916 3.392 2.596
40 3.919 3.395 2.609
50 3.923 3.403 2.613
60 3.928 3.408 2.618
70 3.938 3.414 2.639
80 3.945 3.421 2.644
90 3,953 3.439 2.656
100 3.964 3.449 2.674
110 3.972 3.462 2.683
120 3.986 3.462 2.691
130 3.998 3.474 2.703
140 4.011 3.484 2.711
150 4.023 3.436 2.721
I
Table B51. Specific Heat of Lactose Suspensions
10 3.904 3.356 2.518

20 3.905 3,364 2=536
30 3.911 3.369 2.553
40 3.915 3.375 2.567
50 3.918 3.384 2.582
60 3.925 3.393 2.596
70 3.932 3.398 2.608
80 3.943 3.408 2.624
90 3.951 3.418 2.636
100 3.962 3.431 2.642
110 3.972 3.445 2.658
120 3.981 3.454 2.668
130 3.998 3.468 2.685
140 4.011 3,491 2=694
150 4.026 3.505 2.704
244
Table B52. Specific Heat of Sugar Suspensions
10 3.904 3.357 2.557

20 3.908 3.363 2.561
30 3.911 3.371 2.573
40 3.915 3.383 2.577
50 3.921 3.389 2.586
60 3.926 3.396 2.595
70 3.935 3.406 2.613
80 3.942 3.417 2.625
90 3.951 3.425 2.636
100 3.957 3.436 2.648
110 3.972 3.447 2.659
120 3.981 3.451 2.674
130 3.996 3.465 2.685
140 4.008 3.476 2.694
150 4.023 3.487 2.703
Table B53. Specific Heat of Starch Suspensions
10 3.939 3.704 3.478

20 3.942 3.705 3.483
30 3.948 3.716 3.487
40 3.952 3.724 3.494
50 3.957 3.729 3.497
60 3.963 3.734 3.504
70 3.965 3.738 3.506
80 2.972 3.741 3.511
90 3.983 3.748 3.522
100 3.993 3.754 3.534
110 4.001 3.766 3.546
120 4.015 3.778 3.554
130 4.023 3.792 3.567
140 4.040 3.797 3.576
150 4.049 3.812 3.585
245
■<!£>.
Table B54. Specific Heat of Cellulose Suspensions
10 3.944 3.721 3.484

20 3.947 3.726 3.485
30 3.954 3.728 3.493
40 3.957 3.733 3.498
50 3.961 3.737 3.505
60 3.963 3.743 3.517
70 3.969 3.745 3.526
80 3.982 3.749 3.536
90 3.986 3.759 3.539
100 3.996 3.768 3.543
110 4.006 3.779 3.564
120 4.108 3.788 3.574
130 4.034 3.804 3.586
140 4.043 3.824 3.589
150 4 =061 3=837 3.598
Table B55. Specific Heat of Pectin Suspensions
10 3.942 3.707 3.484

20 3.947 3.711 3.493
30 3.949 3.719 3.495
40 3.953 3.733 3.497
50 3.957 3.736 3.504
60 3.964 3.744 3.515
70 3.974 3.755 3.528
80 3.983 3.759 3.539
90 3.992 3.763 3.548
100 3.997 3.771 3.551
110 4.007 3.787 3.558
120 4.022 3.799 3.568
130 4.034 3 =812 3=582
140 4.043 3.808 3.595
150 4.056 3.825 3.608
246
Table B56. Specific Heat of Milk Salt Suspensions
10 3.867 3.264 2.332

20 3.871 3.266 2.346
30 3.877 3.269 2.355
40 3.879 3.275 2.361
50 3.886 3.284 2.379
60 3.892 3.287 2.393
70 3.899 3.294 2.403
80 3.903 3.304 2.414
90 3.915 3.313 2.426
100 3.926 3.329 2.436
110 3.935 3.332 2.448
120 3.945 3.347 3.464
130 3.958 3.366 2.466
140 3.974 3.378 2.472
150 3,988 3,392 3,482
I
Table B57 . Specific Heat of Food product Samples
Temperature (;°C) Specific Heat (KJ/Kg°C)
Evaporated Concentrated Bratwurst

Milk Orange Juice Sausage
10 3.431 3.051 3.121

20 3.437 3.058 3.154
30 3.456 3.071 3.166
40 3.478 3.085 3.147
50 3.482 3.096 3.152
60 3.484 3.113 3.153
70 3.486 3.117 3.154
80 3.487 3.133 3.188
90 3.492 3.154 3.192
100 3.501 3.137 3.204
110 3.512 3.141 3.212
120 3,549 3.172 3.218
130 3.578 3.146 3.227
140 3.573 3.156 3.255
150 3.598 3.169 3.274
247
Appendix C
Computer Programs
program property
c
c program to measure thermal conductivity and
c thermal diffusivity
c
integer nn(8) ,idh(8),assign,wait,set,clear
integer felk,nclk,ncnts,bin,nl,nO,idl,srate
integer nctl,i ,n 5 ,n 6 (8),madc,nadc,i9,in9,ino
real volts,sO,p,ail,o4t ,q,,r,d0,si,s2,s3,s4
real s5,slop,rs,o3,o4,rk,rk0,rkl,v0,vl
real C5,c6,c7,c8,c9,p5,p4,p3,p2,q3,d,h2,h3,bl,u5,u4
real gl,g2,g3,g4,g5,g6,g7,g8,g9,u6,u7,u8,u9
real ggl,gg2,gg3,gg4,ugl,ug2,ug3,ug4,ug5,t4,t5,dt5
real a (10),e0(8),b(5),y(30),t(30),z(30),dk{30),dr(30)
real e2(8),tt2(8),tt6(8),v3(8),d9(8),t3{3)
real b5(10),e4{8),s7,e8,e3,ee3,d5(8),dS{8)
real atl,at2,ttl(8)
double precision atime
double precision timeO
double precision timel
double precision time7
character filnam*14,cdate*10 ,ctime*8 ,pronam*14
logical fexist
c
c identify program version
c
write(6,10)
10 formatC DOUBLE CHANNEL DATA LOGGER PROGRAM'
&' VERS 10/07/83')
c
c
c get name of data file
c
20 write(6,30)
30 format(' data file name =? '$)
read(5,40) filnam
40 format(al4)
c
c if file exists, ask for another name
c
inquire(file=filnam,exist=fexist)
if(fexist.eq.( .true. )) then
write(6,50) filnam
50 format(lx,al4,' already exists, choose another name.'/)
go to 20
endif
c
243
open(unit=8,f ile=filnam)
rewind 8
c assign contol line

c
w r i t e (6,51)
51 for m a t e control line no. (0-15) =?'$)
r ead(5,52) nctl
52 format(i2)
if (assign(5c t l ',nctl).It.0) then
write(6,53) nctl
go to 1000
else
w r i t e (6,54) nctl
end if
53 form a t e control line ',i2,' assignment failed
54 f o rmate control line ’,i2,' assigned.')
c assign adc channels

c
write(6,60)
60 f o rmate multiplexer channel no. for k (0-15) :=? ’$)
read (5,70) nadc
70 format(i2)
if(assign('adc',nadc).It.0) then
write(6,100) nadc
go to 1000
else
w rite(6,101) nadc
endif
write(6,75)
75 form a t e multiplexer channel no. for diff.=? '$)
r e a d (5,76) made
76 format(i2)
if (assign('adc',madc).lt.0) then
write(6,100) made
go to 1000
else
w r i t e (6,102) made
endif
c
100 f o r m a t e mpx ' ii2,' assignment failed.')
101 f o r m a t e napx channel ',i2,' assigned for k.')
102 f o r m a t e mpx channel ',i2,' assigned for diff. ')
c
write(8,103)
103 f o r m a t e THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY AND DIFFUSIVITY PROGRAM')
c
t c assign clock
249
c
110 write(6,lll)
111 fo r m a t e clock number =(0,1,2 or 3)?'$)
r e a d (5,112) nclk
112 format(il)
if(nclk.ge.4) then
write(6,113)
113 format(' clock number must 3 or less1)
go to 110
else
continue
end if
if(assign ('elk',nclk).It.0) then
write(6,114) nclk
go to 1000
else
write(6,115) nclk
end if
114 format(' elk ',il,' assignment failed')
115 for m a t e elk '.il.' assigned.')
c
c determine clock frequency and number of counts per loop
c first get desired number of samples per second
c
116
w r i t e (6,117)
117format(' enter number of samples per second (1-100) = ?'$)
rea d (5,118) srate
118 format(i3)
if(srate.le.0) then
write(6,120)
go to 116
endif
if(srate.gt.100) then
write(6,119) srate
119 format(' You may not get ',i5,' samples per second'
&' but good luck.')
endif
120 format(’ please enter a number greater than 0')
c
c set clock frequency
c
ncnts=int(10000/srate)
fclk=l
c
c start clock running
c
if(wait(nclk,fclk,ncnts).ne.0) then
write(6,121)
go to 1000
endif
121 f o r mate wait error')
250
w rite(6,122)
122 formate input product type = ?'$)
read(5.123) pronam
123 format(al4)
write(6,124)
124 formate input current = ?'$)
read (5,125) ail
125 format(f5.3)
w rite(6,126)
126 formate input calibration factor = ?'$)
r ead(5,131) o4
131 format(f5.4)
write(6,132)
132 formate input distance in cm = ? ’$)
r e a d (5,133) d
133 format(f6.4)
write(6,134)
134 format(1 input initial value of diff. = ?'$)
read(5,135) h2
135 format(f6.4)
wri t e (6,136)
136 formate input final value of diff. = ?'$)
read(5,137) h3
137 format(f6.4)
write(6,138)
13b format(• input last run number = ? ’$)
read(5,139) n
139 format(i2)
c
c print heading info file
c
call date(cdate)
call time(ctime)
wr ite(8,200) filnam,cdate,ctime,nadc,madc,nclk,srate,ncnts
200 format(2(lx,al4),lx,a8/
&' adc mpx channels no. = ',i2,' ,',i2/
&' clock number = ',il/
&' number of samples per sec = ',i4/
&' wait counts per loop = ',il0/)
c
sl=0.
s2=0.
s3=0.
s4=0.
o3=.286
c5=.577216
r8=88.
i=l
251
c wait on keyboard response to starting adcs

c
write(6,210)
210 formate Depress "RETURN" key to start collecting data.'$)
c
c flush to bo sure message is printed before read occurs
c
call flush(6)
r e a d (5,211) crlf
211 format(fl0.4)
c
write(6,212)
212 formate Depress "DEL" key to stop collecting data.'$)
c
c flush to be sure message is printed before we disable kb
c
call flush(6)
c hereWE GO- lock the program in core

call lock
c collect adcs
c
213 bin=wait(nclk,fclk,ncnts)
if(bin.It.0) then
go to 213
else
write(6,214)
214 format(/' locked in core and collecting data.')
endif
215 if(wait(nclk,fclk,ncnts).lt.0) write(6,216)
216 formate Execution loop too slow for desired sample rate.')
bi n=wa it(nclk,felk,ncnts)
volts=adc(nadc,atime)
a(i)=volts
tiroeCMatime
sl=sl+a(i)
s2=s2+a(i)**2
bin=wait(nclk,fclk,ncnts)
volts=adc(madc,atime)
b5(i)=volts
s3=s3+b5(i)
s4=s4+b5(i)**2
i=i+l
if(i.eq.ll) go to 250
go to 215
250 sl=sl/10.
s2=(s2-10.*sl**2)/9.
s2=sqrt(s2)
s3=s3/10.
252
s4=(s4-10.*s3**2)/9.
s4=sqrt(s4)
s5=fne(s3)
sO=fne(sl)
p=2.*r8*ail**2
write(6,253) sl,s3
253 fo r m a t e average adc readings = ' ,lx,f8.4,lx,f8.4)
w r i t e (6,254) s2,s4
254 f o r m a t e standard deviation of adc readings = ' ,2(lx,f8.4))
write(6,255) s0,s5
255 fo r m a t e average adc temp readings = ' ,2(lx,f8.2,' C s))
write(6,256) p
256 format(' power = ' lx,f7.4,lx,' watts/meter')
wr ite(8,257) pronam
257 f o r m a t e Thermal conductivity of ' ,al4)
w r i t e (8,258) ail
258 f o r m a t e current = ',f5.3,' amps ')
write(8,259) d
259 f o r m a t e distance = ',f6.4,' cm')
write(8,266) p
266 f o r m a t e power = 1,lx,f7.4,lx,' watts/meter')
w r i t e (8,267)
267 format(/,’ run k',4x,' temp running'
&,3x,' cut off r sqr')
write(8,268)
268 f o r m a t e number1,19x,' time'
&,2 x ,' (0=good/l=bad)',/)
ino=0
270 rk0=0.
rkl=0.
nl=0
n0=0
i=l
271 n=n+l
n0=n0+l
sl=0.
s2=0.
s3=0.
s4=0.
s5=0.
d0=.98
idl=l
write(6,272) n
272 format(/,' run no. = ',i2)
volts=adc(nadc.atime)
eO(i)=fne(volts)
volts=adc(made,atime)
e4(i)=fne (volts)
write(6,273) e0(i)
273 format(' init temp for K = ',lx,f6.2)
253
wri t e (6,274) e4(i)

format(! init temp for D = lx,f6.2)
timel=atime
bin=set(nctl)
1=1
e7=0.
e8=0.
i9=l
in9=l
e7=e7+volts
i9=i9+l
if(i9.eq.6) go to 276
go to 275
q=0.
r=0.
j=l
b(j)=volts
q=q+b(j)
r=r+(atime-timel)
j=j+l
i f (j.eq.6) go to 280
go to 277
y(D=q/5.
t(l)=r/5.
1= 1+1
if(l.eq.31) go to 282
go to 276
e8=e8+vclts
in9=in9+l
if(in9.eq.6) go to 285
go to 282
bin=clear(nctl)
time7=atime
ttl(i)=(timel-timeO)/60.
tt2(i)= (time7-timel)/60.
e3=e7/5.
ee3=e8/5.
do 290 j=l,30
y(j)=fne(y(j))
d5(i)=fne(e3)
d6(i)=fne(ee3)
t4=d6(i)-d5(i)
do 300 j=7,30
254
z(j)=alog(t(j))
sl=sl+z(j)
s2=s2+z(j)**2
s3=s3+y(j)
s4=s4+y(j)**2
300 s5=s5+y(j)*z(j)
slop=(s5-(sl*s3/24.))/(s2-(sl*sl/24.))
rs=(s5-(sl*s3/24.))/sqrt((s2-(sl**2/24.)) * (s4-(s3**2/24.)))
rk=p/(4.*3.1416*slop)
rk=rk*.8015
rk=rk*o3/o4
write(6,310) rs,rk
310 f ormate r sqr = ',f8.4,2x,' k= ',f8.4,' W/M C')
w rite(6,311) slop
311 f crmatC slop = 'f8.4)
i f (rs.lt.dO) go to 315
rk0=rk0+rk
rkl=rkl+rk**2
nl=nl+l
i d 1=0
315 e2(i)=y(30)
write(6,316) e2(i)
316 f ormate final temp for K = ’f6.2)
dk(i)=rk
dr(i)=rs
nn(i)=n
idh(i)=idl
c6=5.*4.*3.*2.
c7=c6*10.*9.*8.*7.*6.
c8=c7*15.*14.*13.*12.*ll.
c9=c8*18.*17.*16.
ggl=13.*12.*11.*c7
gg2=23.*22.*21.
gg3=28.*27.*26.
gg4=33.*32.*31.
p5=c9*20.*19.
p4=25.*24.*23.*22.*21.
p3=p4*30.*29.*28.*27.*26.
p2=35.*34.*gg4
tt6(i)=tt2(i)*60.
q3=p/(2.*3.1426*rk)
c
c initialize the value
c
n5=l
v3(l)=h2
v3(3)=h3
v 3 (2)=v3(1)+(v3(3)- v 3 (1))/2.
320 bl=(10.*d)/(2.*sqrt(v3(2)*tt6(i)))
u5=bl**40/p5
u4=u5*bl**20/p3
255
gl=-c5/2.-alog(bl)+bl** 2/2.-bl** 4/8.+bl** 6/36.-bl** 8/192.

g 2=gl+bl**10/(10.*c6)-bl**12/(36.*c6)+bl**14/(14.* 42.*c6)
g3=g2-bl**16/(16.*c7/90.)+bl**18/(18.*c7/10.)
g4=g3-bl**20/(20.*c7)+bl**22/(22.*ll.*c7)
g5=g4-bl**24/(24.*12.*11.*c7)+bl**26/(26.*ggl)
g6=g5-bl**2 8/(28.*14.*ggl)+bl** 30/(30.*c8)
g7=g6-ol**32/(32.*16.*c8)+bl**34/(34.*17.*16.*c8)
g8=g7-bl**36/(36.*18.*17.*16.*c8)+bl**38/(38.*19.*c9)
g9=g8-u5/40.+u5*bl** 2/(42.* 21.)-u5*bl** 4/(44.* 22.*21.)
ugl=g9+u5*bl**6/ (46.*gg2)-u5*bl**8/(48.*24.*gg2)
ug2=ugl+u5*bl**10/(50.*p4)-u5*bl**12/(52.*26.*p4)
ug3=ug2+u5*bl**14/(54.*27.*26.*p4)
ug4=ug3-u5*bl**16/ (56.*gg3*p4)+u5*bl**18/(58.*29.*gg3*p4)
ug5=ug4-u4/6Q.+u4*bl**2/(62 =* 31=)-u4*bl** 4/(64=* 32 »* 31.)
u6=ug5+u4*bl** 6/(66.*gg4)- u 4* d 1 * * 8 / (68.* 34.*gg4)
u7=u6+u4*bl**10/(70.*p2)-u4*bl**12/(72„*36.*p2)
u8=u7+u4*bl**14/(74.* 36.* 37.*p2)
u9=u8-u4*bl**16/(76.*38.*37.*36.*p2)
t5=q3*u9
dt5=t4-t5
if (t4.lt.t5) go to 330
if(abs(dt5).It.0.01) go to 340
if(n5.eq.50) go to 340
v 3 (1)= v 3 (2)
v 3 (2)= v 3 (1)+(v3(3)- v 3 (1))/2.
n5=n5+l
go to 320
330 if (abs(dt5).It.0.01) go to 340
if(n5.eq.50) go to 340
v3(3)=v3(2)
v 3 (2)= v 3 (1)+ (v3(3)-v3(1))/2.
n5=n5+l
go to 320
340 n6(i)=n5
d9(i)=v3(2)
t3(i)=t4
write(6,350) d9(i)
350 formate diffusivity = ' ,f6.4,' *10**(-6) M**2/S‘)
write(6,351) t3(i)
351 formate tamp rise = ' ,f5.2,'•C')
write(6,352) n6(i)
352 formate no. of iteration =',i2)
write(6,353) bl
353 formate value of bl =',f7.4)
if(nl.eq.6) go to 400
i=i+l
if(i.eq.9) go to 400
call flush(6)
bin=msleep(100)
go to 271
400 write(6,450)
256
450 forraat(/,' run',5x,' k init final r sqr'

Si,3x,1 cut off')
write(6,460)
460 format(' number temp temp'
& ,10x,' (0=good/l=bad)'/)
do 470 i=l,n0
write(6,465) nn(i),dk(i),e0(i),e2(i),dr(i),idh(i)
465 format(2x,i2,3x,f6.4,3x,f6.2,3x,f6.2,3x,f6.4,8x,il)
470 continue
write(6,471)
471 format(/)
do 480 i=l,n0
write(6,475) n6(i),d9(i),d5(i),d6(i),t3(i)
475 format(2x,i2,3x,f6.4,2(3x,f6.2),4x,f5.2)
480 continue
v0=rk0/float(nl)
vl=(rkl-(rk0**2/float(nl)))/(float(nl)-l.)
vl=sqrt(vl)
write(6,481) vO
481 format?1 mean K = 1 =•f6„4)
write(6,482) vl
482 format(! standard deviation = *,f6.4)
write(8,506)
506 formate/)
do 510 i=l,n0
atl=(e0(i)+e2(i))/2.
write(8,507) nn(i)rdk(i),atl,ttl(i) ,id h e i) ?dr(i)
507 format(2x,i2,3x,f6.4,3x,f6.2,4x,f7.2,8x»il,5x,f6.4)
510 continue
write(8,511)
511 formate/)
do 520 i=l,n0
at2=(d5(i)+d6(i))/2.
write(8,513) n6(i),d9(i),at2
513 format(2x,i2,3x,f6.4,3x,f6.2)
520 continue
call flush(6)
bin^nsleep(90)
ino=ino+l
i f (ino.eq.10) go to 800
go to 270
c
c ' DONE, close file correctly
c
800 call date(cdate)
call timeCctime)
write(8,999) filnam,cdate,ctime
999 formate/’ EOF ’,2(lx,al4),lx,a8)
call unlock
c
1000 call blitz
257
v&.
ENDFILE 8
CLOSE (8)
stop
end
c
function fne(tl)
fne=4.93216E-04+17.0203*tl-.216018*tl*tl+4.38220E-03*tl*tl*tl
return
end
258
A Sample of Computer Program Used in the Calculation

of Thermal Property of Pure Component Solids at the
Temperature below Initial Freezing Point
program cond
c
c thermal conductivity for gluten protein solids
c for frozen process
c
real akw,aki,dw,dl,di,ak(18)
real xw(18),xi(18),xs(18),t(18),vw,vs,vi
real voll,vol2,vol3,vol4,pk
data ak/.542,2.101,2.135,2.236,2.308,2.425,.506,1.945,
11.974,2.046,2.148,2.244,.478,1.774,1.815,1.869,1.945,
22.053/
data t/-.02,-5.17,-9.98,-21.48,-28.12,-38.19,-.09,-5.14,
1-10.56,-19.81,-30.69,-39.19,-.08,-5.27,-11.49,-19.61,
2-28.42,-39.49/
data xw/.9,.0006,.0003,.0001,.0001,.0001,.8,.0012,.0006,
do 100 i=l,6
xs (i)=.1
xs(6+i)=.2
xs(12+i)=.3
xi (i)=.9-xw(i)
xi (6+i) = .8-xw(6+i)
100 xi(12+i)=.7-xw(12+i)
do 300 i=l,18
voll=xw(i)/dw(t(i))
vol2=xs(i)/ dl(t(i))
vol3=xi(i)/di(t(i))
vol4=voll+vol2+vol3
vw=voll/vol4
vs=vol2/vol4
vi=vol3/vol4
pk=(ak(i)-akw(t(i))*vw-aki(t(i) )*vi)/vs
write(6,200) t(i)-,xw(i) ,xs(i) ,xi(i) ,ak(i) ,pk
200 format(3x,f8.2,3(3x,f6.4),2(3x,f6.3))
300 continue
stop
end
c
function akw(y)
akw=.5710928+.001762544*y-.000006703575*y**2
return
end
c
function aki(y)
aki=2.219621-.006248948*y+.0001015417*y**2
return
end
259
function dw(y)
dw=997.1772+.003143882*y-.003757413*y**2
return
end
c
function di(y)
di=916.8894-.1307137*y
return
end
c
function dl(y)
dl=1294.634-.4582931*y
return
end
260
A Sample of Computer Program Used in the Calculation

of Thermal Property of Pure Component Solids at the
Temperature above Initial Freezing Point
program cond
c
c thermal conductivity for gluten protein solids
c
real akw,dw,dl
real xw(45),xs(45),t(45)fvw,vs,ak(45)
real voll,vol2,vol4,tk
data ak/.555,.574,.587,.598,.611,.622,.631,.639,.645,
1.648..654..655..656..657..656..521..536..551..564..579,
2.591..596..603..609..617..623..624..624..625..625..494,
3.507..522..533..541..557..566..572..576..579..584..586,
4.592..596..596,
data t/11.42,22.16,28.66,39.17,51.42,60.19,71.42,78.66,
188.92,101.41,111.49,121.63,129.77,139.67,148.19,11.96,
221.49,30.63,38.19,48.69,58.14,72.62,80.86,90.17,102.06,
3112.13,121.48,128.66,138.17,148.47,10.63,21.42,28.14,
439.67,50.42,62.17,72.69,78.48,88.12,101.49,111.66,
5118.47,128.12,139.46,149.68/
do 50 i=l,15
xw(i)=.9
xs(i)=.l
xw(15+i)=.8
xs(15+i)=.2
xw(30+i)=.7
50 xs(30+i)=.3
do 300 i=l,45
voll=xw(i)/dw(t(i))
vol2=xs(i)/dl(t(i))
vol4=voll+vol2
vw=voll/vol4
vs=vol2/vol4
t k = (a k (i)-akw(t (i)) *vw)/vs
write(6,200) t(i),ak(i),tk
200 format(3x,f8.2,2(3x,f6.3))
300 continue
stop
end
c
function akw(y)
akw=.5710928+.001762544*y-.000006703575*y**2
return
end
c
function dw(y)
dw=997.1772+.003143882*y-.003757413*y**2
return
end
261
function di(y)
dl=1294.634-.4582931*y
return
end
262
A Sample of Computer Program Called OPT Subroutine
program m a i n (input,output,tape5=input,tape6=output)
dimension xo(3),xmax(3),xmin(3) ,xc(3),xn(3),r(3),
lfv(6),xv(3,6),con(l)ftl(30)
common /cho/ t(65),ak(65)
for whey protein solid
thermal conductivity model (-40 c to 150 c)
data t/-39.84,-31.01,-19.84,-10.18,-5.42,-.27,-39.84,
1-31.02,-19.27,-10.84,-5.04,-.11,-39.72,-29.29,-21.04,
2-10.92,-5.19,-.18,10.18,20.61,30.41,41.49,50.19,
360.48.71.12.79.69.89.12.100.48.110.12.121.49.131.12,
4139.48.149.17.11.14.21.68.31.14.39.68.49.72.61.12,
569.68,81.19,91.04,100.98,110.19,121.48,129.62,141.08,
6149.69.10.47.20.62.31.48.41.12.49.87.60.68.70.12,
779.88.90.12.100.41.111.68.119.12.130.68.140.12,
8149.63/
data ak/.127,.142,.149,.167,.165,.183,.141,.153,.167,
1.169..184..191..133..147..162..177..182..190..193,
2.207..223..235..246..250..254..267..27 3,.270,.280,
3.288..291..308..313..191..198..223..247..248..261,
4.262..264..269..282..288..299..300..304..307..199,
5.210..224..238..251..259..260..261..267..280..284.
6.293..300..304..308/
data tl/-40.,-30.,-20.,-10.,-5.,0.,10.,20.,30.,40.,
150..60..70..80..90..100..110..120..130..140..150./
n=3
k=6
alfa=1.3
ni=l
crit=l.e-3
xo(l)=.2
xo{2)=.002
xo(3)=.00002
xmax(l)=.88
x max(2)=.02
x max(3)=.0002
xmin(l)=0.
xmin(2)=0.
xmin(3)=0.
maxi=300
call box (xo,xv,xc,xn,r,con,fv,xmax,xmin,k,alfa,
lcrit,n,ni ,maxi)
sse=0.0
au=0.0
do 200 i=l,63
u =xo(1)+ xo(2)*t(i)-xo(3)* t (i)**2
sse=sse+(ak(i)-u)**2
263
au=au+ak(i)
write(6,100) t(i),ak(i),u
100 format(3x,f7.0,3x,f5.3,3x,f5.3)
200 continue
sd=sqrt(sse/63.)
write(6f317) sd
317 format(/,4x,17h standard error =,lx,f8.4)
ave=au/63.
spe=sd/ave
write(6,327) spe
327 format(/,4x,’ s.p.e.=',lx,f8.4,/)
do 400 i=lf21
amk=xo(l)+xo(2)*tl(i)-xo(3)*tl(i)**2
write(6,390) tl(i) ,amk
390 format(4x?f6=l75x7f5o3)
400 continue
stop
end
function f(x)
dimension x(3)
common /cho/ t(65),ak(65)
dd=0.0
do 500 i=l,63
dd=dd+(ak(i)-x(l)-x(2)*t(i)+x(3)*t(i)**2)**2
500 continue
f=dd
return
end
subroutine const(x,con)
dimension x(l),con(l)
con(l)=x(l)
return
end
264
1
A Sample of Computer: Program Used in Comparison Between
Model and Experimental Data
program test
c
c program to compare the model value to the experimental
c data from -40 C to 150 C
c
c thermal conductivity of bratwurst sausage
c
integer i
real akw,a kp,afa,akc,afi,aka,d w ,d p ,dfa,dc,dfi,da
real Vl,v2,v3,v4,v5,v6,v7,zl,z2,z3,z4,z5,z6
real xl,x2,x3,x4,x5,x6,t(21),pk
real eml,em2,em3,em4,em5,em6,em7,h,r,tw
real al,a2,tp,a3,a4,b3,ufw,x7,v8,z7,di,aki
real sse,au,dk(21),sd,ave,spe
c
data t/-38.69,-27.16,-20.61,-11.42,-6.14,.17,10.84,21.27,
129.64,38.84,51.12,60.72,68.81,79.74,91.48,102.11,111.42,
2119.84,128.17,141.62,148.49/ *
data dk/1.574,1.456,1.365,1.176,.859,.386,.399,.406,.416,
1.433,.439,.441,.446,.448,.452,.455,.462,.464,.466,.467,
2.468/
c
c input the weight fractions of major components of foods
c (Ref. No. 124)
c xl : water, x2 : protein, x3 : fat, x4 :carbohydrate,
c x5 : fiber, and x6 : ash
c
xl=.5304
x2=.1507
x3=.2891
x4=.0045
x5=0.
x6=.0253
c
c input the average molecular weights of major pure
c component solids of foods (Table 10)
c eml : water, em2 : protein, em3 : fat,
c em4 :carbohydrate , em5 : fiber, and em6 :ash
c
eml=18.
em2=350000.
em3=450.
em4=342.
em5=100000.
em6=158.
c
c input the constant values in the equation 22
I c for the calculation of the initial freezing point
265
of sample suspension
h : molal latent heat of fusion
r : gas constant
tw : freezing point of pure liquid
tp : freezing point of sample suspension in C
ufw: unfrozen water fraction of sample suspension
x7 : ice fraction
h=2585.3
r=1.9872
tw=492.
sse=0„0
au=0.0
calculate the initial freezing point

(equations 65 and 87)
em7=x2/em2+x3/em3+x4/em4+x5/em5+x6/em6
al=alog((xl/eml)/(xl/eml+em7))
a2=l./( 1 ,/tw-a.l*r/h) -460,
tp=5./9.*(a2-32.)
i=l
30 if(i.ge.22) go to 300
if(t(i).ge.tp) go to 50
t2=(t(i)*9-/5.+32.)+460.
a3=n/r*(l./tw-l./t2)
a4=exp(a3)
b3=en7*a4/(l.-a4)
ufw=b3*eml
x7=xl-ufw
calculate the volume fractions of major pure

components of foods (equation 68) at the tem
perature below initial .freezing point and
then calculate the thermal conductivity values
of samples using proposed prediction models
vl=ufw/dw(t(i))
v2=x2/dp(t(i))
v3=x3/dfa(t(i))
v4=x4/dc(t(i))
v5=x5/dfi(t(i))
v6=x6/da(t(i))
v7=x7/di(t(i))
v8=vl+v2+v3+v4+v5+v6+v7
zl=vl/v8
z2=v2/v8
z3=v3/v8
z4=v4/v8
z5=v5/v8
266
z6=v6/v8
z7=v7/v8
pk=akw(t(i))*zl+akp(t(i))*z2+afa(t(i))*z3+akc(t(i))*z4
1+afi(t (i))*z5+aka(t (i))*z6+aki(t (i))*z7
write(6,40) t(i),dk(i),pk
40 format(3x,f8.2,3x,f6.3,3x,f6.3)
sse=sse+(dk(i)-pk)**2
au=au+dk(i)
i=i+l
go to 30
calculate the volume fractions of major pure

components of foods (equation 68) at the tem
perature above initial freezing point and
then calculate the thermal conductivity values
of samples using proposed prediction models
50 vl=xl/dw(t(i))
v2=x2/dp(t(i))
v3=x3,/dfa(t(i))
v4=x4/d ;(t(i))
v5=x5/dri(t(i))
v6=x6/da(t(i))
v7=vl+v2+v3+v4+v5+v6
zl=vl/v7
z2=v2/v7
z3=v3/v7
z4=v4/v7
z5=v5/v7
z6=v6/v7
pk=akw(t (i))*zl+akp(t (i))*z2+afa(t (i))*z3+akc(t (i))*z 4
1+afi(t(i))*z5+aka(t(i))*z6
write(6,100) t(i) ,dk(i),pk
100 format(3x,f8.2,3x,f6.3,3x,f6.3)
sse=sse+(dk(i)-pk)**2
au=au+dk(i)
i=i+l
go to 30
: calculate the standard error and standard % error
300 w rite(6,307) sse

307 format(/,4x," total of sq deviation =" ,lxffl2.8)
sd=sqrt(sse/21.)
w rite(6,317) sd
317 format(/,4x,17h standard error = flx,f8.4)
ave=au/21.
spe=sd/ave
w rite(6,327) spe
327 format(/,4x," s.p.e. =",3x,f8.4)
stop
26 7
input the thermal property models of pure components

of foods
Table 12 :thermal property models of water and ice

Table 13 :density models of pure components of foods
Table 20 :thermal conductivity models of pure
components of foods
Table 21 : thermal diffusivity models of pure
components of foods
Table 22 : specific heat models of pure components of
foods
Table 26 : group models of major components of foods
akw : thermal conductivity of water

akp : thermal conductivity of protein
afa :thermal conductivity of fat
akc :thermal conductivity of carbohydrate
afi :thermal conductivity of fiber
aka :thermal conductivity of ash
aki :thermal conductivity of ice
di :density of ice
dw :density of water
dp : density of protein
dfa : density of fat
dc : density of carbohydrate
dfi : density of fiber
da :density of ash
function akw(y)
akw=.5710928+.001762544*y-.000006703575*y**2
return
end
function akp(y)
akp=.1626626+.001172624*y-.000002373537*y**2
return
end
function afa(y)
afa=.1822001-.0002056486*y-.0000007326714*y**2
return
end
function akc(y)
akc=.2045577+.001377354*y-.000004207875*y**2
return
end
function afi(y)
afi=.1833145+.001249670*y-.000003168331*y**2
return
end
function aka(y)
aka=.329620l+.001401142*y-.000002906992*y**2
return
end
function aki(y)
aki=2.219621-.006248948*y+.0001015417*y**2
return
end
function di(y)
d i=916.8894-.1307137*y
return
end
function dw(y)
dw=997.1772+“ 003143882*y-.003757413*y**2
return
end
function dp(y)
dp=1343.650-.5194547*y
return
end
function dfa(y)
dfa=924.2687-.4189623*y
return
end
function dc(y)
dc=1682.897-.3355727*y
return
end
function dfi(y)
dfi=1311.460-.3658952*y
return
end
function da(y)
da=2423.778-.2806304*y
return
end
-i
Yongnee Choi was born on August 15, 1950 in Seoul, Korea. He com
pleted his undergraduate work in the Chemical Engineering Department of
Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea in 1974. He served two and one-half
years as an Officer in the Korean Army.
He entered, in ijhe Depertrnent of Agricultural Engineering* J^nrciue
University in June, 1979, studying in the field of biochemical and food
process engineering. He received his M.S.E. from the Department of
Agricultural Engineering in May, 1981, working in the area of thermal,
properties of tomato juices.
He is married and he and his wife Heayoung have one son, Mark and
one daughter, Tina.

Food Thermal Property Predictive

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Food Thermal Property Predictive

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INFORMATION TO USERS

The most advanced technology has been used to photo­

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re­

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been

Accessing the World’s Information since 1938

300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA

Choi, Yonghee, Ph.D.

Purdue University, 1985

1. Glossy photographs or pages_____

2. Colored illustrations, paper or print______

3. Photographs with dark background_____

4. Illustrations are poor copy______

5. Pages wiih black marks, not original copy______

6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page______

7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages _ y

9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine_______

10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print______

12. Page(s) seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.

13. Two pages numbered . Text follows.

14. Curling and wrinkled pages_____

15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a siant, fiimed as received

FOOD THERMAL PROPERTY PREDICTION AS

EFFECTED BY TEMPERATURE AND COMPOSITION

Submitted to the Faculty

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree

This is to certify that the thesis prepared

Entitled Food Thermal P ro p er ty P r e d ic t io n a s E f f e c t e d b y T eirperature

For the degree of:

Signed by the fin a l PYamininCT m m m it tp p '

Approved by the head o f school or department:

I wish to express my sincere appreciation and gratitude to Dr.

Martin R. Okos, my major professor, for his inspiring guidance and

encouragement in this research and throughout the program of my study.

Sincere appreciation and gratitude are also expressed to Dr. j.

Marks, Dr. R. Stroshine, and Dr. P. Nelson for serving on my advisory

committee and for their helpful suggestions and assistance throughout

Finally, the continuous support and helpful advice of my wife

Heayoung during the course of this study have been indispensable, as

LIST OF FIGURES..................................................... xii

II. OBJECTIVES ..... 4

III. LITERATURE REVIEW............................................ 5

A. Thermal Conductivity Measurement Technique.............. 5

2. Concentric Cylinder Method.......................... 6

IV. EXPERIMENTAL METHODS................... 58

T A. Measurement Procedure of Thermal Properties.............. 58

V. MODELING FOR THE THERMAL PROPERTIES........................... 77

A. Model for Thermal Conductivity.......................... 77

VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS............................ 85

A. Thermal Property Data of Food Products in the

VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...................................... 164

VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH. .................... 166

Appendix A. Literature Thermal Property Data of Foods 177

1. The Average Composition of Milk Products..................... 27

2. The Coefficients of Fernandez-Martin Model................... 46

3. Literature Models for Thermal Conductivity of Liquid Foods.. 54

4. Literature Models for Thermal Diffusivity of Liquid Foods... 55

5. Literature Models for Density of Liquid Foods.......... 56

6. Literature Models for Specific Heat of Liquid Foods.... 57

7. The Quantities of Chemicals for Making Milk Salt Solution... 72

y 8. Samples Used in This Study for the Thermal Property

9. The Compositions of Major Components for the Food Products

10. Average Molecular Weights of Pure Components Used in This

11. Heat Conduction Models for Three-Component Systems.......... 78

The most advanced technology has been used to photo

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re