International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2002, 37, 879–892 879

Development of methodology for assessing the heating

performance of domestic microwave ovens

C. James,* M. V. Swain, S. J. James & M. J. Swain

MAFF Advanced Fellowship in Food Process Engineering, FRPERC, University of Bristol, Churchill Building, Langford,
Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
(Received 10 June 2001; Accepted in revised form 3 May 2002)

Summary There is a need for standard methods of testing domestic microwave ovens that relate to
their reheating performance with chilled convenience meals. The investigations reported
here have produced a simple procedure for comparing the three most important reheating
characteristics of a domestic microwave oven: its ÔtrueÕ power; heating variability; and
repeatability. The tests are relatively simple to do, and require only a few additional items
of equipment to those that a laboratory performing existing output power tests would
already possess. Three identical tests are required: one with a liquid test material, one with
a solid and one with a combination of the two components. One additional stage is done
with the liquid test material. The data produced can be reduced to three numbers, which
are measures of the true power, variability and repeatability of the oven. A further simple
analysis, which weights the relative importance of each factor to the consumer, would
produce a single value for the oven’s relative reheating performance. Ovens with unusual
or extreme performance characteristics can therefore be identified easily.
Keywords Characterization, chilled convenience meals, power output, temperature variability, testing.

differences in heating effect between microwave

Introduction
Investigations in the last 10 years have revealed
considerable variability in the ability of different
models and types of domestic microwave oven to
reheat food (Burfoot et al., 1991). Studies have
also shown that Listeria monocytogenes can sur-
vive in some of the cooler areas of chilled foods
after reheating in a microwave oven (Walker et al.,
1991). They have also revealed a large degree of
non-repeatability during reheating.
A typical reheating instruction for a chilled food
would specify Ôreheating for 3.5 min in a 750 W
microwave ovenÕ. Traditionally, reheating times
for ovens with different microwave powers were
arrived at by modifying the time to produce a
similar total energy input into the food. During
investigations by Burfoot et al. (1991), it became
clear that one of the reasons for the apparent
*Correspondent: Fax: +44(0)117 928 9314;
e-mail: chris.james@bristol.ac.uk
ovens was the lack of an agreed standard to define
power output. Companies producing ovens have
used up to ten different systems for defining power
output. Since September 1990, microwave oven
manufacturers have adopted a single standard for
measuring the power output for microwave ovens
to be sold in the UK. This standard, International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), 1988, uses a
1 L water load and the test is made using a cold
oven in defined ambient conditions.
Studies have clearly shown that power output of
a microwave oven is influenced by the ÔfoodÕ load
in the cavity. Investigations in the USA (O’Meara,
1989) looked at power output into load sizes
ranging from 50 to 2000 g. They showed that the
heating rate of a water load in a 625 W microwave
oven varied by a ratio of approximately 25:1,
depending on the exact cavity loading. Studies by
FRPERC (James et al., 1994) have shown that, in
addition to the effect of load, its position within
the cavity, the length of time the oven has been in

2002 Blackwell Science Ltd

880 Heating performance testing of microwave ovens C. James et al.
operation and the supply voltage also influence the
power produced. Other investigations (George
et al., 1992) have shown that not all ovens show
the same relationships. In some ovens there was
little change in power output with load. In other
ovens power output initially decreased as load size
was reduced then rose as the size was further
decreased. Complex systems have been developed
for understanding the underlying factors that can
generate complex or unpredictable heat patterns in
foodstuffs in microwave ovens and approaches for
modifying the food to control heating (Bows,
2000).
Many of the tests currently used to assess the
reheating of a foodstuff in microwave ovens are
either subjective, or use commercially produced
chilled meals (IEC, 1988; Burfoot et al., 1991;
George et al., 1994). Previous studies have clearly
shown that there is considerable variability
between individual packs of the same commercial
product (Swain et al., 1994). Consequently when
using commercial packs there is a considerable
degree of uncertainty whether differences in per-
formance between ovens are true differences and
not artefacts caused by pack-to-pack variability.
Additionally, it can be difficult to compare current
tests with those done in previous years as a result
of changes in formulation, and in some cases the
unavailability of some of the meals previously
used. The investigations reported here were
designed to provide a quantifiable test of the
reheating performance of domestic microwave
ovens.
The initial purpose of this work was to develop
a range of ÔfoodsÕ that are suitable for assessing the
reheating characteristics of domestic microwave
ovens, i.e. basic Ôbuilding blocksÕ that can be used
individually or in combination to simulate meals
of varying complexity, from a simple soup or
sauce to a multicomponent meal. It was essential
that the building blocks were as reproducible as
possible. Then any variation in reheating perform-
ance would be because of variation in the beha-
viour of the microwave oven and not variations in
the composition of the meal. Therefore, the first
stage of the project was to identify Ôchemical
equivalentsÕ for the basic ingredients/building
blocks. Where this was not feasible, ingredients
were sought that, as far as possible were not
subject to biological or processing variations.
International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2002, 37, 879–892
The next stage was to use practical trials to
evaluate the response of the ingredients and basic
building blocks to electromagnetic heating and
hence their suitability as test materials.
Having selected the most appropriate building
blocks, investigations were then done to determine
the best method for assembling reproducible ÔfoodÕ
packs representing a range of ready meal type
products.
A method for deciding on the reheating time to
be used with a particular model of oven was also
developed. Only two pieces of data are available to
the purchaser of a domestic microwave oven in the
UK. One is the IEC power rating in Watts (IEC,
1988), which measures the amount of power
delivered by a cold oven into 1 kg of water. The
second is a category rating used in the UK, from A
to E, which relates to the amount of power
delivered into 350 g of water (George et al., 1992;
MAFF, 1992). The simple method developed to
calculate the reheating time was to multiply the
power delivered into a 350 g load by a constant
factor that produced an average final temperature
of approximately 70 C in the ovens tested. In
practice this would translate into a set time for
each category.
The final part of the investigation was to
perform multireplicate reheating trials on the
simulated ready meals in a range of different
domestic microwave ovens. The resulting tem-
perature distributions after each trial were ana-
lysed to provide a measure of the heating
variability of each oven. Average temperatures
after reheating were calculated as a measure of the
relative energy supplied to the product. A second
estimate of the energy was obtained from a
measure of the liquid test material’s temperature
after stirring. The resulting temperature distribu-
tion data was also tabulated and analysed using
the standard deviation of the temperatures meas-
ured at set positions to assess the repeatability
after reheating.
Materials and method
The investigation was divided into the following
stages:
Stage 1: Identification of reproducible basic
ingredients/building blocks for the substitute
ready meals.

2002 Blackwell Science Ltd
 Heating performance testing of microwave ovens C. James et al. 881

Stage 2: Practical trials to evaluate the response
of the ingredients and basic building blocks to
electromagnetic heating and hence their suitability
as a test material.
Stage 3: Determination of the best method for
assembling reproducible ÔfoodÕ packs representing
a range of ready meal type products.
Stage 4: Multireplicate reheating trials using
substitute foods, made up to be representative of a
range of ready meals, in domestic microwave
ovens having a range of different characteristics.
Characteristics of the microwave ovens
Table 1 lists the six ovens used in the investigation,
and their characteristics. During each stage all six
ovens were tested, with each test being repeated at
least three times. All tests were performed using
cold ovens, i.e. all ovens were left to cool for a
minimum of 8 h before being used again.
Standard IEC-705 1000 g tests (IEC, 1988) were
made on the ovens to establish their characteris-
tics; standard UK 350 g tests (MAFF, 1992) were
used as part of the Stage 2 evaluations.
Stage 1: Identification of test materials
Sauce component
Initial investigations concentrated on developing a
simple homogeneous liquid food (sauce/soup) as a
test material.
The majority of microwaveable convenience
meals rely on an aqueous liquid component (sauce/
Generally, sauces are starch based solutions
containing varying amounts of water, carbohy-
drates, proteins, lipids and minerals. As well as
being the main constituents of food, all these
components have an important influence on
microwave heating.
Initial studies determined composition and
identified ingredient sources. The composition of
the final sauce (Table 2) was chosen after com-
paring published values for soups and sauces (Paul
& Southgate, 1978).
Readily available sources of water, lipid, sugar
and salt were identified. Sodium caseinate was
identified as a suitable protein source, as it was
present as a stock item. It was decided that, to
simplify sourcing, the starch component would be
of natural origin, not a commercial modified
starch. This meant that the sauce would have to
be prepared by cooking up the ingredients, in
order to gelatinize the starch component, but
would be widely available. Cornflour was found to
be the most suitable.
The specific heat capacity of the sauce was
calculated using the simple equation published by
Singh & Heldman (1984).
Table 2 Chemical composition and ingredients of the sauce
Amounts
Chemical Ingredient needed for
component used % 2-kg batch (g)

gravy/soup) as the main component for microwave Water Water 91.2 1824
energy absorption and heat transfer. This is because Starch Cornflour 3.1 62
this component contains a high amount of water, Lipid Household sunflower oil 2.1 42
which has good microwave absorption. Liquids Sugar Sucrose 1.9 38
Protein Sodium caseinate 1.2 24
also allow convective heat transfer, aiding the
Salt Cooking salt 0.5 10
dissipation of hot and cold spots.

Table 1 Characteristics of the six domestic microwave ovens used in the study

Oven Oven make Cavity size Turn-table Cavity Wave-guide

code and model (m2) type Combination Grill coating entry

I Matsui M180TC 0.029 Glass No No Yes Side

II Samsung M6135 0.018 Glass No No Yes Side
III Moulinex FMB 735A 0.027 Glass No No Yes Top
IV Belling MW820T 0.022 Glass No No Yes Side
V Philips Whirlpool M914 0.026 Glass No Yes No Side
VI Philips Whirlpool M902 0.026 Glass No No No Side

2002 Blackwell Science Ltd International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2002, 37, 879–892
882 Heating performance testing of microwave ovens C. James et al.
Preparation of sauce
Ingredients and amounts are shown in Table 2.
The sauce was first prepared by combining
824 ± 0.1 g of cold water with the dry ingredients
and oil in an electric blender. This mixture was
added to 1000 ± 0.1 g of boiling water in a
saucepan and heated to 90 ± 2 C, whilst stirring
continually. The liquid was then strained and
poured into a suitable container, covered, and
chilled to 10 ± 1 C by placing it in a tempera-
ture-controlled water bath overnight. The sauce
was always freshly prepared and used within 24 h.
Solid component
Investigations were done to determine a suitable
solid component. Solid components in chilled
meals are either of animal or vegetable origin.
Recognizing the inherent variability of meat and
fish samples, consideration was given to using a
structured protein such as soya protein, or
Quorn. However, little is known about the
microwave properties of these products and their
continuing availability. A vegetable source seemed
to provide the most logical solution to the
problem.
Of the vegetable types commonly available,
potato was identified as the most suitable.
However, it was difficult to obtain accurately
cut shapes from raw potato and there was a
considerable degree of wastage. Potatoes have to
be pre-cooked if they are to represent commer-
cially produced products and the cooking
operation changes the water composition within
the potato. It was therefore decided to use a
reconstituted mashed potato. Mashed potato has
been previously used in many microwave oven
investigations and identified as being a homo-
geneous and reproducible test material (Burfoot
et al., 1991).
Preparation of mashed potato
Potato flake (Grade A, Larsen, ID, USA) was
combined with water at 70 C in a food mixer
(mixing with a whisk attachment at 190 r.p.m.) at
a weight ratio of 14.3 : 85.7, respectively. The
temperature of mixture was reduced to 10 ± 1 C
by either placing it in a refrigerator or a tem-
perature-controlled water bath. The mashed
potato was always freshly prepared and used
within 24 h.
International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2002, 37, 879–892
Stage 2: Evaluation of suitability of ingredients
and basic building blocks as test materials
The solid component, i.e. mashed potato, was not
evaluated experimentally as its use in previous
investigations (Burfoot et al., 1991) was felt to
prove its suitability as a microwaveable test
material and its response to microwave heating.
The response of the sauce to electromagnetic
heating was evaluated by comparing it with water,
as a test material in UK 350 g tests on the six ovens.
All tests were performed in a controlled environ-
ment room running at 20 ± 2 C. The power was
supplied to the ovens via a voltage stabilizer (VTR-
2500, Claude Lyons, Hoddesdon, Herts, UK)
providing an input voltage of 240 V ± 1%.
The test liquids were held in conical flasks in a
controlled water bath at 10 ± 0.5 C. They were
removed from the water bath, stirred and the
temperature measured. Next, 350 ± 1 g of the
liquid was weighed into a cylindrical borosilicate
glass vessel. The vessel was placed in the centre of
the turntable of the microwave oven. The micro-
wave oven was then operated at maximum/full
power for a time calculated to produce a tempera-
ture rise of 10 ± 2 C. Immediately after heating,
the vessel was removed from the oven, the liquid
stirred and the temperature measured using a fast
reaction T-type (copper-constantan, 0.4 mm diam-
eter) thermocouple placed on a stirring device.
Stage 3: Construction of multicompartment trays
Different ways of assembling ÔfoodÕ packs were
investigated. A twelve-compartment tray method
was considered to be the best option. In this
system, the position and volume of each compo-
nent in the meal could be controlled and the
temperature measuring sensors precisely posi-
tioned, enabling the determination of the posi-
tions of the hot and cold zones. In addition, the
use of a tray divided into a 3 · 4 matrix allowed
a simple analysis of the temperature distribution
in meals after microwave reheating. A compar-
ison of the temperatures attained in matching
compartments could be made, e.g. there are
four identical corners that could be compared
for evenness of heating, two identical inner
compartments each side of the centre line that
could be compared, etc.

2002 Blackwell Science Ltd
 Heating performance testing of microwave ovens C. James et al.
Twelve compartment jigs to fit standard PET
(polyethylene terephthalate) ready meal trays
(BXL plastics 1182, Kunstaffwerke GmbH, Werk,
Dietenheim, Germany) were designed and con-
structed and installed in trays (Fig. 1). Jigs were
constructed from 3 mm thick PTFE plastic sheet-
ing. PTFE was selected for its ability to withstand
boiling temperatures and its low dielectric loss
properties. Each jig was manufactured using fric-
tion fitting without glue, which could affect the
microwave field. The jig was not a watertight fit so
that small gaps would allow liquid to filter through
from one compartment to another to reach a
constant level. This removed the need to carefully
fill each compartment to a set level or volume.
Stage 4: Multireplicate reheating trials
Part 1: 350 g water load heated by 10 ± 2 C
in a twelve-compartment PET tray
Investigations were made to study the effect of
replacing the glass vessel as used in the standard
UK 350 g test, by the PET trays containing the
twelve-compartment jig. Load tests used the same
mass of water and heating times as for a UK 350 g
90 mm
Figure 1 Schematic diagram of PET
ready meal tray with twelve-com-
partment jig inserted.

2002 Blackwell Science Ltd International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2002, 37, 879–892
883
test, but with the following changes to the proce-
dure:
1 The 350 g of water was poured into the twelve-
compartment PET tray rather than a cylindrical
glass vessel.
2 At the end of the heating period, the door was
opened and a Ôtemperature hedgehogÕ was
placed in the tray in the oven cavity to measure
the temperature within each of the twelve
compartments. The Ôtemperature hedgehogÕ
consisted of twelve K-type (chromel-alumel,
0.4 mm) thermocouples, each attached to a
vertical 3-mm diameter Tufnol rod held in place
by a polycarbonate sheet. The ÔhedgehogÕ was
located on top of the water load so that the
thermocouples were in the centre of the com-
partments (plan view) and at a height of 14 mm
from the base of the tray (half the depth of
water). The thermocouples were allowed to
equilibrate thermally for 10 s before the data
was recorded using a data logging system
(Magus, Measurement Systems, Newbury,
UK).
3 After the compartment temperatures had been
recorded the tray was quickly removed from the
43 mm 43 mm
41 mm
41 mm
173 mm
42 mm
35 mm
140 mm
884 Heating performance testing of microwave ovens C. James et al.
oven, the jig removed from the tray and the
temperature of the water measured using a fast
reaction T-type thermocouple placed on a
stirring device, as used in Stage 2.
Each test was replicated three times in each of
the six microwave ovens, and the results tabulated.
Part 2: 350 g load heated to a target mean
temperature of 70 C in a twelve compartment
PET tray
These investigations were designed to provide data
on the temperature/power distribution within a
ready meal tray after heating to an average
temperature of approximately 70 C. In addition,
these tests also determined whether the UK 350 g
test category remained constant during a longer,
more representative, heating time.
Tests similar to those in Stage 4: Part 1 were
done on the six ovens (three replicates). The
differences were:
1 Water, the sauce and mashed potato were used
as test materials. As well as single component
tests, tests were also made with mashed potato/
sauce combined loads. In this case, the two
components were arranged as shown in Fig. 2.
2 The heating time for each oven (t2) was calcula-
ted using the following equation, as temperature
increase rates were approximately linear:
t2 ¼ 70t1 DT1
where t1 is the heating time used in Stage 4: Part
1, and DT1 is the mean temperature rise in stage
4: Part 1.
3 The Ôtemperature hedgehogÕ was allowed to
equilibrate for 15 s instead of 10 s before
readings were noted, this being found to be
adequate for the higher temperatures.
Mashed potato
Sauce
Corner a Side b Side c Corner d
End e Centre f Centre g End h
Corner i Side j Side k Corner l
Figure 2 Arrangement of sauce and mashed potato in cells.
International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2002, 37, 879–892
4 In the case of water and sauce tests, after the
compartment temperatures had been recorded,
the tray was quickly removed from the oven,
the jig removed from the tray and the tempera-
ture of the liquid recorded using a fast reaction
T-type thermocouple placed on a stirring device
(as used in Stage 2). When the PET tray was
removed from the oven, it was placed on a
polystyrene mat to reduce heat loss from the
tray to the bench.
Results and discussion
Characteristics of the ovens
The results of standard IEC-705 and UK 350 g
tests on the six ovens are shown in Tables 3 and 4.
The range of microwave ovens selected for the
tests included ovens with UK 350 g power-outputs
ranging from 614 to 954 W. The measured output
power of ovens I and V exceeded the manufac-
turers E category rating; this has been indicated in
the tables by >E. Ovens II and III were declared
to be C and D category ovens, respectively, but
were B and >E when tested. Ovens IV and VI had
no declared category. Both ovens were found to
exceed the E category rating.
Stage 1: Identification of test materials
Sauce/soup component
It was found that, with careful preparation of the
sauce, a homogeneous liquid with characteristics
similar to that of a thick soup or sauce was
produced. Some separation of components was
encountered on storage, but stirring of the prod-
uct prior to testing seemed to alleviate any
problems.
The specific heat capacity of the sauce calcula-
ted using the Singh–Heldman equation was
4.115 kJ kg)1 C)1, and this value was used in
calculating the power-outputs into the sauce.
Stage 2: Evaluation of suitability of ingredients
and basic building blocks as test materials
The results of the 350 g sauce load output power
tests performed on the six selected domestic
microwave ovens are shown in Table 4. For
comparison, the mean UK 350 g category, mean

2002 Blackwell Science Ltd
 Heating performance testing of microwave ovens C. James et al. 885

Table 3 Results of IEC-705 1000 g and UK 350 g power-output tests

Oven Declared IEC-705 IEC mean output Declared UK UK 350 g mean True UK
code power-output (W) power (s.d.), W 350 g category output power, W 350 g category

I 800 797.0 (8.5) E 811.4 (8.1) E

II 600 605.3 (6.7) C 613.6 (13.3) B
III 1000 1012.3 (8.0) D 954.4 (20.3) >E
IV 800 833.6 (13.5) – 828.7 (12.9) >E
V 1000 972.7 (16.4) E 899.4 (5.8) >E
VI 1000 1005.3 (20.9) – 948.6 (19.0) >E

s.d.: Standard deviation.

Table 4 Mean category, mean output power (W) and standard deviation (s.d.) of five replicated tests using two different
350 g loads in a cylindrical glass vessel (UK 350 g power-output test)

Oven Water mean output Water Sauce mean output Sauce Water/sauce Water/sauce
code power (s.d.), W category power (s.d.), W category difference, W difference, %

I 811.4 (8.1) >E 792.1 (8.0) E 19.3 2.4

II 613.6 (13.3) B 608.6 (9.7) B 5.0 0.8
III 954.4 (20.3) >E 968.7 (15.4) >E )14.4 )1.5
IV 828.7 (12.9) >E 839.3 (16.8) >E )10.7 )1.3
V 899.4 (5.8) >E 927.0 (13.6) >E )27.6 )3.1
VI 948.6 (19.0) >E 981.6 (7.8) >E )33.0 )3.5
Min 613.6 (5.8) 608.6 (7.8) )33.0 )3.5
Max 954.4 (20.3) 981.6 (16.8) 19.3 2.4
Range 340.8 (14.5) 373.0 (9.0) 52.3 5.9
Mean 842.7 (13.2) 852.9 (11.9) )10.2 )1.0
s.d. 126.9 (5.7) 140.7 (3.9) 19.7 2.3

The differences between the mean output powers are shown in Watts and as a percentage. The min, max, range, mean and s.d. at
the foot of the table refer to the columns above them.

UK 350 g power-output (W) and standard devi-
ation (s.d.) of five replicates are also given for each
oven. Both tests were in identical glass vessels.
Figure 3 illustrates the relationship between the
use of the two test materials for measuring
microwave oven power-output. The best straight
line fit yielded the relationship: sauce output
power ¼ )76.091 + (1.1024 · water output
power), with a correlation coefficient of 0.989.
The repeatability of the sauce output power
tests, as measured by the standard deviations of
the five replicates, ranged from 7.8 to 16.8 W for
the six ovens, compared with 5.8–20.3 W for the
water tests. There was no consistent relationship
between the standard deviation of sauce output
power tests and the standard deviation of water
output power tests for the same oven. However,
overall, the repeatability of the two test methods
was very similar, with mean s.d. values of 11.9 W
for sauce and 13.2 W for water output powers.
The percentage differences between the water
and sauce output powers varied from )2.5 to
3.4%, with a mean difference of )1.0%. The results
indicate little difference between power-outputs
into either of the two solutions when measuring
power-output using the UK 350 g method.
Stage 3: Construction of compartment trays
The twelve-compartment trays were tested in a
range of ovens. No problems were encountered in
terms of localized over-heating, degradation, etc.
Stage 4: Multireplicate reheating trials
Part 1: 350 g water load heated by 10 ± 2 C
in a twelve-compartment PET tray
A comparison of the results of the Stage 4: Part 1
PET tray test with the results of the UK 350 g
standard vessel load output power tests, performed

2002 Blackwell Science Ltd International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2002, 37, 879–892
886 Heating performance testing of microwave ovens C. James et al.

1000

UK 350 g output power (W) – Sauce analogue

900

800

700

Figure 3 Plot of mean sauce output

600 power against mean water output
700 800 900 1000
power for six ovens (error bars
UK 350 g output power (W) – Water ± 1 s.d.).

on the six selected domestic microwave ovens is standard deviations calculated from the replicated
shown in Table 5. The percentage differences tests (data not shown). These standard deviations
between the two tests, measured power-outputs varied from 0.0 C (oven I, position Corner i) to
varied from )1.3 to 7.9%, with a mean difference 1.2 C (oven IV, Corner a). These standard
of 1.8%. The results indicate little difference deviations compared well with previous results
between either assessment methods when measur- for thirty-six ovens (five replicates) where standard
ing power-output. deviations varied from 0.04 to 3.03 C (Swain
The repeatability of the Stage 4: Part 1 tem- et al., 1995).
perature distribution data were judged by the

Table 5 Mean category, mean output power (W) and standard deviation (s.d.) of replicated tests using a 350 g water load
in a cylindrical glass vessel (UK 350 g power test) and a PET tray (Stage 4: Part 1)

Oven Water Water mean output 4: Part 1 4: Part 1 mean output UK/4: Part 1 UK/4: Part 1
code category power (s.d.), W category power (s.d.), W difference, W difference, %

I >E 811.4 (8.1) >E 809.9 (20.4) 1.6 0.2

II B 613.6 (13.3) B 604.5 (6.1) 9.1 1.5
III >E 954.4 (20.3) >E 967.2 (19.5) )12.8 )1.3
IV >E 828.7 (12.9) E 763.6 (15.4) 65.1 7.9
V >E 899.4 (5.8) >E 893.6 (10.0) 5.7 0.6
VI >E 948.6 (19.0) >E 931.0 (17.2) 17.6 1.9
Min 613.6 (5.8) 604.5 (6.1) )12.8 )1.3
Max 954.4 (20.3) 967.2 (20.4) 65.1 7.9
Range 340.8 (14.5) 362.7 (14.3) 77.9 9.2
Mean 842.7 (13.2) 828.3 (14.8) 14.4 1.8
s.d. 126.9 (5.7) 133.2 (5.6) 26.8 3.2

The differences between the mean output powers are shown in Watts and as a percentage. The min, max, range, mean and s.d. at
the foot of the table refer to the columns above them.

International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2002, 37, 879–892
2002 Blackwell Science Ltd
 Heating performance testing of microwave ovens C. James et al. 887

The least uniform temperatures overall were found

Part 2: 350 g load heated to a target mean
temperature of 70 C in a twelve-compartment
plastic tray
Temperature distribution Table 6 shows a sum-
mary of the minimum, maximum and mean tem-
peratures recorded in each of the 12-compartments
using the temperature ÔhedgehogÕ, for the three
replicated tests.
The range of temperatures in the ÔmeanÕ twelve-
compartment tray was used as an indicator of the
potential for an oven to produce hot and cold
spots in a meal tray; the greater the range, the
greater the severity of hot and/or cold spots. The
minimum temperature range was 7.0 C (oven VI,
water), the maximum temperature range 55.1 C
(oven II, mashed potato/sauce).
The most uniform temperature distributions
were found in trays containing water, correspond-
ing to overall mean Ôcold spotÕ and Ôhot spotÕ
temperatures of 61.7 and 83.9 C, respectively.
in the multicomponent trays containing mashed
potato and the sauce, with mean overall Ôcold spotÕ
and Ôhot spotÕ temperatures of 36.7 and 91.8 C,
respectively.
The mean temperature distributions in the
twelve-compartment trays for each of the ovens,
in relation to the test materials, were calculated for
each oven, and each test material, and shown as
frequency distribution charts (Figs 4–9). Ovens V
and VI showed the smallest temperature distribu-
tions overall with all the test materials, and oven II
the largest.
Repeatability of temperature data The repeatabil-
ity of the Stage 4: Part 2 temperature distribution
data can be judged by the standard deviations
calculated from the replicated tests. These stand-
ard deviations varied from 0.0 C (oven III, posi-
tion Side k, test material water) to 15.8 C (oven
IV, End h, mashed potato).

Table 6 Summary of the minimum, maximum, range, mean, and standard deviation (s.d.) of mean temperatures (C)
measured in the 12-compartment trays taken from Stage 4: Part 2 data sheets for the six microwave ovens tested

Oven code Test material Minimum Maximum Range Mean s.d.

I Water 67.2 75.8 8.6 72.6 2.0

Sauce 56.3 92.2 35.9 75.4 10.8
Mashed potato 76.4 90.3 13.9 82.9 4.5
Mash/sauce 58.4 91.2 32.8 76.6 9.5
II Water 66.1 76.0 10.0 71.5 3.2
Sauce 45.9 91.9 46.1 72.5 16.3
Mashed potato 43.2 91.5 48.3 78.1 16.8
Mash/sauce 36.7 91.8 55.1 72.6 16.1
III Water 67.1 80.2 13.1 74.0 3.6
Sauce 50.9 91.3 40.4 75.2 13.4
Mashed potato 73.8 90.4 16.6 84.6 5.8
Mash/sauce 47.2 90.3 43.1 77.5 12.6
IV Water 67.1 76.2 9.1 71.2 2.8
Sauce 46.9 93.4 46.5 69.1 16.2
Mashed potato 55.9 92.8 36.8 79.1 12.7
Mash/sauce 49.2 90.4 41.2 71.2 14.2
V Water 61.7 77.1 15.4 73.0 3.9
Sauce 62.1 88.3 26.3 77.7 9.3
Mashed potato 77.1 88.8 11.7 84.1 3.5
Mash/sauce 60.2 91.1 30.9 79.6 9.7
VI Water 76.9 83.9 7.0 80.1 2.5
Sauce 66.8 87.4 20.5 76.7 7.1
Mashed potato 76.4 91.5 15.0 85.6 5.0
Mash/sauce 73.1 90.8 17.7 83.4 6.1
Overall Water 61.7 83.9 22.2 73.7 3.0
Sauce 45.9 93.4 47.5 74.4 12.2
Mash 43.2 92.8 49.6 82.4 8.1
Mash/sauce 36.7 91.8 55.1 76.8 11.4

2002 Blackwell Science Ltd International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2002, 37, 879–892
888 Heating performance testing of microwave ovens C. James et al.

Figure 4 Frequency distribution

chart of Stage 4: Part 2 tempera-
ture distribution in 12-compart-
ment trays in oven I.

Figure 5 Frequency distribution

chart of Stage 4: Part 2 tempera-
ture distribution in 12-compart-
ment trays in oven II.

International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2002, 37, 879–892
2002 Blackwell Science Ltd
 Heating performance testing of microwave ovens C. James et al. 889

Figure 6 Frequency distribution

chart of Stage 4: Part 2 tempera-
ture distribution in 12-compart-
ment trays in oven III.

Figure 7 Frequency distribution

chart of Stage 4: Part 2 tempera-
ture distribution in 12-compart-
ment trays in oven IV.

2002 Blackwell Science Ltd International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2002, 37, 879–892
890 Heating performance testing of microwave ovens C. James et al.

Figure 8 Frequency distribution

chart of Stage 4: Part 2 tempera-
ture distribution in 12-compart-
ment trays in oven V.

Figure 9 Frequency distribution

chart of Stage 4: Part 2 tempera-
ture distribution in 12-compart-
ment trays in oven VI.

International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2002, 37, 879–892
2002 Blackwell Science Ltd
 Heating performance testing of microwave ovens C. James et al. 891

Table 7 Summary of Stage 4: Part 2 mean standard deviations

Test Oven I Oven II Oven III Oven IV Oven V Oven VI Overall

material (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C)

Water 1.5 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.7 1.3 1.0

Sauce 5.2 3.2 3.8 3.2 4.7 9.1 4.9
Mashed potato 4.6 3.8 7.0 6.8 5.1 5.1 5.4
Mash/sauce 4.9 6.0 4.8 6.0 6.6 5.3 5.6
Mean 4.1 3.5 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.2 4.2

In order to make an overall analysis of the 80

repeatability data, a mean of the 12-compartment
temperature standard deviations was calculated
75
for each oven, and each test material (Table 7).
These mean values varied from the most repeat-

Sauce temperature (˚C)

70
able, 0.7 C (oven V, water) to the least repeat-
able, 9.1 C (oven VI, sauce). Of the test materials
themselves, the most repeatable was water, 1.0 C, 65

and the mash/sauce combination the least repeat-

able, 5.6 C, with a combined overall mean 60

standard deviation value of 4.2 C. The most

repeatable oven was oven II, 3.5 C, and the least
repeatable oven was oven VI, 5.2 C.
Stirred temperature There was no consistent rela-
tionship between an oven’s ability to heat the
sauce and its ability to heat a water load of the
same size, in the same container being heated for
the same time (Fig. 10). Some ovens were more
efficient at heating sauce, others water.
Conclusions
The initial stages of these studies showed that
substituting the sauce for water produced very
similar results in power output tests. The results
also demonstrated that a UK 350 g test using a
PET tray again gave very similar results to that
performed using the standard borosilicate cylin-
der. It can therefore be concluded that the UK
350 g rating is representative of the microwave
power delivered to a food under the test condi-
tions.
Heating a 350 g water load to approximately
70 C and then repeating the procedure using the
same time but with the liquid food analogue
produced results that show the potential of the
analogue in characterizing oven performance.
Some ovens produced higher average tempera-
tures in water than the analogue, others lower.
55
50
55 60 65 70 75 80
Water temperature (˚C)
Figure 10 Average stirred temperature in 350 g water
and sauce when both were heated under equivalent condi-
tions (error bars ± 1 s.d.).
This indicates that some models of oven are more
efficient at heating foodstuffs than other ovens.
The test can therefore be used to rank the
performance of the different ovens in terms of
delivered power and consequently heating effi-
ciency.
As would be expected, after a test using water,
very small temperature differences were measured
within the packs. However, much larger tempera-
ture differences were measured in the liquid food
analogue after similar reheating tests. More
importantly, the results revealed substantial dif-
ferences between different models of microwave
oven in terms of temperature variability after
reheating. The test can therefore be used to rank
the performance of the different ovens in terms of
reheating uniformity. Comparing the results from
replicate trials it can be clearly demonstrated that
some ovens perform more consistently than other
ovens. The test can therefore be used to rank the

2002 Blackwell Science Ltd International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2002, 37, 879–892
892 Heating performance testing of microwave ovens C. James et al.
performance of the different ovens in terms of
reheating repeatability.
Similar results were found when using the solid
food and the combination of liquid and solid food.
These tests therefore provide further information
that can be used to rank the performance of the
different ovens in terms of reheating uniformity
and repeatability.
It should be noted that these tests relate
specifically to an oven’s ability to reheat standard
chilled convenience meals in rectangular contain-
ers. While chilled convenience meals come in a
variety of different shaped containers, the majority
are of similar dimensions to those used. Trials
have not been done to assess the affect of different
packaging geometries or materials. Further
experiments will be need to be made to see if
these tests can be directly related to different
configurations.
Because all the trials are quantifiable, it is easy
to analyse the results to provide numerical
values for an individual oven’s performance.
The data produced in each test can be reduced
to three numbers that are measures of the true
power, variability and repeatability of the oven.
Further simple analysis, which weights the
relative importance of each factor to the con-
sumer, could produce a single value for the
oven’s relative reheating performance. Any sim-
ple spreadsheet program could reduce the 195
individual pieces of temperature data gathered in
the total procedure to a measure of oven
performance.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Consumer
Association for funding this work.
References
Bows, J.R. (2000). A classification system for microwave
heating of food. International Journal of Food Science and
Technology, 35, 417–430.
International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2002, 37, 879–892
Burfoot, D., James, S.J., Foster, A.M., Self, K.P., Wilkins,
T.J. & Phillips, I. (1991). Reheating in Domestic Micro-
wave Ovens: Testing Uniformity and Reproducibility.
Microwave Science Series Report no. 3. London: MAFF
Publications.
George, R.M., Richardson, P.S., Hooper, G.I. & Burnett,
S.A. (1992). Microwave Reheating of Ready Meals: Char-
acterisation and Categorisation of Domestic Microwave
Ovens Based Upon a 350 g Water Load. Microwave Science
Series Report no. 6. London: MAFF Publications.
George, R.M., Hooper, G.I. & Richardson, P.S. (1994).
Evaluation of Testing Procedures for Microwave Oven
Performance and Acceptability Criteria. Microwave Sci-
ence Series Report no. 9. London: MAFF Publications.
International Electrotechnical Commission (1988). Methods
for Measuring the Performance of Microwave Ovens for
Household and Similar Purposes. IEC Publication 705,
2nd edn. Geneva: International Electrotechnical Com-
mission.
James, S.J., Foster, A.M., Phillips, I.C., Wilkins, T.J.,
Swain, M.J. & Burfoot, D. (1994). Effects on Microwave
Power-Output of Size of Load, Continuous (Intermittent)
Use, Position of Load and Variation in Mains Supply
Voltage. Microwave Science Series Report no. 11. Lon-
don: MAFF Publications.
MAFF (1992). A Voluntary System for the Categorisation of
Domestic Microwave Ovens for Heating Small Food Loads
and for the Consequent Labelling of Domestic Microwave
Ovens and Microwaveable Foods. Guidance Note (Revised
October 1992). London: MAFF Publications.
O’Meara, J.P. (1989). Variable power – a dilemma for the
microwave oven user. Microwave World, 10, 12–16.
Paul, A.A. & Southgate, D.R. (1978). Mccance and
Widdowson’s the Composition of Foods. London: HMSO.
Singh, R.A. & Heldman, D.A.T. (1984). Introduction to Food
Engineering. Pp. 100–101. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Swain, M.J., Foster, A.M. & Philips, I.C. (1995). Develop-
ment and evaluation of an alternative microwave oven
performance test protocol. In: Fifth International Con-
ference on Microwave and High Frequency Heating, Pp.
G6.1–G6.4. UK: St John’s College, Cambridge Univer-
sity.
Swain, M.J., Foster, A.M., Philips, I.C. & James, S.J.
(1994). Variation of Uniformity of Microwave Reheating
Within Commercial Chilled Convenience Meals. Micro-
wave Science Series Report no. 10. London: MAFF
Publications.
Walker, S.J., Bows, J., Richardson, P. & Banks, J.G. (1991).
Listeria Survival in Chilled Retail Products: Effect of
Recommended Microwave Cooking. Microwave Science
Series Report no. 1. London: MAFF Publications.

2002 Blackwell Science Ltd