Professional Documents
Culture Documents
10 PDF
10 PDF
10 PDF
net/publication/223591327
CITATIONS READS
66 1,031
1 author:
James Carson
The University of Waikato
69 PUBLICATIONS 1,683 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by James Carson on 13 November 2017.
James K. Carson*
*Department of Materials and Process Engineering, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton 2020,
Abstract
The literature associated with modelling and predicting the thermal conductivities of food products has
been reviewed. The uncertainty involved in thermal conductivity prediction increases as the
differences between the food components’ thermal conductivities increase, which means that there is
greater uncertainty involved with predicting the thermal conductivity of foods which are porous and/or
frozen, than with unfrozen, non-porous foods. For unfrozen, non-porous foods, a number of simple
effective thermal conductivity models that are functions only of the components’ thermal
conductivities and volume fractions may be used to provide predictions to within ±10%. For frozen
and/or porous foods, the prediction procedure is more complicated, and usually requires the prediction
of porosity and/or ice fraction, which introduces another source of error. The effective thermal
conductivity model for these foods may require an extra parameter (in addition to the components’
thermal conductivities and volume fractions) whose value must often be determined empirically.
Recommendations for selecting models for different classes of foods are provided. There is scope for
1. Introduction
Historically, the design of thermal processing units for food products (e.g. refrigerators, ovens, dryers,
etc.) has largely been based on experience, but in more recent times analytical approaches have been
employed, in particular the implementation of design methods that have been used by chemical
processing engineers [1]. These methods are largely dependent on mathematical models that are
derived from the physical laws that govern the process (e.g. mass and energy balances, reaction
kinetics, thermodynamics, etc). The accuracy of any model of a thermal process is limited by, amongst
1/28
other factors, the accuracy of data for physical properties [2], which may vary during the thermal
process. One of the most influential physical properties in thermal processing is thermal conductivity.
Thermal conductivity measurement is a relatively complex task, and there are many potential sources
of error [24]. Measurement methods for food products have been reviewed by Rahman [4], Murakami
and Okos [14] and Nesvadba [24]. The line-source method (thermal conductivity probe) appears to be
the most the most widely used method for food products, although the guarded hot-plate, Fitch
apparatus, and several comparative methods have also been employed. A probable explanation for the
popularity of the thermal conductivity probe is its relative simplicity coupled with relatively short
measurement times; however, since the measurements are localised, it will not be suitable for some
foods which have highly non-uniform distribution of phases. The food to be measured needs to be
considered when a measurement device is selected, since not all methods are suitable for all foods.
Databases of thermal conductivities of fresh and minimally processed foods such as fruits, vegetables,
grains, cereals, meat and dairy products may be found in the literature [3–8]. The data are sometimes
compiled as empirical correlations of temperature and/or composition, and a computer program called
COSTHERM has been developed which has condensed much of this data into a predictive thermal
properties database [9]. However, it would be impossible to collate databases with measured properties
of every single food product, especially since new food products are continually being developed. In
the absence of measured physical property data, the best estimate of thermal conductivity may be
The literature contains a large number of models for predicting the thermal conductivities of composite
or heterogeneous materials based on composition. Some reviews have provided lists of such models
[10–18], although none of these is by any means exhaustive. Many of the models that have been
proposed are highly specific to a particular material and contain material-specific parameters. Other
models have more general applicability, but may still contain parameters whose values must be
determined empirically. Several researchers have proposed generic models by deriving a set of
equations, usually based on a conceptual ‘parent’ model that is modified to account for variations in
2/28
composition and structure [19–23], although many of these still include empirical parameters.
However, since new models continue to appear in the literature, it seems that, to-date, no single model
As with most modelling exercises, the prediction of effective thermal conductivity usually involves a
trade-off between simplicity/convenience and accuracy. Due to the inherent biological variation of
food products it is highly unusual to find measured thermal conductivity data having reported
uncertainties of less than ±2%, with ± 3–5% being typical figures. Hence, it is unreasonable to expect
the accuracy of predicted thermal conductivities to be better than ±5%. For design purposes, accuracies
to within ± 10% are usually sufficient for thermal conductivity data [24], which, depending on the food
in question, can often be achieved with relatively simple thermal conductivity models.
Table 1 shows the thermal conductivities of the major food components at 0°C (correlations for the
temperature dependencies of these components may be found in [6] and [71]). Other than ice and air,
the thermal conductivities of food components are of similar magnitude. Several studies have shown
that the uncertainty involved in the prediction of thermal conductivity increases as the difference
between the conductivities of the components increases [25,26]. The difference between components’
thermal conductivities is therefore a useful method of classifying materials from an effective thermal
conductivity perspective. Carson et al. [26] proposed the following classifications for predicting the
The selection of thermal conductivity models is discussed separately for each of these classes.
Pham and Willix [27] performed effective thermal conductivity measurements between -40°C and +30
°C for various meat products and compared the results to the predictions of six simple models (Eqs. (1)
– (5), (11)).
3/28
Series model:
1
ke (1)
vi / ki
i
Parallel model:
k e ki vi (2)
i
1 v22 / 3 (1 k 2 / k1 )
k e k1 1/ 3
(3)
1 v2 (1 k 2 / k1 )(1 v2 )
2/3
2k1 k 2 2(k1 k 2 ) F
k e k1 (5)
2k1 k 2 (k1 k 2 ) F
(k1 k 2 ) 2
and G
(k1 k 2 ) 2 k1k 2 / 2
They found that for the meat products in their unfrozen state, all the models other than the Series
Mattea et al. [32] found that the effective medium theory (EMT) equation provided predictions of
sufficient accuracy for thermal conductivity data of fruits and vegetables at 20°C:
ki ke
v
i
i
k i 2k e
0 (6)
k e ¼ (3v2 1)k 2 [3(1 v2 ) 1]k1 [(3v2 1)k 2 (3{1 v2 } 1)k1 ]2 8k1k 2
4/28
Murukami and Okos [14] recommended the use of the Parallel model for un-frozen, non-porous foods
in general (other than meat products), which had been the recommendation of the COST 90 group
[35,36].
Hsu and Heldman [37] compared the thermal conductivities of aqueous starch solutions at
temperatures between 5°C and 45°C to the predictions of six effective thermal conductivity models
including the Kopelman (Eq. (3)), Maxwell (Eq. (4)), and EMT (Eq. (6)) models, and found that while
the Maxwell model provided the best predictions overall none of the prediction errors from any of the
Figure 1 shows a plot of Eqs. (1) to (6) where component 1 is water and component 2 is a food solids
phase having a thermal conductivity of 0.2 W m-1 K-1. Although the physical structures assumed in the
derivations of each of Eqs. (1) to (6) are very different, apart from the Series model, the model
predictions are all very similar. The inference to be drawn from this is observation is that because the
thermal conductivities of these food components are similar, the influence of material structure on
effective thermal conductivity is minimal. Evidence supporting this conclusion is easily seen in the
studies of Pham and Willix [27] and Hsu and Heldman [37].
The choice of effective thermal conductivity model for non-frozen, non-porous foods is therefore
relatively straightforward since any of the models listed above, other than the Series model, may be
used with sufficient accuracy for most purposes (± 10%). It should be noted: firstly that while the
Parallel model is the simplest computationally, of all these models it is most likely to over-predict (Fig.
1); secondly, the Maxwell-Eucken model requires identification of a continuous phase (component 1 in
Eq. (4)) and a dispersed phase (component 2 in Eq. (4)). Unless there is clear indication to the contrary,
it should be assumed that water, rather than the solids phase, forms the continuous phase of the food
product.
Thermal conductivity predictions involving frozen food require knowledge of the food’s ice content
(xice) which in turn requires knowledge of the initial freezing temperature (Tf). These data may be
5/28
determined experimentally from measured enthalpy-temperature data, or alternatively may be
predicted. The initial freezing temperature for a number of foods may be found in the literature [6,7].
For high-moisture content foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables, and meat and seafood products,
the initial freezing temperature is typically between -0.5°C and -3°C. For lower moisture content foods
such as cheese and egg yolks, the initial freezing temperature can be much lower. Models for
predicting the initial freezing temperature based on the food’s composition may be found in the
literature [17,38–40].
Models for predicting ice fractions have been reviewed by Rahman [17]. One of the most widely used
models (including [27,41,42]) is based on Raoult’s law and the Clausius-Clapeyron Equation:
Tf
xice ( xw xb )1 (7)
T
For their study on the thermal conductivity of meat products, Pham and Willix [27] related the bound
Tchigeov (cited in [17]), recommended the following empirical ice fraction models for use with meat,
xice 1.105
(9)
xw 0.70138
1
ln(T f T 1)
Figure 2 shows Eqs. (7), (9) and (10) plotted assuming an initial freezing temperature of -1°C, a
protein mass fraction of 0.2 and a total water mass fraction of 0.65. It is clear from the discrepancies
between the predictions of the different models shown in Fig. (2) that the selection of an ice fraction
model introduces an extra source of uncertainty. For example, the discrepancy between the predictions
of Levy’s model based on ice fractions calculated firstly from Eq. (7) and secondly from Eq. (10) may
by as high 15%, depending on the ice fraction. This error occurs independently of any further error that
may result from the selection of an unsuitable thermal conductivity model. Ideally, a thermal
conductivity model should therefore be tested independently of an ice fraction model, since if the ice
6/28
fraction model over-predicts and the conductivity model under-predicts (or vice versa), thermal
conductivity predictions may appear to be accurate for a given set of data, but may only be so by
coincidence. However, the most common approach when thermal conductivity models are being
compared appears simply to have been to base all thermal conductivity models on a single ice fraction
model.
The majority of the effective thermal conductivity studies for this class of food have been concerned
with meat products. Hill et al. [44] performed thermal conductivity measurements on fresh and frozen
meat products between 0 and 150°F (-18°C – +66°C), and derived an equation to model the effective
thermal conductivity as a function of temperature, fat and total moisture content, but not explicitly as a
function of ice-fraction. The model assumed that heat was conducted through the meat by three parallel
pathways: through the meat fibre, through the aqueous phase, and through the meat fibre and aqueous
8k1k 2 (C C 2 )
k e k 2 (2C C 2 ) k1 (1 4C 3C 2 ) (11)
k1C k 2 (4 C )
where: C 2 4 2v2
and: component 1 is the aqueous phase, component 2 is the meat fibre phase
Pham and Willix [27] found that Hill’s model was not as accurate as others such as Levy’s, and it does
Mascheroni [45] developed a model for frozen and unfrozen meats in which the meat was modelled as
a bundle of partially dehydrated meat fibres surrounded by ice. The meat fibres in turn were assumed
to be a meat solids matrix containing unfrozen water as a dispersed phase. Above the initial freezing
temperature, all the water was assumed to be contained within the fibre; below the initial freezing
temperature it was assumed that ice progressively formed in the extra-fibril region at the expense of
water within the fibres. Heat flows both parallel to, and perpendicular with, the fibre were considered.
The model was relatively complex, and subsequent workers [27,42] have found that a simpler model
7/28
Pham and Willix [27] found that Levy’s model Eq. (5) based on ice fractions calculated from Eqs. (7)
and (8) provided good predictions for both the frozen and unfrozen meat products, and was
substantially better for frozen meats than the other models they considered in the study. They were,
however, reluctant to place too much confidence in Levy’s model due to its “… lack of physical
justification, since it was based on mathematical rather than physical arguments.” Wang et al. [23]
have subsequently shown that Levy’s model can have a physical interpretation, which should allay any
Renaud et al. [46] studied the thermal conductivity of frozen model foods between -40°C and +20°C
and compared the predictions of the Series, Parallel, Maxwell-Eucken models and their own model
(Eq. (12)):
Renaud model:
1 v2 v2
k e f [(1 v2 )k1 v2 k 2 ] (1 f ) (12)
k1 k2
They found that when Eq. (12) was fitted to their experimental data, the empirically determined
weighting factor, f, was strongly dependent on the specific food in question, and hence they concluded
that as a predictive tool the Maxwell-Eucken model was better, even though it produced prediction
errors of up to 28%.
Tarnawski et al. [42] used the data of Pham and Willix to compare the predictions of several models
including those that had been used previously for meats (such as the Mascheroni and Levy Models)
and some models that had been used for soils, such as the models of De Vries [47] and Gori [48].
Some of the more complex models provided slightly more accurate predictions than Levy’s (based on
the root mean square error); however, the differences were marginal, and some, such as De Vries’
Recently, Wang et al. [49] compared the predictions of 31 models (including the Series, Parallel,
Maxwell-Eucken and Levy models) to the thermal conductivity data for 22 meat and seafood products
between -40°C and +40°C [7,27], based on ice fractions calculated from Eqs. (7) and (8). Levy’s
model was again found to be only marginally less accurate than some more complex models.
8/28
It is difficult to give comprehensive, generic guidelines for predicting the thermal conductivity of
frozen, non-porous foods. For meat products, Levy’s model based on ice fractions predicted by Eqs.
(9) and (10) appears to be tried and trusted; however, for other Class II products fewer studies appear
to have been performed and there remains a significant level of uncertainty, both in the selection of
thermal conductivity models and in the selection of ice fraction models. There is scope for more work
Many, if not most of the effective thermal conductivity models that may be found in the literature are
concerned with porous materials. The term ‘porous’ may refer to granular or particulate materials in
which the void volume may be occupied by either liquid or gaseous components, or alternatively, it
may refer to a material having a continuous solid matrix that contains pores/bubbles which may be
pores’) [50]. The measurement and prediction of porosity and pore formation is a field of study in
An unfrozen porous food product may be thought of as a binary mixture of a ‘condensed phase’
containing immobile water and food solids (which, for the purposes of effective thermal conductivity
prediction, may be treated as a Class I food), and a gaseous phase such as air or carbon dioxide. The
simplest method for determining a food’s porosity is from its apparent density and the density of the
c ap ap
1 (13)
c gas c
Figure 3 shows a plot of Eqs. (1) to (6) for a theoretical porous, high-water content food in which the
thermal conductivity of the condensed phase is 0.48 W m-1 K-1. By contrast with Fig. 1, the predictions
of the different models vary significantly, and the effect of the physical structure that each model is
based on becomes significant. Since thermal conductivity data for porous foods may lie anywhere
between the predictions of the Series and Parallel models (the so-called “Wiener Bounds” [52]), no
9/28
single model which is a function solely of the components’ thermal conductivities and volume
fractions (including Eqs. 1 to 6) will be suitable for all types of porous foods [26,53].
Due to differences in their structures, a foam and a particulate material may have different effective
thermal conductivities, even if they have identical void fractions and component thermal conductivities
[53]. Hence problems may arise when a model that has been shown to work well for one type of
porous material is assumed to be applicable to another type, simply because both materials have been
described as ‘porous’. Carson et al. [53] proposed that porous materials (including foods) should be
divided into “external porosity” materials (i.e. grains and particulates) and “internal porosity” materials
(i.e. foams and sponges), because the mechanism for heat conduction in a granular material is different
from that in a foam. Upper and lower bounds were proposed for the effective thermal conductivity of
two types of isotropic porous materials: for isotropic external porosity materials it was proposed that
the effective thermal conductivity is bounded above by the EMT model (Eq. 6), and below by the
Maxwell-Eucken model (Eq. 4) with air as the continuous phase; for isotropic internal porosity
materials, the upper bound is provided by the Maxwell-Eucken model with air as the dispersed phase
and the lower bound is provided by the EMT model (refer to Fig. 6 of [53]). The merit of these bounds
is the significant reduction in the range of possible thermal conductivity values for the two types of
porous foods, by comparison with the range constrained by the Wiener bounds. However, since data
will most likely lie between the bounds, they are not in themselves a complete solution to the problem.
The literature contains some correlations of thermal conductivity as functions of porosity and moisture
content for selected fruits and vegetables [54–56]; however, the applicability of these models is clearly
limited to the dataset from which the correlation was calculated. Neural network techniques have also
been employed [57,58], but are considerably more complex to implement than the simple algebraic
A semi-empirical approach to the prediction of the thermal conductivity of porous materials was
introduced by Krischer [59]. He reasoned that since the thermal conductivity of any two-component
material must lie between the Wiener bounds, its structure could be modelled as a mixture of the Series
10/28
and Parallel structures. He proposed that the effective thermal conductivity of the combined structure
should be the weighted harmonic mean of the Series and Parallel conductivities (Eq. (14)):
1
ke (14)
1 f 1 v2 v2
f
(1 v 2 ) k1 v 2 k 2 k1 k 2
The value of the parameter f was determined empirically. By suitable adjustment of the f parameter
between 0 and 1, Krischer’s model may predict a thermal conductivity anywhere within the Wiener
Bounds. A number of studies of thermal properties of foods have used Krischer’s model, and hence
values for f (often referred to as the “distribution factor”) may be found in the literature for some
foods, including granular foods between 20°C and 70°C [14,60], dried fruits and vegetables between
5°C and 100°C [61,62], and partially baked French bread between -35°C and +25°C [63,64].
Several other models (including Eq. 12) are similar to Krischer’s in that they may predict thermal
conductivities anywhere between the Series and Parallel models by suitable adjustment of the f, Z, n
and j parameters:
(1 f )
1 v2 v2
k e [(1 v2 )k1 v2 k 2 ]
f
(15)
1 k k2
ki ke
v
i
i
ki ( Z / 2 1)k e
0 (16)
j2 j2
k k (k s k a )
1 j 2 1 j 2
s a
ke k s (18)
j2
k k a (k s k a )
2 s
1 j
11/28
Carson’s modified EMT model [18,26]:
ki ke
v i
j
0 (19)
k i k e
i
1 j
Of these models (Eqs. (12), (14) – (19)), Krischer’s model appears to have been employed most
frequently.
However, the fact that the f-value of Krischer’s model (and equivalent parameters of other models)
cannot be determined mechanistically is a significant shortcoming, since its determination may require
a thermal conductivity measurement – which might defeat the purpose of the prediction (although the j
parameters of Carson’s models may be related to the thermal conductivity bounds for internal and
external porosity materials [26]). Ideally all parameters in the model should be related to some physical
property. Carson et al. [68] concluded that after the food components’ thermal conductivities and
volume fractions the next most important variable was the extent (or quality) of thermal contact
between particles (in the case of particulate materials) or pores (in the case of sponge or foam-like
materials). However, as yet there does not appear to be any suitable method for predicting or
measuring this property other than for regular arrangements of regularly shaped objects. Unfortunately,
there remains an inevitable degree of empiricism involved in the thermal conductivity prediction of
porous foods, particularly for those with external porosity [26], and there is scope for more work in
this area.
A separate issue to the influence of structure on the thermal conductivity of a porous food is the
potential increase in the apparent thermal conductivity of the gaseous phase, due to the evaporation and
condensation of moisture across the pores. While this phenomenon is more likely to be an issue above
temperatures likely to be encountered in refrigeration applications, Hamdami et al. [63] observed this
behaviour even at sub freezing temperatures. They employed a model introduced by Sakiyama et al.
D P dP
k evap Law s (21)
RT P aw Ps dT
12/28
Similarly, radiation in the gaseous phase may also alter the apparent thermal conductivity of the
gaseous phase [69], although it is unlikely to be significant in the range of temperatures typically
encountered in refrigeration.
As for Class II foods, it is difficult to give comprehensive, generic guidelines for model selection. If
the f-value for the food in question is known, then Krischer’s model should be used, otherwise the
Class IV foods combine the difficulties associated with Class II and Class III foods, but, conveniently,
the effects of ice formation and porosity may be dealt with sequentially rather than simultaneously, as
demonstrated in the studies performed by Cogné et al. [41] with ice cream and Hamdami et al. [63]
The study by Cogné et al. was very thorough, complete with a micrograph of ice cream which allowed
the selection of thermal conductivity models to be based on the food’s microstructure. The micrograph
(Fig. 7 of [41]) showed that ice cream is composed of a continuous aqueous phase in which are
suspended discrete air bubbles, ice crystals and fat globules, and since the physical basis of the
Maxwell-type models is a structure comprised of distinct continuous and dispersed phases, this family
of models was an obvious choice for this application. Cogné et al. calculated the ice cream’s thermal
conductivity in three steps: firstly the Parallel model was used to combine the thermal conductivities of
the liquid water and food solids components (consistent with the discussion on Class I foods);
secondly, the resulting thermal conductivity from the first step was combined with the thermal
conductivity of ice using a modification of Maxwell’s model (De Vries model) to produce the thermal
conductivity of the condensed phase; thirdly, the thermal conductivity of the condensed phase was
combined with the thermal conductivity of air using the Maxwell-Eucken model (Eq. 4) to give the
overall thermal conductivity. Hence, in the terms used in this review, the Class IV food (ice cream)
was treated successively as a Class I food, a Class II food and a Class III food, as outlined
diagrammatically in Fig. 9 of [41]. Using this technique they were able to predict the thermal
13/28
Hamdami et al. [63] used successive application of the Maxwell-Eucken model, as outlined
schematically in their Fig. 2b. They also considered another approach in which they combined the
thermal conductivities of all the components in one step using Krischer’s model, which, unlike the
approaches were compared to experimental data, and it was found that Krischer’s model could provide
more accurate predictions; however, it was acknowledged that this was because the f-value for
Krischer’s model was determined from their own experimental data, and hence the model had
essentially been fitted to the data, whereas the Maxwell-Eucken model had provided genuine
predictions.
Models such as the Series, Parallel and EMT models and their derivatives (e.g. Eqs. (8), (14) – (16)
and (19)) are capable of handling multi-component materials and hence the thermal conductivity
prediction may be achieved in one step. However, in these models all components are assumed to have
identical structures and spatial distributions, and so it is questionable whether this approach is as sound
as the sequential approach which allows for different structural models to be applied to the different
It should be noted that when thermal conductivity is predicted by sequential application of one or more
models, the order in which the food’s components are included is significant; i.e. for a food comprised
of components A, B and C, the result of combining A and B first to give AB and then combining AB
with C, will not necessarily be the same as the result of combining A and C first etc. For some foods,
such as ice cream, it may be apparent from a visual inspection of the food’s structure not only which
effective thermal conductivity models are appropriate, but also the order in which the components
should be combined. However, there may be many situations where very little may be inferred from
examining the food’s structure. The literature does not appear to contain any definitive guidelines on
this issue, but, consistent with previous discussion, unless there is clear indication from the material’s
structure that a different order should be used, as a general rule components with the most similar
thermal conductivities should be combined first, followed by the component with the next most similar
14/28
7. Conclusion
The uncertainty involved in thermal conductivity prediction increases as the differences between the
food components’ thermal conductivities increase, which means that foods which are frozen and/or
porous require greater consideration than unfrozen, non-porous foods for which thermal conductivity
prediction is a relatively straightforward exercise. Recommendations for selecting models for different
classes of foods are summarised in Fig. 4, although it should be noted that they are only basic
guidelines. Greater understanding and characterisation of the effects of ice and/or porosity on food
structures would help improve the prediction accuracy for frozen and/or porous foods.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to acknowledge the assistance of Dr. Milan Houška of the Food Research
Institute Prague and Dr. Paul Nesvadba of Rubislaw Consulting Ltd in compiling this review. The
majority of the work was performed while the author was at AgResearch Ltd, New Zealand.
References:
[1] S. Thorne. Mathematical Modelling of Food Processing Operations, Elsevier Applied Science,
London, 1992
Properties and Behaviour of Foods during Production, Storage and Distribution, Food Research
[3] M. Houška et al., Thermophysical and rheological properties of foods: Milk, milk products and
[4] M.S. Rahman. Food Properties Handbook, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1995, Chapter 5.
[5] M. Houška et al., Thermophysical and rheological properties of foods: Meat, meat products and
[6] ASHRAE Handbook of Refrigeration, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-
[7] J. Willix, S.J., Lovatt, N.D. Amos. Additional thermal conductivity values of foods measured by a
15/28
[8] Z. Mayer, M. Houška, M. Cigáník, Luong Thi Cam Tu, J. Šesták, P. Nesvadba, Thermophysical
properties of food: Selected fruits and vegetables, Food Research Institute Prague, Prague, 2004
[9] C.A. Miles, M.J. Morley, Estimation of the thermal properties of foods : a revision of some of the
Production, Storage and Distribution, Prague (Czech Republic), 1997, pp. 135-146
[10] P. Harriott, Thermal Conductivity Of Catalyst Pellets And Other Porous Particles - 1. Review Of
[11] R.C. Progelhof, J.L. Throne, R.R. Reutsch. Methods for Predicting the Thermal Conductivity of
[12] O.T. Farouki. Thermal Properties of Soils, Series on Rock and Soil Mechanics Vol II, Trans Tech
Publications, 1986
[13] E. Tsotsas, H. Martin. Thermal conductivity of packed beds: A review, Chem. Eng. Process.,
[14] E.G. Murakami, M.R. Okos. Measurement and prediction of thermal properties of foods in: R.P.
Singh, A.G. Medina (Eds.), Food Properties and Computer Aided Engineering of food Processing
[15] A.G. Leach, Thermal conductivity of foams. I. Models for heat conduction, Journal of Physics D:
[16] P. Cheng, C-T. Hsu., Heat Conduction, in: D.B. Ingham, I. Pop (Eds.), Transport Phenomena in
[17] M.S. Rahman. Thermophysical Properties of Foods, in: Sun, D.-W. (Ed.) Advances in Food
[18] J.K. Carson, Prediction of the thermal conductivity of porous foods, PhD thesis, Massey
[20] E. Behrens. Thermal conductivities of composite materials, J. Composite Materials, 1968;2: 2-17
16/28
[21] T.H. Bauer. A general analytical approach toward the thermal conductivity of porous media, Int.
[22] E.E. Gonzo, Estimating correlations for the effective thermal conductivity of granular materials,
[23] J.F. Wang, J.K., Carson, M.F., North, D.J. Cleland, A new approach to the modelling of the
effective thermal conductivity of heterogeneous materials, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, (in press)
[24] P. Nesvadba. Methods for the measurement of thermal conductivity and diffusivity of foodstuffs,
[25] S.C. Cheng, R.I. Vachon. Prediction of thermal Conductivity of two and three phase solid
[26] J.K. Carson, S.J. Lovatt, D.J. Tanner, A.C. Cleland. Predicting the effective thermal conductivity
[27] Q.T. Pham, J. Willix. Thermal Conductivity of Fresh Lamb Meat, Offals and Fat in the Range –40
[28] I.J. Kopelman, Transient heat transfer and thermal properties in food systems, PhD Thesis,
[29] J.C. Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism 3rd Ed., Dover Publications Inc., New
[31] F.L. Levy. A modified Maxwell-Eucken equation for calculating the thermal conductivity of two-
[32] M. Mattea, M.J. Urbicain, E. Rotstein. Prediction of thermal conductivity of vegetable foods by
[33] R. Landauer, The electrical resistance of binary metallic mixtures, J. Appl. Phys. 1952;23: 779-
784
[34] H.T. Davis, L.R. Valencourt, C.E. Johnson. Transport processes in composite media, J. Am.
17/28
[35] C.A. Miles, G. van Beek, C.H. Veerkamp, .Calculation of thermophysical properties of foods, in:
R .Jowitt, F. Escher, B. Hallström., H.F.T. Meffert, W.E.L. Spiess, G. Vos (Eds). Physical
[36] H.F.T. Meffert, History, aims, results and future of thermophysical properties within COST 90, in:
R. Jowitt, F. Escher, B. Hallström., H.F.T. Meffert, W.E.L. Spiess, G. Vos (Eds). Physical
[37] C.-L. Hsu, D. R. Heldman. Prediction of the thermal conductivity of aqueous starch, Int. J. Food
[38] E.G. Murakami, M.R. Okos. Calculation of initial freezing point, effective molecular weight and
unfreezable water of food materials from composition and thermal conductivity data, J. Food Proc.
[39] C.A. Miles, Z. Mayer, M.J. Morley, M. Houška, Estimating the initial freezing point of foods
[40] R.G.M. van der Sman, E. Boer, Predicting the initial freezing point and water activity of meat
[41] C. Cogné, J. Andrieu, P. Laurent, A. Besson, J. Nocquet. Experimental data and modelling of
[42] V.R. Tarnawski, D.J. Cleland, S. Corasaniti, F. Gori, R.H. Mascheroni. Extension of soil thermal
conductivity models to frozen meats with low and high fat content, Int. J. Refrig., 2005;28(6):
840-850
[43] Q.T. Pham. Calculation of bound water in food, J. Food Sci., 1989;54(3): 508-515
[44] J.E. Hill, J.D. Leitman, J.E. Sunderland. Thermal conductivity of various meats, Food Tech.,
1967;21: 1143-1148
[45] R.H. Mascheroni, J. Ottino and A. Calvelo. A model for the thermal conductivity of frozen meat,
[46] T. Renaud, P. Briery, J. Andrieu, M. Laurent. Thermal properties of model foods in the frozen
[47] D.A. DeVries, Thermal properties of soils. In: W.R. van Wijk, (Ed.) Physics of plant environment,
18/28
[48] F. Gori, A theoretical model for predicting the effective thermal conductivity of unsaturated
frozen soils, Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Permafrost, Fairbanks (Alaska),
[49] J.F. Wang, J.K. Carson, D.J. Cleland, M.F. North. A comparison of effective thermal conductivity
models for frozen foods, Proceedings: Innovative Equipment and Systems for Comfort and Food
[50] M.S. Rahman. Mechanism of pore formation in foods during drying: Present status, in: J. Welti-
Chanes, G.V. Barbosa-Canovas, J.M. Aguilera (Eds) Proceedings of the Eighth International
Congress on Engineering and Food, Technomic Publishing Co., Lancaster, PA, 2001: 1111-1116
[51] M.A. Hussain, M.S. Rahman, C.W. Ng. Prediction of pores formation (porosity) in foods during
drying: generic models by the use of hybrid neural network, J. Food Eng., 2002;51(3): 239-248
[52] O. Wiener, Die theorie des Mischkorpers für das Feld der Statonären Stromüng I. Die
Mittelwertsatze für Kraft, Polarisation und Energie, Der Abhandlungen der Mathematisch-
Physischen Klasse der Königl. Sachsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, 1912;32: 509-604
[53] J.K. Carson, S.J. Lovatt, D.J. Tanner, A.C. Cleland. Thermal conductivity bounds for isotropic,
[54] M.S. Rahman, Thermal conductivity of four food materials as a single function of porosity and
[55] M.S. Rahman, X.D. Chen, A general form of thermal conductivity equation as applied to an apple:
[56] M.S. Rahman, X. D. Chen, C.O. Perera. An improved thermal conductivity prediction model for
fruits and vegetables as a function of temperature, water content and porosity, J. Food Eng.,
1997;31(2): 163-170
[57] S.S. Sablani, O.-D. Baik, M. Marcotte, Neural networks for predicting thermal conductivity of
[58] S.S. Sablani, M.S. Rahman. Using neural networks to predict thermal conductivity of food as a
function of moisture content, temperature and apparent porosity, Food Res. Int., 2003;36(6): 617-
623
Fundamentals of Drying Technology), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1963, cited in English in: Keey, R.
19/28
B. Drying of Loose and Particulate Materials, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, New York,
1992, Chapter 7.
[60] M.K. Krokida, Z.B. Maroulis, M.S. Rahman. A structural generic model to predict the effective
[61] X.D. Chen, G.Z. Xie M.S. Rahman. Application of the distribution factor concept in correlating
thermal conductivity data for fruits and vegetables. Int. J. Food Properties, 1998;1(1): 35–44.
[62] Z.B. Maroulis, M.K. Krokida, M.S. Rahman. A structural generic model to predict the effective
thermal conductivity of fruits and vegetables during drying, J. Food Eng., 2002;51(1): 47-52
[63] N. Hamdami, J-Y. Monteau, A. Le Bail. Effective thermal conductivity of a high porosity model
[64] N. Hamdami, J-Y. Monteau, A. Le Bail. Thermophysical properties evolution of French partly
[65] D.R. Chaudhary, R.C. Bhandari. Heat transfer through a three-phase porous medium, J. Phys. D
[66] S. Kirkpatrick, Percolation and conduction, Rev. Mod. Phys. 1973;45: 574-588.
[67] R.L. Hamilton, O.K. Crosser. Thermal conductivity of heterogeneous two-component systems.
[68] J.K. Carson, S.J. Lovatt, D.J. Tanner, A.C. Cleland, An analysis of the influence of material
structure on the effective thermal conductivity of porous materials using finite element
[69] A.J. Loeb. Thermal conductivity: VIII, A theory of thermal conductivity of porous materials, J.
[70] T. Sakiyama, M. Akutsu, O. Miyawaki, T. Yano, Effective thermal diffusivity of food gels
[71] J.P. Holman, Heat Transfer, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Singapore, 1992
20/28
Nomenclature
a activity
L enthalpy of vaporisation
n weighting parameter
P pressure
T temperature (°C)
v volume fraction
x mass fraction
Z weighting parameter
porosity
Subscripts
1 component 1
2 component 2
ap apparent density
b bound water
c condensed phase
i ith component
ice ice
21/28
prot protein
s saturation
22/28
Table 1: Thermal Conductivities of Food Components at 0 °C [6,71]
Figure 1: Plots of Eqs. (1) to (6) for k1/k2 = 3 (equivalent to an unfrozen, non-porous food)
Figure 2: Plots of three different ice fraction prediction models (Eqs. (7), (9) and (10)), with Tf = -1,
Figure 3: Plots of Eqs. (1) to (6) for k1/k2 = 20 (equivalent to an unfrozen, porous, high-water-content
food)
Figure 4: Summary of recommendations for selecting models for different classes of foods.
23/28
Food Component k/W m-1 K-1
protein 0.18
fat 0.18
soluble carbohydrate 0.20
fibre 0.18
ash 0.33
liquid water 0.57
ice 2.2
air 0.024
Table 1:
24/28
1
0.8
0.6
k e /k 1
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
v2
Series Parallel
Maxwell-Eucken Levy
Effective Medium Theory Kopelman Isotropic
Figure 1:
25/28
0.7
Eq. (7)
0.6 Eq. (9)
Eq. (10)
0.5
0.4
x ice
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-15 -12 -9 -6 -3 0
T (°C)
Figure 2:
26/28
1
0.8
0.6
k e /k 1
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
v2
Series Parallel
Maxwell-Eucken Levy
Effective Medium Theory Kopelman Isotropic
Figure 3:
27/28
Start
If f -value available in
literature, use Krischer's
model (Eq. 14) to
determine k e ; alternatively
refer to [26] for model
selection guidelines
Finish
Figure 4
28/28