Effect of Cooking on the Thermal Conductivity
of Whole and Ground Lean Beef
M. SHAHEDI BAGHE-KHANDAN
ABSTRACT
The probe method was used to measurethermal conductivity of
beef through a temperaturerange of 3O-120°C. Thermal condue-
tivity of beef increaseswith temperatureup to 70°C followed by
a decreaseduring the denaturationof proteins and subsequentloss
of water. The thermal conductivity of beef again increaseswith
temperature after protein denaturation.The thermal conductivity
of cooked beef is lower than raw beef up to about 80°C. The rate
of increasefor cooked meat thermal conductivity is fairly constant
with temperature at a given moisture content. Models basedon
composition and temperature were found to predict the thermal
conductivity of meat during cooking at an averagestandardpercent
error of 7%.
INTRODUCTION
TO PREPARE more acceptable cooked meat by an efficient
and economical process, the thermal properties of meat
during cooking must be known. Those who are involved in
the meat processing industries must know the thermal
conductivity of meat to prevent overheating and under-
heating during the required processes. The underheating
process will cause problems such as unsafe meat produc-
tion. Overheating will waste energy in addition to decreas-
ing nutritional value of cooked meat.
Existing thermal properties of beef are primarily for low
temperatures. Very limited information is available at
cooking temperatures (Qashau et al., 1970). There are few
reports in the literature concerning measurements of
thermal conductivity of beef at temperatures over 30°C
Hill et al., (1967) measured thermal conductivity of beef,
pork, lamb, and veal in the temperature range -17’C to
66OC. They used a steady-state method similar to the
standard guarded hot plate and found that the conductivity
increased as the temperature increased. Higgs and Swift
(1975) measured thermal conductivity of whole beef up to
70°C by line source techniques and found that the thermal
conductivity of beef increases with increase in temperature.
There is a considerable amount of variation in existing
data even for the same product. Unfortunately much of the
meat thermal conductivity data does not include a number
of important parameters such as water content or tempera-
ture. Both have a significant effect on the thermal conduc-
tivity value (Sweai, 1975). No data on meat thermal con-
ductivity above 70 C is presently available. The objective of
this study was to determine the effect of temperature on the
thermal conductivity of lean beef at a temperature range of
30- 12o”c.
LINESOURCEPROBE
THE LINE SOURCE thermal conductivity probe was employed for
the measurementof the thermal conductivity. This method hasbeen
used in recent years for the determination of thermal conductivity
of foods by Qashau et al. (1970), Dickerson and Read (1968), Higgs
and Swift (1975), Sweat (1972), Sweat and Haugh (1976), and
Sweat (1975).
Authors Baghe-Khandan and Okos are affiliated with rhe Agricul-
rural Engineering Depr., Purdue Univ., W. Lafayette, IN 47907.
1302-JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE-Volume46 (1981)
4.
and MARTIN R. OKOS
The thermal conductivity probe approximates a line heat source.
Details of the theory are given in papersby Nix et al. (1967) and
Baghe-Khandan (1978). To overcomethe problem of water vaporiza-
tion at temperatures above 9O”C, a sample holder, as shown in
Figure 1, was designed.A thermal conductivity probe wasmounted
to a pressureholder vesseland epoxy glue wasusedto sealthe probe
to the lid. Measurement of the thermal conductivity during tempera-
ture and pressureincreaseswere then possible.To check the probe
systems accuracy, a reference product with known thermal con-
ductivity at different temperatureswas needed.The thermal con-
ductivity data, as shown in Figure 2, obtainedfor water, correlated
very well to the literature values (Eckert, 1950) evenpast 100°C.
As shown in Figure 3, the linear correlation coefficient from 24
time-temperaturedata points (7-30 points) was 0.9959 for water at
and above the boiling point. Therefore, the error due to any vapori-
zation inside of a vessel can be assumed negligible above the boiling
point. Significant vaporization would cause deviation from a linear
relationship and deviation from literature values. Glass wool saturated
with glycerin was also used as a reference for temperature range
of this experiment. Glass wool (0.7g) was used to prevent convec-
tion of glycerin (19g) and water (20g) during the check runs.
THERMALCONDUCTIVITYMEASUREMENT
SEVEN SAMPLES 0.75 in. diameter x 1.5 in. long of whole chuck
and ground chuck were used in this test. the first sample was put in
the sample holder for thermal conductivity measurement and the
other six samples were put in the same kind of sample holders for
drip loss measurement. The probe was calibrated with glycerin be-
fore each test. The probe was inserted into the whole beef sample
parallel to the muscle fibers. The thermal conductivity of each
sample was measured at room temperature and then all seven
samples were transferred to an atmospheric oven set at 150°C. As
the sample was warming up, the thermal conductivity of the sample
was measured during the temperature increase (less than O.S”C/min)
until it reached 120°C.
The thermal conductivity obtained in this experiment is the local
thermal conductivity for a small central portion of the particular
samples used in this study. The thermal conductivities obtained
for whole beef were for the lean portions. The lean portion was
THERMOCOUPLE
H HEATER LEADS
Fig. 1 -.Schemaric of pressure sample holder.
-
 THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY OF LEAN BEEF

.90
-

Fig. 2-Thermal conductivity of water.

I

0 Literolure Value
0 Experimental Volue

20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 IO00 I200

TEMPERATURE (“Cl

used to make sure that the sample around the probe was homoge-
neous. Since the meat sample was heated by the probe during test-
ing, a mean value of initial and final probe temperatures was used as
the temperature of the sample at each time. The temperature in-
creaseof the probe during each test was about 7°C.
Since the Biot number was less than 0.1, negligible temperature
gradients were assumed to exist in the sample while heating. Since
probe readings were composed of 24 time-temperature data points
taken during a lo-set range, negligible temperature rise (less than
O.l”C) occurred in the sample due to external heating during the
thermal conductivity measurement. Also, the slope of the tempera-
ture gradient due to external heating is zero at the center of the
sample due to symmetry. Each of the 24 data points was an average
of five readings. The linearity of AT vs In t was checked, as shown
in Figure 3, by determining the correlation coefficient for the 24
data points. The same temperature increase rate was used to check
the probe’s accuracy with glycerin and with water, Other samples
were removed from the oven to determine drip loss at 50, 60, 75,
85, 95, and 120°C. The thermal conductivity of the sample was
also measured during cooling periods. The temperature decrease
rate was also about O.S’C per min. The drip loss of the sample was
again measured at 3O’C. The thermal conductivity of the same
sample was measured during reheating and retooling.
The samples used to compare the thermal conductivity of
ground and whole beef are from the same cut of beef. A portion of
whole lean was ground to use as the ground sample. Water content
of each sample was measured by the vacuum oven method for each
type of beef (AOAC, 1978). Fat content of each sample was mea-
sured by the ether extraction method for each type of beef (AOAC,
1978). For both ground and whole beef, the averagewater content
and fat content was determined to be 69% and 1.3% respectively.
The density for the ground and whole beef was measured in a vessel
of known sample weight and volume before measuring thermal
conductivity. The average density for the ground and whole beef
was found to be 1049 kg/m3 and 879 kg/m3, respectively. Negligi-
ble fat was found in the drip loss fluid.
Modeling
To predict the thermal conductivity of cooked beef, a model
based on composition and temperature was developed using the
measured cooking reheating and retooling data. Although many
models are available, the thermal conductivity of beef can be
assumed to depend linearly on composition as shown in Eq (1):
K = KwXw + KfXf + KpXp [ll
where: K = Thermal conductivity, X = Fraction of composition;
Subscripts: w = Water, f = Fat, and p = Protein.
In order to determine the goodness of fit, the standard error was
used. Standard error and standard percent error are defined as
shown in Eq (2) and (3):

103.0

I;
t, 102.5
f
Y IO20
Fig. d--Linearity
In T.
of temperature versus ii
a” 101.5 -

5
)- 101.0
x
I
100.5 x
t
loo.Ol I I I L I I L I I I
- 2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
LN T (SEC)

Volume 46 (1981)-JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE- 1303

 Table l-Moisture content of whole and ground chuck after drip Table 2-Thermal conductivity and density of water, far, and
loss protein

Drip loss % Moisture content by wt % Temp Thermal

Temp Whole Ground Whole Ground Sample OC Density conductivity
OC chuck chuck chuck chuck
Water 30 996 0.619
30 0.0 0.0 69.0 69.0
50 989 0.645
50 1.5 2.4 68.5 68.2 60 984 0.654
60 18.0 7.2 62.2 66.6 70 978 0.663
75 32.3 22.8 54.2 59.8 80 971 0.672
85 41.8 32.1 46.7 54.3 90 965 0.676
95 43.9 34.0 44.7 53.0
120 46.1 39.2 42.5 49.0 Fat 30 920 0.172
30 47.3 40.8 41.2 47.6 50 915 0.167
120 47.9 43.5 40.5 45.1 60 910 0.166
30 48.5 45.9 39.8 42.7 70 905 0.163
80 900 0.160
90 895 0.159

Protein 30 1537 0.1 80a

StandardError = [ =Gxp - xmod)2 1 112 50 1537 0.187
N 60 1537 0.190
70 .I537 0.192
StandardError 80 1537 0.195
Standard% Error = [31
AverageExp. Value 90 1537 0.197

a Adapted from Poppendick et al. (1966).

RESULTS& DISCUSSION
THE RESULTS from whole and ground lean meat show
that the thermal conductivity of meat increases before
protein denaturation. The thermal conductivity data were
plotted versus temperature in Figures 2 and 3 and represent
an average of three replicates with an average standard
deviation between measurements of 4%. The thermal
conductivity of the ground beef increase from 0.45
w/m-‘C at 30°C to 0.49 w/m-OC at 69’C, decreased to
0.46 w/m-‘C at 81’C and increased again to 0.52 w/m-‘C
at 120°C. The cooling and reheating of the samples show a
decrease in thermal conductivity. For the cooled sample at
30°C, the thermal conductivity was 0.39 w/m-OC. Upon
reheating and retooling the thermal conductivity was
,O.SO at 12O’C and 0.38 at 30°C, respectively. A similar
trend was observed for whole beef, but the values were 10%
lower than the values for ground beef. The thermal con-
ductivity of whole beef increased from 0.41 w/m-‘C at
30°C to 0.44 at 66’C, decreased to 0.38 w/m-OC at 87’C
and then increased to 0.43 w/m-‘C at 12O’C. Upon cool-
ing, the thermal conductivity of the sample at 30°C was
0.38 w/m-‘C. Whereas for reheating and retooling, the
thermal conductivity was 0.42 at 12O’C and 0.37 at 3O’C.
The shrinkage of meat due to denaturation of protein
between 60 and 70°C is followed by a fast decrease of
sample moisture content as shown in Table 1. The moisture
content of samples after drip loss was recalculated by new
composition of water, fat, and protein as shown in Table 1.
The change in thermal conductivity essentially follows the
change in composition. The decreasein thermal conductivi-
ty can be related to the decrease in moisture content. The
thermal conductivity of the ground product was 10%
greater than the whole products possibly due to structural
differences, i.e., the aligned muscle fiber structure of the
whole sample vs the random muscle fiber structure of the
ground sample. The rate of increase of thermal conductivity
with temperature is higher for ground meats due to the
lower drip loss. The ground meat maintained a larger
water-holding capacity than the whole chuck sample.
Upon reheating and retooling the whole chuck sample,
little change in composition results; therefore, the change in

. heating
0 cooling
l reheating
0 fecoolirw
.60
t
Fig. 4 -Thermal conductivity of ground
chuck.

.201 I t I
20.0 400 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0

TEMPERATURE OC

I 1304-JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE- Volume 46 (198 1)

 THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY OF LEAN BEEF

g 901
I-.80

5 ,- .70
,, heating
c x cooling
z .60- . reheatmg
:, 0. raoling
0
23 .50 - Fig. 5-Thermal conductivity of whole
chuck.

8
.40 -
2
iz .30 -
?
I I 1 t I I
I- .20
20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0

thermal conductivity is primarily due to temperature
changes. However for ground chuck, subsequent heating
and cooling resulted in further drip loss and therefore,
further decreasein thermal conductivity.
Thermal conductivities of the pure component water
and fat were also measured and are given in Table 2. The
thermal conductivity of protein was adapted from Poppen-
dick et al. (1966). Models of the pure components are
given in Eq. (2) as a linear function of temperature and
were determined from a standard optimization subroutine
with the objective function as the minimization of the
standard error.
decrease during the denaturation and shrinkage of the meat
protein and subsequent moisture loss. The thermal con-
ductivity of beef increased again after protein denaturation
with increase in temperature.
The thermal conductivity of cooked meat was measured
during cooling and reheating periods and was found to be
lower than raw meat for temperatures below 80°C. The rate
of change for cooked meat thermal conductivity was found
to be fairly constant during heating and cooling in a closed
container.

S.E. S. %E.
REFERENCES
K, = 594x10-’ + 9.57x1O-4 T 0.0030 0.46%
AOAC. 1978. “Official Methods of Analysis,” Ed. W. Horwitz, 11th
Kf = 1.79x10-’ - 2.23~10-~ T 0.0005 0.31%. [31 ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.
Kp = 1.72x10-r + 2.81~10-~ T 0.0006 0.32% Baghe-Khandan. M.S. 1978. Experimental and mathematical analy-
sis of cooking effects on thermal conductivity of beef. PhD thesis,
Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN.
The correlation coefficient between model and experi- Dickerson. R.W. Jr. and Read, R.B. Jr. 1968. Calculation and
mental values suggests accurate prediction and was ex- measurement of heat transfer in foods. Food Technol. 221: 1533.
Eckert, E.R.G. 1950. “Introduction to the Transfer of Heat and
pressed as standard error and standard percent error. Mass.” McGraw-Hi& New York.
Thermal conductivities of whole and ground chuck Higgs. S.J. and Swift, S.P. 1975. Investigation into the thermal
conductivity of beef using the line-source techniaue. Process
(Fig. 4 and 5) were calcualted from Eq. (1) using the Biochem. December: 43.
thermal conductivity values given in Eq. (2). Standard Hi& J.E., Witman. J.D.. and Sunderland. J.E. 1967. Thermal con-
error and standard percent error of whole and ground beef ductivity of various meats. Food Technol. 21(8).
Merely. M.J. 1966. Thermal conductivity of muscles, fat and bones.
were 0.0260, 6.55% and 0.0339, 7.62%, respectively. The Food Technol. 1: 301.
fit is very good considering the simplicity of the model Nix. G.H.. Lowery. G.W.. Vachon, RI., and Tanger, G.E. 1967.
Direct determination of thermal diffusivity and conductivity with
suggesting that an accurate predictive equation can be a refined line-source technique. Progress in Aeronautics and
developed based on composition and temperature. ;;F;w;utics: Thermophysics of Spacecraft and Planetary Bodies
Popper&k. H.F., RandaB, R.. Breeden. !.A., Chambers, J.E.. and
CONCLUSIONS Murphy. J.R. 1966. Thermal conducttvity measurements and
;;edictions for biological fluids and tissue. Cryogiology 3f4):
A THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY probe system was pre-
pared for thermal conductivity measurement in food Qashau. M.. Nix, G.H., Vachon. R.J.. and Lowery. W. 1970. Therm-
al conductivity values for ground beef and chuck. Food Technol.
products for temperatures above. 1OO’C. The thermal 23(4): 189.
conductivity of whole beef and ground beef was measured Sweat, V.E. 1972. Effect of temperature
the thermal conductivitv of chicken
and time post-mortem
meat. PhD thesis. Purdue
on
for a temperature range of 30-12O’C and was found to Univ., West Lafayette, IN.
increase with increase in temperature and decrease with Sweat, V.E. and Haugh. C.G. 1974. A thermal conductivity probe
for small food samples. Trans. of the ASAE 17: 56.
decreasein moisture content. Sweat. V.E. 1975. Modeling the thermal conductivity of meats.
Thermal conductivity of beef increased with tempera- Trans. of the ASAE 18(3): 564.
ture before denaturation of meat protein, followed by a M S received 11/14/80: revised 3117181; accepted 3125181.

Volume 46 (1981)-JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE- 1305