Meat Science 83 (2009) 563–570

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Meat Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci

Ohmic heating of meats: Electrical conductivities of whole meats and

processed meat ingredients
Markus Zell, James G. Lyng *, Denis A. Cronin, Desmond J. Morgan
School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, College of Life Sciences, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The ohmic heating rate of a food is highly influenced by its electrical conductivity (r). A survey of r values
Received 6 April 2009 of commonly used meat ingredients when dispersed as 5% (w/w) aqueous solutions/suspensions was
Received in revised form 22 June 2009 undertaken. A subset was further investigated at typical usage levels in solution/suspension, and/or when
Accepted 12 July 2009
incorporated into beef blends, while r of selected cuts from five meat species (beef, pork, lamb, chicken
and turkey) was also measured. Measurements were made from 5 to 85 °C and showed a linear increase
in r values with increasing temperature. In processed beef, addition of sodium chloride and phosphate
Keywords:
(P22) caused a significant increase in r which in turn would lead to an increase in ohmic heating rates.
Ohmic heating
Electrical conductivity
Furthermore, whole meats with lower endogenous fat or processed meats with the least added fat dis-
Meat formulation ingredients played higher r and reduced ohmic heating times. In beef maximum r was observed when fibres were
Fibre direction aligned with the current flow.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The effectiveness of ohmic heating is markedly influenced by
the composition and physical properties of the food to be heated.
The latter include the electrical conductivity (r), thermal conduc-
tivity (k) and specific heat capacity (Cp). Of these r is the main fac-
tor in an ohmic heating process (Halden, de Alwis, & Fryer, 1990)
and is directly proportional to the resultant rate of ohmic heating
(Palaniappan & Sastry, 1991). De Alwis, Halden, and Fryer (1989)
postulated that ohmic heating is most satisfactory for products
having r values in a range of 0.01–10 S/m, with optimum efficacy
in the range 0.1–5 S/m.
Due to their potential influence on ohmic heating, knowledge of
r of meats and non-meat ingredients is essential in the formula-
tion of meat products destined for ohmic heating. In raw meats
the intrinsic levels of electrically conductive materials are suffi-
cient to allow ohmic heating but r can be dramatically altered
by the nature of the ingredients added.
In recent years, several studies of the thermophysical properties
of meat products and also their behaviour during ohmic heating
have been published. Marcotte, Taherian, and Karimi (2008) pre-
sented data for thermophysical properties of various meat emul-
sions; however, most of these measurements were performed at
a limited number of temperatures (20, 40, 60 and 80 °C). Sarang,
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +353 1 7167710; fax: +353 1 7161149.
E-mail address: james.lyng@ucd.ie (J.G. Lyng).
0309-1740/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.07.005
Sastry, and Knipe (2008) also measured r values of different meat
cuts during ohmic heating using a small scale ohmic heating cell.
Shirsat, Lyng, Brunton, and McKenna (2004b) reported that addi-
tion of lean to fat increased the overall conductivity.
For liquid-particulate systems the effects of structural influ-
ences on ohmic heating (e.g. particle orientation) have been well
established (De Alwis & Fryer, 1990; Sastry & Palaniappan, 1992).
Furthermore, in a review by McKenna, Lyng, Brunton, and Shirsat
(2006) it was noted that for larger particles (15–25 mm) their ori-
entation relative to the electrical field has a significant influence on
electrical properties and on the relative heating rates of the phases.
While Brunton, Lyng, Zhang, and Jacquier (2006) described the ef-
fect of muscle fibre direction on dielectric properties of beef biceps
femoris at room temperature, there is no specific information avail-
able on the effect of muscle fibre direction during ohmic heating.
Ohmic heating has proved successful in heating meat emulsion
and meat batters (Shirsat, Brunton, Lyng, McKenna, & Scannell,
2004a; Piette et al., 2004). Although some data has been published
on dielectric properties of meat ingredients (Lyng, Zhang, &
Brunton, 2005) and also a limited amount on r of meats and ingre-
dients (Shirsat, Lyng, Brunton, & McKenna, 2004c) more informa-
tion is required to establish how the interactions of these
ingredients within a meat matrix impact on r and on subsequent
ohmic heating rate.
Therefore, the objective of this study was firstly to compare r
values of non-meat ingredients in solution/suspension and when
incorporated in a meat product at typical usage levels. The
influence of fat incorporation was also measured. For comparison
r values of a range of raw meat products were measured. The final
564 M. Zell et al. / Meat Science 83 (2009) 563–570

aim was to investigate the influence of fibre orientation and salt
injection on r of whole beef muscle during ohmic heating process.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Sample preparation
2.1.1. Non-meat ingredients
Aqueous solutions or suspensions (5% w/w) of a range of non-
meat ingredients (Table 1), used in the manufacture of meat prod-
ucts, were prepared by dissolving or dispersing 10 g of each ingre-
dient in 190 g of distilled deionised water. The preparations were
stirred using a mechanical stirrer (Model No. HB502, Bibby Sterilin
Ltd., UK) at speed 2 to ensure complete dispersion. Aqueous solu-
tions of selected ingredients were also prepared at levels typical
of those used commercially (Table 1).
frozen at 20 °C until used. The meat was defrosted overnight
and, following fat trimming, cylindrical subsamples (approx. 58 g,
50 mm in length and 36 mm in diameter) were prepared using a
custom made cork borer. The resulting samples were wrapped in
cellophane, transferred to a plastic bag and held at 4 °C for at least
1 h to ensure temperature equilibration.
Further samples of beef were injected with a 3% salt solution
and tumbled as described by Zell, Lyng, Cronin, and Morgan
(2009). Subsequently, the tumbled meat was prepared as described
above.
2.1.3. Preparation of lean beef for fibre direction analysis
Beef Semitendinosus muscle was chosen due to its uniformity of
fibre direction. Samples (dimensions as above) were prepared in
perpendicular and parallel directions to the muscle fibres and
maintained at 4 °C until required.

2.1.2. Meat 2.1.4. Preparation of meat/ingredient blends

Five different fresh meat cuts (beef (Semitendinosus), pork (loin), Lean beef meat (8 kg) was ground through a plate mincer with
lamb (leg), chicken (breast) and turkey (breast)) were procured 3.5 mm diameter holes (Model No. TSE, Tritacarne, Omas, Italy).
from a local butcher (O’Mahony Meats Ltd., Coolock, Ireland) and Subsequently, 500 g batches of the minced meat were blended

Table 1
Electrical conductivity (r) values of 5% (w/w) and of typical usage levels % (w/w) aqueous solutions or dispersions measured using an electrical conductivity probe and an ohmic
cell.

Ingredient Levels (% w/w) Electrical conductivity r (S/m) Timea (s)

Probe Cell
25 °C 80 °C 25 °C 80 °C
Deionised water NA 0.001 0.003 NA NA NA
Glucose 5 0.007 0.018
Fructose 5 0.008 0.021
Sucrose 5 0.013 0.031
Sucrose 4 0.013 0.031 0.011 0.044 2372
Antioxidant BHA 5 0.016 0.042
Lactose 5 0.022 0.059
Potato starch 5 0.022 0.051
Potato starch 4 0.015 0.046 0.017 0.049 1346
Wheat gluten 5 0.055 0.119
Wheat gluten 0.15 0.017 0.043 0.016 0.051 1457
Wheat flour 5 0.091 0.197
Wheat flour 3 0.061 0.139 0.053 0.127 928
Sodium caseinate 5 0.143 0.382
Whey protein 5 0.147 0.374
Soya protein isolate 5 0.165 0.404
Soya protein isolate 1 0.054 0.127 0.047 0.121 947
Rusk 5 0.189 0.397
Glucanolactone 5 0.222 0.539
Soya concentrate 5 0.297 0.716
Carrageenan 5 0.427 1.138
Sodium ascorbate 5 1.118 2.418
Sodium ascorbate 0.01 0.017 0.061 0.019 0.075 1093
MSG 5 1.289 2.97
Red2G 5 1.689 3.58
Sodium benzoate 5 1.828 5.14
Tripolyphosphate 5 2.523 5.723
Potassium sorbate 5 2.623 6.479
Potassium sorbate 0.26 0.157 0.384 0.155 0.377 324
Phosphate (P22) 5 2.88 6.58
Phosphate (P22) 3 1.794 4.351 2.066 4.339 19
Disodium phosphate 5 3.525 8.425
Sodium nitrite 5 4.691 10.873
Sodium nitrite 0.015 0.014 0.038 0.014 0.044 1877
Sodium nitrate 5 4.842 11.54
Sodium nitrate 1.7 1.722 4.104 1.912 4.203 20
Sodium sulphite anh. 5 4.873 11.867
White pudding spice 5 5.695 13.497
White pudding spice 2.5 2.980 6.486 3.007 6.541 14
Sodium chloride 5 7.628 17.544
Sodium chloride 1.5 2.725 6.172 2.78 5.973 16
Sodium chloride 2.5 4.29 9.25 4.35 9.07 10
a
Time taken to ohmically heat the solutions from 25 to 80 °C; NA, not detectable.
 M. Zell et al. / Meat Science 83 (2009) 563–570 565

with the selected non-meat ingredients (Table 3) using a house- Table 3

hold blender (Model Auto Pro, Kenwood Ltd., Havant, UK). The Electrical conductivity (r) (S/m) of muscle beef blends at selected temperatures
measured using an ohmic cell.
blended meats were transferred to plastic bags, vaccum packed
with a Webomatic packaging system (Model No. 021ODC681, Added Addition level Temperature (°C)
Webomatic, Bochum, Germany) and frozen at 18 °C until ingredient (% w/w) 5 25 45 65 85
required. None (beef only) NA 0.506 0.825 1.134 1.371 1.603
Pork back fat 20 (15.16)a 0.296 0.477 0.647 0.798 1.107
2.2. Ohmic heating unit and procedures Pork back fat 10 (7.78)a 0.419 0.665 0.902 1.133 1.271
Pork back fat 5 (4.37)a 0.435 0.669 0.925 1.191 1.341
Water 25 0.478 0.679 0.942 1.179 1.416
The ohmic heating system consisted of a custom built 3.5 kW
Gluten 0.15 0.489 0.707 0.962 1.255 1.543
(15 A, 0–240 V, 50 Hz) batch ohmic heater (C-Tech Ltd., Chester, Potato starch 4 0.521 0.743 0.979 1.153 1.437
UK). The cell employed (90 mm long and 36.5 mm internal diame- Sodium nitrite 0.015 0.566 0.786 1.041 1.324 1.563
ter) was constructed from ErtacetalÒ (Fig. 1). End caps, fitted with Phosphate (P22) 3 1.210 1.870 2.354 3.243 4.032
Sodium chloride 1.5 1.618 2.042 2.690 3.489 4.596
high grade stainless steel (316) electrodes were held in place using
Sodium chloride 2.5 2.926 3.405 5.007 6.242 7.497
a spring-loaded system which also served to prevent leakages. An
a
opening permitted a type T thermocouple to be placed in the cen- Figure in brackets represents final measured fat content of blended beef sample.
tre of the tube and the inlet was sealed with silicone rubber. The
cell was installed in a safety cabinet, the thermocouple inserted
(geometric centre of sample) and the electrical connections made with I, current intensity (A); V, voltage (V); L, gap between elec-
to the electrodes. Temperature, voltage and current were simulta- trodes (m); and As, electrode surface area (m2).
neously logged at 1s intervals using a Pico ADC 11 data logger
(Model No. R5.06.3, Pico Technology Ltd., St. Neots, UK). 2.4. Thermal conductivity (k)
Approximately 53 ml of the aqueous solutions were transferred
to the cell, care being taken to avoid any air bubbles in the cell k of the different meat samples was measured using the method
prior to measurement, and then heated ohmically over the temper- of Sweat, Haugh, and Stadelman (1973). The line heat source probe
ature range from 10 to 85 °C. A fixed set point voltage of 100 V was incorporated a Constantan heater wire over the full length
used and the gap between the two electrodes was 50 mm. Temper- (35 mm) of the probe and a thermocouple located midway along
ature and other parameters were recorded as described above. its length. For measurements, cylindrical 100 ml plastic beakers
All meat samples were reweighed following equilibration, (King Ireland, Dublin, Ireland) were uniformly filled with equal
transferred into the ohmic heating cell and heated as described amounts of experimental material; the probe was inserted in the
above. sample centre through a small opening in the plastic lid which
was used to cover the sample. To examine the influence of fibre
2.3. Electrical conductivity (r) direction in whole beef muscle k values were measured with the
probe aligned parallel or perpendicular to fibre directions as shown
2.3.1. r using a conductivity probe in Fig. 2. To ensure the correct sample temperature prior to mea-
Prepared solutions were allowed to equilibrate to ambient tem- surement the sample beaker was placed in a water bath (Model
perature (25 °C) or at 80 °C respectively and r was measured using No. LTD20, Grant Instruments Ltd., Cambridge, UK) and equili-
a precalibrated Cyberscan conductivity meter (Cyberscan PC 300, brated at the desired temperature for 15 min. Following needle
Eutech Instruments Pte Ltd., Singapore). insertion and a 30 s equilibration time, the needle was heated at
a constant rate and the temperature was monitored. Each product
2.3.2. r derived under ohmic heating conditions type was measured in triplicate at 5 and 25 °C. Prior to use the sys-
The cell was calibrated according to Levitt’s method (1954). This tem was calibrated using glycerol (99.5% A.C.S. reagent, Sigma–Al-
involved the use of five concentrations (0.5–0.05 M) of KCl (Sigma drich, UK) and deionised water at 20 °C. Regression coefficients
Aldrich, UK) in deionised water, to permit calculation of a conduc- (R2) for the linear portion of the temperature against log time plot
tivity cell constant. The calibration was validated with three NaCl were >0.99 for all measured values.
(Merck, Germany) solutions with concentrations 0.02, 0.05 and
0.17 M. Measured values were compared to published values 2.5. Proximate analysis of meat
(CRC, 1996). For all conductivity experiments three sample repli-
cates were heated up from 5 to 85 °C, as recorded at the geometric Proximate analysis of all meats was conducted on blended sam-
centre of the cell (Section 2.2), at a voltage gradient of 20 V/cm and ples (Kenwood, UK). Moisture was determined in triplicate (AOAC,
a frequency of 50 Hz. Electrical conductivities of meat samples and 1995 method No. 950.46) using a Binder drying oven (Binder
solutions were calculated using the following equation: GmbH, Tuttlingen, Germany) and total salt content was measured
in duplicate using the method of Fox (1963). Fat content was deter-
I L
r¼ ð1Þ mined by a solvent extraction method using the Soxtec system
V As
(Model No. HT6, Tecator AB, Hoganas, Sweden). Ash was deter-

Table 2
Proximate composition (% w/w) of raw (R) and injected (I) meats.

Species (location of cut) Treatment Moisture Protein Fat Ash Salt

Beef (eye of round) R 72.79 21.63 2.35 1.52 0.17
Lamb (leg) R 73.81 19.84 3.75 1.86 0.19
Pork (loin) R 74.25 20.21 1.30 2.22 0.15
Chicken (breast) R 73.91 23.7 0.45 1.05 0.21
Turkey (breast) R 73.37 24.13 0.52 1.30 0.16
Beef (eye of round) I 74.65 20.18 2.14 2.03 0.86
566 M. Zell et al. / Meat Science 83 (2009) 563–570

Fig. 1. Ohmic cell used for measuring electrical conductivities.

Fig. 2. Positioning of thermal conductivity probe with heat flow (?) (a) perpendicular and (b) parallel to the fibre direction and also positioning of electrodes for electrical
conductivity measurement with current flow (M) (c) perpendicular and (d) parallel to the fibre direction.

mined by heating 10 g of the pre-charred sample in a furnace at Dielectric properties of comparable solutions/suspensions were
600 °C for 5 h and weighing the residue. measured at different frequencies (f) by Lyng et al. (2005) and were
ranked in terms of their dielectric loss factors (e00f ). This parameter
is related to the availability of ions and can be predicted from r
3. Results and discussion
values in the absence of directly determined values. The relation-
ship between r and e00f is given in the following equation:
3.1. Ingredients

Table 1 shows the wide range (0.007–7.628 S/m) of r of the 5% e00f ¼ r=ð2p  f  e0 Þ ð2Þ
(w/w) aqueous solutions/suspensions of non-meat ingredients
measured at 25 °C. At the higher temperature used (80 °C) the con- where f is the frequency (Hz) of the field and e0 is the permittivity in
ductivity values increased approximately 2.5-fold. As expected the vacuum (a constant).
ingredients which displayed the lowest (<0.03 S/m) r values in- When the results from the 5% solutions/suspensions in the pres-
cluded non-ionic carbohydrates (e.g. glucose, fructose, sucrose ent study (Table 1) were correlated with those of Lyng et al. (2005),
and starch) while ionic carbohydrates (e.g. carrageenan) and pro- the following relationships were obtained:
teins (e.g. soya protein isolate, sodium caseinate) showed some-
what higher (0.1–0.5 S/m) values. Ingredients which displayed e0027:12 ¼ 66:173r  6:009 ðR2 ¼ 0:96Þ ð3Þ
intermediate r levels (1–2.5 S/m) included monosodium gluta-
e002450 ¼ 0:747r þ 9:274 ðR2 ¼ 0:97Þ ð4Þ
mate, sodium ascorbate, sodium benzoate and Red2G. The ingredi-
ents which were found to have high levels of r (>2.5 S/m) included While a further study would be required to confirm this rela-
salts such as sodium chloride, sodium nitrate and formulations tionship over a broader range of ingredient concentrations, in the
containing these salts. context of meat processing 5% would be substantially higher than
 M. Zell et al. / Meat Science 83 (2009) 563–570 567

the typical usage levels of the high conductivity ingredients listed
in Table 1.
In addition, Table 1 shows r values at typical usage levels which
were determined using a conductivity meter and also using the oh-
mic cell. Results presented in Table 1 demonstrate a good relation-
ship between the two techniques with R2 values in excess of 0.99 at
both temperatures.
injection and tumbling as described in Section 2.1.2 gave a final
salt content of approximately 0.86–0.87% (Table 3).
Fig. 3 shows the r values of the five meats evaluated with r
increasing as a function of temperature as expected. The magni-
tude of r would appear to be related to the fat content of the sam-
ples with leaner meats having higher values and thus undergoing
more rapid ohmic heating as shown in the comparison of lamb
and chicken in Fig. 4.

3.2. Meats
Proximate composition of the different meat cuts are presented
in Table 2. Of most interest are the fat and salt contents as they
have most influence on r levels. Lamb had the highest fat content,
followed by beef and pork with poultry meats having the lowest.
The salt values ranged between 0.15% and 0.21% in the non-in-
jected meat cuts. Overall, chicken meat showed the lowest fat con-
tent and highest salt value compared to the other four cuts. Brine
3.2.1. Injected meats and fibre orientation
Fig. 5 presents a plot of r versus temperature for salted and un-
salted beef meat measured parallel or perpendicular to fibre direc-
tion. In addition, an unsalted minced beef was included. Of the
unsalted meats minced beef showed the highest r level compared
to the intact meat heated in either a parallel or in a perpendicular
direction. Shirsat et al. (2004b) suggested that the effect of mincing
was to facilitate the release of moisture and inorganic constituents

2.8

2.6

2.4 Chicken
2.2
Turkey
Electrical conductivity (S/m)

2
Pork
1.8

1.6 Beef

1.4 Lamb
1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Temperature (°C)

Fig. 3. Electrical conductivity values of five meat species measured from 5 to 85 °C.

90

80

70
Chicken
Lamb
60
Temperature (°C)

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time (s)

Fig. 4. Ohmic heating rates of chicken (0.45% fat) versus lamb (3.75% fat).
568 M. Zell et al. / Meat Science 83 (2009) 563–570

2.8
parallel salted
2.6
perpendicular salted
2.4
minced unsalted
2.2
parallel unsalted
Electrical conductivity (S/m) 2
perpendicular unsalted
1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Temperature (°C)

Fig. 5. Effect of fibre direction, mincing and salting on the electrical conductivity values of beef (Semitendinosus).

from myofibrillar tissue during the chopping and mincing
procedures.
The r values of beef measured in a direction parallel to the fibre
orientation were higher than those measured in a perpendicular
fashion which would be a reflection of a greater ease of current
flow along the muscle fibres rather than in a cross-fibre direction.
The inferior electrical conductivity in the latter direction has been
commented upon by Saif, Lan, Wang, and Garcia (2004). In addition
to increasing r, salting also appeared to enhance the conductivity
difference caused by fibre orientation.
The effect of fibre direction and salting on ohmic heating rates
are shown in Fig. 6 and suggests an approximate 8% reduction in
heating time for samples heated in parallel orientation to the cur-
rent flow. The comparative reduction was further increased to 15%
in the injected samples. Previous work in this laboratory (Zell et al.,
2009) has shown that care has to be taken in injection and tum-
bling to ensure a uniform salt distribution and thus to optimise
the ohmic heating process.
3.2.2. Meat/ingredient blends
From the ingredients presented in Table 1 a subsample was se-
lected for further evaluation by incorporation in a meat blend.
Ingredients were selected based on their r values (Table 1) and
their relative usage levels in meat products. For example sodium
chloride, sodium nitrate and phosphates (P22) were chosen due
to their high r values (Section 3.1). Starch and gluten were chosen
as examples of low r ingredients. Pork fat and water were also se-
lected as they are major ingredients in many meat products. Addi-
tionally, pork fat has a low r value and thus may influence the
ohmic heating process (Shirsat et al., 2004b), while water is essen-
tial for ionic solvation. Table 3 presents similar trends to results
found in aqueous solutions/suspensions (Table 1) with r values
increasing almost linearly with increasing temperatures. The effect
of fat showed a linear trend (R2 = 0.97 at 65 °C) with decreasing r
levels over the range 5–20% fat addition. This is broadly in agree-
ment with the findings of Shirsat et al. (2004b). It is of interest to
note that when r values were compared to those for the whole

90
perpendicular
80 salted
parallel salted
70
perpendicular
unsalted
60
Temperature (°C)

parallel unsalted

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time (s)

Fig. 6. Effect of fibre direction and salting on ohmic heating rates in beef.
 M. Zell et al. / Meat Science 83 (2009) 563–570 569

1.5

a b
1.4
added fat
1.3
endogenous fat

Electrical conductivity (S/m)

1.2

1.1

y = -0.1003x + 1.4131
1
R 2 = 0.9678

0.9 y = -0.0418x + 1.4335

R 2 = 0.9682
0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Fat content (%)

Fig. 7. The effect of fat on electrical conductivity of meats: (a) endogenous fat and (b) added fat measured at 65 °C.

meat samples used, the decrease in conductivity with decrease in
fat content was much more pronounced in the latter, as illustrated
in Fig. 7 which shows comparative data measured at 65 °C. While
similar trends were observed at the other measured temperatures,
the results at 65 °C were selected as the latter temperature would
ensure that all fat would be completely melted. While accepting
the limited nature of this restricted data set and the possible con-
founding effects of other components, it does suggest that the
endogenous lipid in meats has a greater impact on conductivity
than depot fat incorporated in lean/fat blends. These results are
in contrast to data presented by Sarang et al. (2008) who found
no relationship between the endogenous fat contents of a range
of meat cuts from different species and their r values. Water at
25% inclusion had an obvious dilution effect on ionic concentra-
tions, leading to lower r values. The other non-ionic ingredients
had very little effect on r of beef. As expected, the ionic ingredients
which are listed in Table 3 had a profound effect on beef conduc-
tivity when added at their normal inclusion levels, with the excep-
tion of sodium nitrite (due to its very low concentration).
3.3. Thermal conductivity (k)
factors on the anisotropy and the moisture content of the food
material. In a recent review Nesvadba (2005) noted that in unfro-
zen meat the muscle fibre orientation has a significant impact with
heat flowing more readily in the direction perpendicular to that of
the fibres giving an increase in k of up to 10% compared to that in
the parallel direction. Furthermore, meat injection led to a further
increase of approximately 5% in k which is most likely a conse-
quence of the increased moisture content (Sweat, 1986).
4. Conclusions
This study shows that sodium chloride, phosphate and fat, be-
cause of their relatively high levels of incorporation and respective
high or low r values have the largest impact on r and ohmic heat-
ing rate. This emphasises the importance of prior knowledge of r
values of ingredients in optimising the formulation of meat prod-
ucts destined for ohmic heating. In the case of products with well
differentiated fibre orientation, this aspect should also be consid-
ered during the validation of an ohmic cooking protocol, as fibre
direction has an influence on both r and k.

Table 4 shows k values for the different meats and for beef mea- Acknowledgements
sured parallel and perpendicular to the fibre direction at 5 and
25 °C. Beef and lamb showed the lowest k values while pork meat The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support of the
showed the highest value. For beef, k measured in a perpendicular Non-Commissioned Food Research Measure, funded by the Irish
orientation was somewhat higher than that measured in a parallel Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
one which is in agreement with the observation of Hill, Leitman,
and Sunderland (1967) and Singh (2007). k depends amongst other References

Brunton, N. P., Lyng, J. G., Zhang, L., & Jacquier, J. C. (2006). The use of dielectric
Table 4 properties and other physical analyses for assessing protein denaturation in
Thermal conductivity (k) of meats (±SD) measured using a line heat source. beef biceps femoris muscle during cooking from 5 to 85 °C. Meat Science, 72(2),
236–244.
Meat k (W/m °C) CRC (1996). In D. R. Lide (Ed.), Handbook of chemistry and physics (76th ed.).
5 °C 25 °C Cleveland, OH, USA: The Chemical Rubber Company.
De Alwis, A. A. P., & Fryer, P. J. (1990). A finite-element analysis of heat generation
Beef parallel 0.431 ± 0.016 0.454 ± 0.016 and transfer during ohmic heating of food. Chemical Engineering Science, 45(6),
Beef perpendicular 0.457 ± 0.017 0.480 ± 0.014 1547–1559.
Turkey 0.486 ± 0.021 0.495 ± 0.013 De Alwis, A. A. P., Halden, K., & Fryer, P. J. (1989). Shape and conductivity effects in
Chicken 0.479 ± 0.017 0.491 ± 0.011 the ohmic heating of foods. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 67(2),
Pork 0.497 ± 0.024 0.516 ± 0.015 159–168.
Lamb 0.443 ± 0.007 0.461 ± 0.011 Fox, P. F. (1963). Potentiometric determination of salt in cheese. Journal of Dairy
Science, 46(7), 744–745.
570 M. Zell et al. / Meat Science 83 (2009) 563–570
Halden, K., de Alwis, A. A. P., & Fryer, P. J. (1990). Changes in the electrical
conductivity of foods during ohmic heating. International Journal of Food Science
and Technology, 25(1), 9–25.
Hill, J. E., Leitman, J. D., & Sunderland, J. E. (1967). Thermal conductivity of various
meats. Food Technology, 21, 1143–1148.
Levitt, B. P. (1954). Conductivity of electrolytes. Findlay’s practical physical chemistry
(pp. 238–241). Harlow: Longman.
Lyng, J. G., Zhang, L., & Brunton, N. P. (2005). A survey of the dielectric properties of
meats and ingredients used in meat product manufacture. Meat Science, 69(4),
589–602.
Marcotte, M., Taherian, A. R., & Karimi, Y. (2008). Thermophysical properties of
processed meat and poultry products. Journal of Food Engineering, 88(3),
315–322.
McKenna, B. M., Lyng, J., Brunton, N., & Shirsat, N. (2006). Advances in radio
frequency and ohmic heating of meats. Journal of Food Engineering, 77(2),
215–229.
Nesvadba, P. (2005). Thermal properties of unfrozen foods. In M. A. Rao, S. S. H.
Rizvi, & A. K. Datta (Eds.), Engineering Properties of Foods (3rd ed., pp. 149–168).
Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Palaniappan, S., & Sastry, S. K. (1991). Electrical conductivities of selected solid
foods during ohmic heating. Journal of Food Process Engineering, 14(3), 221–236.
Piette, G., Buteau, M. L., de Halleux, D., Chiu, L., Raymond, Y., Ramaswamy, H. S.,
et al. (2004). Ohmic cooking of processed meats and its effects on product
quality. Journal of Food Science, 69, E71–78.
Saif, S. M. H., Lan, Y., Wang, S., & Garcia, S. (2004). Electrical resistivity of goat meat.
International Journal of Food Properties, 7(3), 463–471.
Sarang, S., Sastry, S. K., & Knipe, L. (2008). Electrical conductivity of fruits and meats
during ohmic heating. Journal of Food Engineering, 87(3), 351–356.
Sastry, S. K., & Palaniappan, S. (1992). Ohmic heating of liquid-particle mixtures.
Food Technology, 46(12), 64–67.
Shirsat, N., Brunton, N. P., Lyng, J. G., McKenna, B. M., & Scannell, A. (2004a). Texture,
colour and sensory evaluation of a conventionally and ohmically cooked meat
emulsion batter. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 84(14),
1861–1870.
Shirsat, N., Lyng, J. G., Brunton, N. P., & McKenna, B. M. (2004b). Ohmic processing:
Electrical conductivities of pork cuts. Meat Science, 67(3), 507–514.
Shirsat, N., Lyng, J. G., Brunton, N. P., & McKenna, B. M. (2004c). Conductivities and
ohmic heating of meat emulsion batters. Journal of Muscle Foods, 15, 121–137.
Singh, P. R. (2007). Heating and cooling process for foods. In D. R. Heldman & D. B.
Lund (Eds.), Handbook of food engineering (2nd ed., pp. 397–426). Boca Raton:
CRC Press.
Sweat, V. E. (1986). Thermal properties of foods. In M. A. Rao & S. S. H. Rizvi (Eds.),
Engineering properties of foods (pp. 49–87). New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Sweat, V. E., Haugh, C. G., & Stadelman, J. (1973). Thermal conductivity of chicken
meat at temperatures between 75 and 20 °C. Journal of Food Science, 38,
158–160.
Zell, M., Lyng, J. G., Cronin, D. A., & Morgan, D. J. (2009). Ohmic cooking of whole
beef muscle – Optimisation of meat preparation. Meat Science, 81(4), 693–698.