PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE VOL 8 55-72 (1995)

Performance of Aluminium Trays

for Sterilized Products* zyx
Sylvio Alves Ortiz, Rosa Maria Vercelino Alves, Lea Mariza de

GonGa lves
zyxwvut
Oliveira, Valeria Delgado de Almeida Anjos and Jose Ricardo

ITAL - Institute of Food Technology, CETEA - Food Packaging Technology Center, Avenida Brasil
2880, 13073-001 CAMPINAS, SBo Paulo, Brazil

The performance o f a retortable semi-rigid aluminium container, o f square

shape, net capacity 330ml and w i t h a heat sealable lid, produced in Germany
by Alcan, was studied relative t o parameters o f filling, thermal processing and
heat sealing. Tests were applied t o packages containing water (275 and 295g)
and a solution of carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) at 1.25% (295 and 306g). The
thermal processing was applied under stationary and rotary (at 8, 10 and
12 r.p.m.) conditions. Heat sealing was evaluated by visual aspect, integrity,
burst resistance, tensile strength and thickness reduction. The influence o f con-
tamination (presence of water, water vapour, CMC and vegetable fat) on the
heat sealing area was also examined.
Rotary thermal processing has been proved more advantageous in comparison
w i t h a stationary process, mainly for a high viscosity model medium (CMC solu-
tion at 10000 CP a t 25°C). as it reduces the sterilization time t o about 50%. The
headspace volume measured by the destructive method indicated small varia-
tions, significant a t the level o f 5%, when pre- and post-thermal processing
values were compared. This is due t o the presence of entrapped air in the test
product, which is released during thermal processing. The seal resistance
measured by the increase in internal pressure (burst) resistance showed aver-
age values o f 26-29 p.s.i. obtained for packages containing water or CMC exam-
ined pre- and post-stationary and rotary (8 r.p.m.) thermal processing. Such
average values guarantee the container good performance. A t the 5% level,

zy
there was no significant difference i n burst resistance for the container pro-
cessed with or without rotation, containing either water or CMC, a t any of
the filling levels analysed. Contamination of the heat sealing area, evaluated
through the burst resistance, indicated the non-existence o f any significant
difference at the level of 5% and the minimum value of 25p.s.i. can be said t o
be satisfactory for all the treatments studied. For the t w o test products, at

CCC 0894-32 14/95/020055- 18. zyxwvut

zyxwvutsr
*Paper first presented at IAPRI '93, the 8th World Conference on Packaging, Brazil.

0 1995 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 28 November 1991
Revised 28 February 1992
56 zy
zyxwvutsr S.A. ORTlZ €7 AL.

zyx
the filling levels studied, the compression resistance measured before heat-
treatment showed average maximum load values ranging from 84.5 to 87.8kgf
(deflection varying from 4.7 to 5.0mm). After both stationary and rotary
(8r.p.m.) thermal processing, the minimum crushing yield load value was

zyxwvut
around 83.5 kgf. Such values are acceptable for this kind of package.

Keywords: Aluminium trays; heat processed products; heat sealing; package perfor-
mance; stationary versus rotary retorting

INTRODUCTION

In order to meet the growing demand for new types of packages for ready-to-eat
sterilized foods, the aluminium industry has developed a sterilizable aluminium
semi-rigid package (retortable smooth walled container), whose characteristics
combine the advantages of conventional metallic packages with the modernity
required by convenience packaging.
Resistance and integrity properties required by packages for sterilized low acid
foods can be obtained through the use of an aluminium foil externally coated with
a thermoresistant lacquer and internally with either a polypropylene film or a heat
sealable lacquer that is resistant to the sterilization process. Specifications may vary
depending on the size, design and the specific use of the container.'
Aluminium trays, due to their high superficial area, shallowness and thinness of

rate, thus favouring a reduction in the thermal processing time even more. zy
walls, have structural characteristics that are more favourable to heat transfer than
conventional packages of similar capacity and cylindrical design. Hence, foods are
more quickly sterilized and present better characteristics of colour, odour, flavour,
texture and nutrient retention. Moreover the use of rotary retorts in which the food is
sterilized with mechanical rotation, does in some cases improve the heat enetration
zp
The main object of this study was to evaluate the performance of semi-rigid alumi-
nium tray containers filled with two different test products (water and CMC at
1.25%). The following parameters were assessed: determination of headspace
volume through destructive and non-destructive methods; determination of the
container resistance to vertical load (compression); evaluation of heat sealing (integ-
rity, burst resistance, tensile strength, thickness reduction and effect of contamination
with water, water vapour, CMC solution and vegetable fat).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, the performance of an aluminium tray produced by Alcan Ohler,

Germany, with a nominal capacity of 375m1, net capacity 330m1, a square cross
section and dimensions of 138 x 138 x 27 mm, was assessed. (Figure 1).
The body and lid structures of the trays were thermoresistant lacquer/aluminium/
polypropylene as follows:
0 body partial thicknesses (pm): 4/110/57
0 lid partial thickness (pm): 4/95/56
PERFORMANCE OF ALUMINIUM TRAYS FOR STERILIZED PRODUCTS zy
zyxw 57

Figure 1. zyxwvutsrqp
zyx
zyxwvu
Hot filling was provided for two levels of each test product, defined in such a way

zyx
that the headspace volume was not higher than 5% of the net capacity.'
(a) Water, to simulate a liquid product of low viscosity, with the following filling
conditions at 83 f2°C: 275 and 295 g corresponding to 4.4 and 1.1 YOof actual
headspace volume.
(b) Carboxymethyl cellulose solution at 1.25% (containing 0.1 YOpotassium sor-
bate), to simulate a product with high viscosity of around 10000 CP at 25"C,
with the following filling conditions: 295 g (at 80 f2°C) equivalent to 3.9%
of actual headspace volume and 306 g (at 75 f.2°C) equivalent to 1.5% of ac-

zyxwv
tual headspace volume.
Heat sealing was carried out on an Al-Pack Ohler pneumatic sealing machine,
model Y6, under the following conditions: 3OO0C/14 7 kgfcm-*.

Therma I processi ng (ster i I izat ion)

A Stock retort, model Pilot-Rotor 900, was used to determine the sterilization para-
meters for both stationary and rotary thermal processings.
Temperature measurements were taken on 6 type T thermocouples model DC19,
58 zyxwvutsr
zyxw
zyx S . A. ORTIZ ET AL.

zyxwvutsrqp
Figure 2.

zyxw
zyxwvu
connected to an Ellab thennoregister model Z4FD. A system was developed in which the
containers were piled up separated by metal plates protected with rubber with large holes
in such a way that the area with holes made up more than 50% of the plate total area to
permit a uniform heat transfer (Figure 2).
Based on the temperature records obtained from four containers fitted with thermo-
couples (Figure 3), sterilization Fo values for each experiment (including cooling) were
determined.

zyxwv
The testing conditions used for thermal processing were:
0 test product temperature (water or CMC) at the beginning of the processing:
25 f2°C;
0 come-up time: 1-2 min;
0 processing temperature: 121"C;
0 water transfer time: 50 f 5 s (from storage vessel to processing vessel);
0 water temperature prior to transfer: 130- 132°C (storage vessel);
The rotation speeds used were 0,8, 10 and 12 r.p.m. The sterilization time was consid-
ered concluded when sterilization Fo (monitored by the Ellab thermoregister) reached
preset values of 6.0 or 12.0min for each case. Immediately afterwards, cooling with
running water at 26 f2°C was provided until the test product (water or CMC) inner
temperature at the container coldest spot with a thermocouple reached 36°C.
PERFORMANCE OF ALUMINIUM TRAYS FOR STERILIZED PRODUCTS zy
zyxw 59

zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvutsrqp
Figure 3.

The thermal processing pressure during sterilization was set to 30 p.s.i. (counter
pressure of 14-15p.s.i. maintained with steam). At the cooling step, the pressure was
reduced to 20p.s.i. when the temperature in the container reached llO"C, and to
10 p.s.i. when it reached 90°C, until completely cool.

Determination of headspace air volume

The control of the amount of air in the container headspace is important, since oxygen
and a large amount of air can affect the quality of foodstuffs and cause irreversible
deformation of the container during thermal processing. The destructive method is
more practical, but consumes a great number of packages, so the non-destructive
method was proposed.

Destructive method. In the sealed container filled with water (275 and 295 g) or CMC
(295 and 306g), the residual air volume was determined at ambient pressure after
perforation of the container immersed in water.3 To evaluate the likely influence of
thermal processing on the headspace air volume, the destructive test was also
60

140
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvu
Temperature ( C)
S. A. ORTIZ ET AL.

zyxwvut
zyxwv
zyxwv
I 1 1 I I I I I I t
0'

zyx
I I

zyxwv
0 6 10 16 20 26 30 96 40 46 60 66 60
Time (mid
Curve 1 - container with 275 g of water, stationary processing
Curve 2 - container with 275 g of water, row processing (8 rpm)
Curve 3 - container with 295 g of CMC, stationary processing
Curve 4 - container with 295 g of CMC, rotary processing (8rpm)
Figure 4. Heat penetration curves obtained for containers filled with water (275 g) and CMC (295 g) during
stationary and rotary (8 r.p.m.) processing

conducted after stationary sterilization processing (minimum Fo = 12min) for

containers with the same filling conditions.

Nondestructive method. The headspace air volume was determined by the non-
destructive method as per the methodology described by Shappee and Werkow~ki.~
It is based on the correlation between the weight of the container immersed
in water and its fluctuation pressure. The container filled with 295 g of water or 306 g
of CMC was put into a transparent cylindrical vessel with water which was
then evacuated. The neutral buoyancy was then determined. Immediately
after that, the container was fastened to a Mettler semi-analytical balance,
model PC-4400,and weighed while still immersed in water, although close to the
surface.
The multiple regression suggested by Ghosh and Rizvi' was applied and analysed
by means of Minitab software, which correlates the measured variables and thus
 zyxw
zyxwv
zyxwvut
PERFORMANCE OF ALUMINIUM TRAYS FOR STERILIZED PRODUCTS

Table 1. Thermal processing conditions of containers filled with water as test

product (Fo values include cooling step)
61

Rotation Sterilization Total time Actual

speed time of thermal Fo headspace volume
Run no. (r.p.m.) (min) processing (min) (min) (mu
~

1 0 14.0 26.5 8.4 4.4

2 8 7.5 19.0 9.2 4.4
3 10 7.0 18.5 8.4 4.4
4 12 7.5 17.5 8.7 4.4
5 0 19.5 32.0 14.8 4.4
6 0 19.0 33.0 14.0 4.4
7 8 12.0 24.5 14.0 4.4
8 8 11.5 23.5 14.4 4.4
9 0 14.0 27.0 8.5 1.1
10 0 15.0 28.5 8.7 1.1
11 8 8.0 20.0 8.0 1.1
12 10 7.0 19.5 8.6 1.1
13 12 7.0 19.0 8.5 1 .I

Table 2. Thermal processing conditions of the container with CMC at 1.25% as

test product (Fo values include cooling step)
Rotation Sterilization Total time Actual
speed time of thermal Fo headspace volume
Run no. (r.p.m.) (min) processing (min) (min) (mu
~

1 0 37.0 61 .O 9.5 3.9

2 0 35.5 64.0 9.0 3.9
3 8 18.0 37.0 9.3 3.9
4 10 18.0 34.0 8.9 3.9
5 12 18.0 33.5 9.2 3.9
6 0 35.0 61 .O 9.5 1.5
7 0 36.5 59.0 9.0 1.5
8 8 23.5 43.5 8.8 1.5
9 10 21.5 45.0 10.0 1.5
10 12 21.5 43.0 10.9 1.5
11 0 43.0 67.5 15.6 1.5
12 8 29.0 48.5 16.2 1.5
13 8 32.0 52.0 15.0 1.5
62 zy
zy
S. A. ORTlZ ET AL.

derives a polynomial equation. The calculated and the actual headspace volume
values were plotted.

zyxw
zyx
Vertical load resistance (compression)

zyxwvu
zyxwvut
Containers with both test products, at preset filling levels, were evaluated for vertical
load resistance (from top to bottom) on an Instron universal testing machine, model
4301, as per the methodology described by Padula et aL3
The effect of heat treatment on the compression resistance was determined for
containers with 275 g of water submitted to stationary and rotary (8 r.p.m.) thermal
processing (minimum Fo = 12 min).

Heat seal characterization

The heat seal characterization of non-processed containers filled with 275 g of water
was based on visual inspection, integrity evaluation, burst resistance, tensile seal
strength and determination of the reduction of the heat seal thickness.
Visual defects, such as lacquer appearance, uneven pressure distribution and defor-
mation due to excess pressure, were recorded.
The seal integrity was evaluated through the dye solution penetration test. The heat
seal thickness reduction was determined using a micrometer (Mitutoyo) with a sphe-
rical probe. Both tests were conducted according to the methodology described in
Oliveira et al.'
To evaluate the burst resistance, a FMC pneumatic apparatus, model 103, was
used, while the seal strength resistance was evaluated on an INSTRON universal
testing machine, model 4301.3

Heat seal evaluation

The heat sealing quality of containers filled with the two test products, at the two filling
levels, was assessed after the sterilization heat treatment (stationary and rotary,
8 r.p.m.; minimum Fo = 12min), by means of the seal integrity evaluation and internal
burst resistance detemnation as per the methodologies already described.

zyxw
Effect of contamination on heat seal resistance

The effect of contamination in the sealing area was assessed through burst resistance.
Containers were contaminated with CMC and hydrogenated vegetable fat, filled with
236g of water at ambient temperature and then heat sealed. Contaminated and non-
contaminated containers filled with 275 g of water at 83 f2°C so as to add water vapour
contamination due to the high filling temperatures were also produced. The effect of
 zy
zyxw
zyxwv
PERFORMANCE OF ALUMINIUM TRAYS FOR STERILIZED PRODUCTS

the presence of drops of water resulting from container movement in the sealing
machine was also examined.
63

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Thermal processing (sterilization)

zyxwvu
Table 1 shows that, for minimum Fo = 6 min, rotary thermal processing reduced (by
about 50%) the sterilization time of the test product water in comparison with
stationary processing, practically independently of the headspace volume and rota-
tion speed.
Table 2 shows that for CMC a minimum Fo = 6min, the rotary thermal processing
reduced (40-50%) the sterilization time compared with static processors. The larger head-
space volume was slightly more favourable to this reduction, but the results did not
depend on the rotation speed. On the other hand, the headspace volume hardly affected
the sterilization time in stationary processing.
On simulating the need for a more intense sterilization (minimum Fo = 12 min) to
preserve the product against deterioration by microorganisms of higher thermal resis-
tance, the sterilization time of both test products, compared under similar conditions,
was increased from 5 to 8.5min in relation to the sterilization time obtained when
minimum Fo was 6 min. In practice, this does not represent an excessive lengthening
of the total thermal processing time for the CMC test product.
For a better visualization, Figure 4 shows the heat penetration curves for the
container with the two test products (both with the bigger headspace volume)
submitted to stationary and rotary (8 r.p.m.) thermal processing. For the containers
with water, the sterilization time is relatively short under both conditions. For
containers with CMC, however, the advantage of rotary over stationary processing is
remarkable. Therefore products with heating and cooling characteristics similar to
CMC should be sterilized with rotary processing.

zyxw
Determination of the headspace air volume

zyxwv
The results for the headspace air volume from the destructive and non-destructive
methods, for containers with 295 g of water and those with 306 g of CMC, are shown
in Table 3.
Through multiple regression analysis, the following polynomial equations were
obtained:
-Container with 295 g of water:
+
P - 10.9 0.0298Va - 1.79W1 - 2.61P1
R3-= 98.6%
-Container with 306 g of CMC:
P - 16.5 - 0.0146Va - 1.51WI - 1.04P1
R3-= 99.0%
64 zyxwvutsr
zy
Table 3. Results for the headspace air volume obtained through
the destructive ( V , ) and nondestructive (V,) methods
S. A. ORTIZ ET AL.

Test product/ p2 Wl va vc
filling level Value (mm Hg) (9) (mu (mi)
Waterf295 g M ("1 10.9 3.9 2.6 2.6
IV 5.4-1 5.6 1.8-5.0 1.8-5.0 1.3-6.1
SD 3.8 0.8 3.8 1.1
cv (%)

zyx
35.1 21.8 35.1 43.8
CMC/306 g M (**) 13.8 5.3 5.2 5.2
IV
SD
CV(%)
P2, corrected fluctuation pressure.
zyxw
8.9-1 6.8
3.5

zyxwv
25.1

W , , weight of the container immersed in water.

V,, actual volume (destructive method).
V,, calculated volume (non-destructive method).
M (*), mean of 28 determinations.
M (**), mean of 13 determinations.
2.9-7.4
1.5
27.5
3.3-7.9
1.3
25.6
3.3-7.8
1.3
25.4

zyxwvuts
IV, interval of variation (minimum-maximum values).

zyxwvu
SD, standard deviation.
CV, coefficient of variation.

where:
P2 = fluctuation pressure
V, = actual headspace air volume determined through the destructive method
W , = weight of the container immersed in water = volume of water displaced (ml)

zyxwvut
(water density taken as 1 g/ml)
PI=buoyancy pressure.
As the corrected fluctuation pressure (P2)allowed us to obtain values of the calcu-
lated headspace volume (V,) equal to the actual volume (V,), the non-destructive
method has been proved applicable for this type of package (two last columns in
Table 3).
The high values of the coefficient of variation for V, and V, resulted from hot filling
temperature variations of the tested containers.
The results of the calculated headspace air volume (non-destructive method)
plotted against the actual headspace air volume (destructive method) are shown in
Figures 5 and 6 , for containers with 295 g of water and with 306 g of CMC respec-
tively. Again the results show a good correlation between the two methods.
Table 4 compares the values of headspace air volume between processed and non-
processed containers. Statistical analysis of the results shows that only the container
with 275 g of water does not present a significant difference between processed and
non-processed containers at an error level of 5%. Generally speaking, processed
containers have a bigger headspace air volume compared with the non-processed
 zy
zyxw
zyxwvuts
PERFORMANCE OF ALUMINIUM TRAYS FOR STERILIZED PRODUCTS 65

0 1 2
zyxw
zyxwvut3
ACTUAL VOLUME (ml)
4 6 6

Figure 5, Calculated headspace air volume (non-destructive method) versus actual volume (destructive
method) for the container with 295g of water

ones. This can be attributed to the presence of entrapped air in the test product (water
or CMC), which is released into the headspace during thermal processing.
From the filling levels studied, one recommends for completely liquid products or
those with a high level of liquid phase a filling value of 295 g equivalent to 2.6 ml head-
space volume. For viscous products like CMC (with viscosity around 1OOOOcP at
25"C), a value of 306g, corresponding to 5.2ml headspace volume, is recommended
(see Table 3).

Vertical load resistance (compression)

Tables 5 and 6 present the results of the evaluation of the container vertical load resistance
for the several treatments.
A significant difference, at the level of 5%, was observed for the influence of test
product/filling level, at the maximum load among the containers with 295 g of water
and the containers with 275 g of water and 306 g of CMC. This was not true, however,
for the average values of deformation (which ranged from 4.7 to 5.0 mm) nor for the
66

CALCULATED VOLUME (mI)

zyx
S. A. ORTIZ ET AL.

0 1 2
zyxw
zyxwv
zyxwvut
3 4 6 6 7 0

zyxwv
ACTUAL VOLUME (ml)

zyxwvuts
Figure 6. Calculated headspace air volume (non-destructive method) versus actual volume (destructive
method) for the container with 306g of CMC

zyxwvu
other results at maximum load (Table 5). Thus container performance can be consid-
ered excellent in respect of these parameters.
Table 6 shows a reduction in the maximum load after both stationary and rotary
processing (significant difference at the level of 5 % ) in comparison with that for the
non-processed container. As far as deformation is concerned, the same statistical
difference was observed between containers submitted to rotary processing and those
submitted to other treatments.
For all of the treatments evaluated, however, the lowest average value of maximum
load was 83.2 kgf (rotary processing, 8 r.p.m.), which was considered adequate to
withstand the normal compression loading that occur during processing on produc-
tion lines and in the distribution system. The maximum load is important for the
correct specification of transport packages.

Heat seal characterization

The visual appearance of the sealed containers at 3OO0C/1s/7 kgf cm-’ was considered
 zyxwv
zy
zyxwvutsr
PERFORMANCE OF ALUMINIUM TRAYS FOR STERILIZED PRODUCTS 67

Test product/
filling level

Water1275 g

Water1295 g
zyxw
Table 4. Determination of the headspace air volume through the destructive
method for the processed and non-processed containers with water and CMC

Condition

Processed
Non-processed
Processed
M
(mu

12.8'*
12.0a*
4.9'"
IV
(mi)

10.0-1 6.5
10.0-1 5.0
3.0-6.5
SD
(ml)

1.7
1.6
21.1
cv
(%I
13*3
13.6
LSD

0.93

22*3 0.43
Non-processed 3.6b** 2.6-5.0 0.6 18.0
CMCl295g Processed 13.2'*** 9.0-1 5.5 2.4 18'7 1.33
Non-processed 11.qb**" 8.0-1 7.0 1.9 17.2
CMCl306 g Processed 7.5-** 6.0-9.5 1.1 14.1 0.72
Non- processed 6.6b*** 3.1 -8.8 1.5 22.3
M(*), mean of 30 determinations.
M(**), mean of 27 determinations.
M(***),mean of 20 determinations.
IV, interval of variation (minimum-maximum values).
SD, standard deviation.
CV, coefficient of variation.
a,bMeansfollowed by the same letter do not differ significantly between themselves, by Tukey's
test, at an error level of 5%.
LSD, least significant difference at the error level of 5%.

good, with absence of deformation and without any alteration in the outer lacquer.
The ten containers evaluated by the dye solution penetration test showed no failure
or lack of integrity. The results of the heat sealing burst resistance, reduction in
heat seal thickness and heat seal strength are shown in Table 7.
The heat seal burst resistance can be considered high, since its values (25-27 p.s.i.)
are far above those recommended (8 for plastic sterilizable trays with dimen-
sions close to those of the container studied.
The reduction in heat seal thickness (around 70% of original thickness) is considered
adequate, for it is within the limits of 20-80% recommended.'
The heat seal tensile strength has been proved adequate for the applications recom-
mended for the flexible retortable pouch (2100-3500 gf/cm)'.

Heat sealing evaluation

None of the ten processed containers evaluated for integrity presented leakage
problems, independently of the filling level, the type of test product and the thermal
processing.
Table 8 shows the effect of thermal processing and type of sterilization, type of test
product and filling level on the heat seal burst resistance.
68 zyxwvuts
zy
Table 5. Vertical load resistance (compression) of the container
with both filling levels and types of test products
S. A. ORTIZ ET AL.

Test product/
filling level
~

Water/275 g zyxwvut
~~
Value
M
IV
SD
cv (%)
Maximum load
(kgf)
87.6a
83.0-92.0
2.62
2.99
Deformation
(mm)
4.7a
4.3-5.3
0.29
6.1 7
Water1295 g M 84.5b 4.8a
IV 76.8-89.4 4.2-5.7
SD 3.93 0.41
cv (%) 4.65 8.54
CMC/295 g M 86.3aib 5.0a
IV 82.8-90.4 4.2-5.7
SD 2.22 0.45
CV(%) 2.57 9.00
CM C/306g M 87.8a 5.0a
IV 84.0-94.2 4.6-5.7
SD 2.41 0.25
cv (%) 2.74 5.00
LS D 2.70 0.32
M, mean of 15 determinations.

zyxw
IV, interval of variation (minimum-maximum values).
SD, standard deviation.

zyxwv
CV, coefficient of variation.
a2bMeansfollowed by the same letter do not differ significantly between them-
selves by Tukey's test, at the error level of 5%.
LSD, least significant difference at the error level of 5%.

zy
zy
The thermal processing (minimum Fo = 12min) brought about a significant
increase, at an error level of 5 % , in the heat seal burst resistance. However, there
was no significant influence, at the 5% of error level, of the type of test product
(water, CMC), the kind of thermal process applied (rotary, stationary) and the
filling level on seal burst resistance. Nevertheless, considering the fact that the
average burst resistance of processed and non-processed containers (28 and
26 p.s.i.) is far above the recommended resistance (8 p.s.i.) good container
performance can be assured.

Effect of contamination on heat seal resistance

Table 9 shows the results of the container heat seal burst resistance with different
contaminants.
PERFORMANCE OF ALUMINIUM TRAYS FOR STERILIZED PRODUCTS zyxw
zy
Table 6. Vertical load resistance of the container with 275g of water sub-
69

mitted t o stationary and rotary sterilization

Maximum load Deformation
Treatmemt Value (kgf) (mm)

Non-processed M 87.6a 4.7a

IV 83.0-92.0 4.3-5.3
SD 2.6 0.29
cv (%) 3.0 6.1 7
Stationary processing M 84.2b 4.7a
IV 80.0-87.2 4.2-5.4
SD 2.0 0.28
cv (%) 2.4 5.96
Rotary processing (8 r.p.m.) M 83.2b 4.4b
IV 80.0-86.4 3.8-4.8
SD 2.4 6.1 4
cv (%) 2.9 6.1 4
LSD 2.3 0.26

zyxwvut
M, mean of 15 determinations.
IV, interval of variation.
SD, standard deviation.
CV, coefficient of variation (minimum-maximum values).
a)b Means followed by the same letter do not differ significantly between themselves, by Tukey's
test, at the error level of 5%.
LSD, least significant difference at the error level of 5%.

Table 7. Heat seal characterization of the non-processed container w i t h 275g

of water
Parameter M IV SD cv (%)
Burst resistance ( p s i ) 26" 25-27 0.7 2.7
Heat seal thickness reduction (%) 70" 55-83 6.3 9.0
Tensile strength (gf/cm) 3249"' 2441-4276 449.3 13.8
M ('), mean of 10 determinations.
M(""), mean of 80 determinations.
M("'), mean of 40 determinations.
IV, interval of variation (minimum-maximum values).
SD, standard deviation.
CV, coefficient of variation.
70 zyx
zy
zyxwvuts
Table 8. Container heat seal burst resistance
M IV
S.A. ORTlZ ET AL.

SD cv
Condition (p.s.i.) (p.s.i.) (p.s.i.) (%)

Water/275g, non-processed 26a 25-27 0.7 2.7

Water 275 g stationary processing* 28b 26-29 1 .o 3.5
Water/275 g rotary processing* (8 r.p.m.) 28b 26-29 0.9 3.4
CMC/295 g stationary processing" 28b 26-29 1.1 3.8
CMC/295 g rotary processing (8 r.p.m.) 2gb 28-30 0.7 2.4
CMC/306 g stationary processing* 2gb 28-30 0.7 2.4
CMC/306 g rotary processing* (8 r.p.m.) 28b 25-30 1.7 6.1

zyxwvu
LSD 1.5
M, mean of 10 determinations.
IV, interval of variation (minimum-maximum values).

zyxwv
SD, standard deviation.
CV, coefficient of variation.
'Thermal processing condition =minimum Fo = 12 min.
a,bMeanfollowed by the same letter do not differ significantly between themselves, by
Tukey's test, a t 5% of error level.
LSD, least significant difference at 5% of error level.

The results of the resistance to internal pressure ranged between average values of 26
and 27 p.s.i. (there was no significant difference at 5% of error level), which are high and
therefore guarantee an adequate performance of the container heat seal, even when the

zyxw
seal area is contaminated by product.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(a) The aluminium containers of dimensions 138 x 138 x 27mm were filled with
between 2 and 3% headspace. This required about 300 g of water or 305 g of
1.25% CMC solution (viscosity c. 10 000 cP).
(b) A relative increase in the headspace volume, resulting from the release of en-
trapped air in the product, occurred after container sterilization without signif-
icant influence.
(c) A reduction of about 50% in the sterilization time for the water test product under
rotary processing relative to stationary processing was found, independent of the
speed of rotation and of the headspace air volume. CMC solution gave a reduction
of about 40% in the sterilization time under rotary processing for containers with
306 g and about 50% for containers with 295 g, independent of the rotation speed.
(d) This container design was proved good even for more intense sterilization treat-
ments aimed at eliminating thermoresistant microorganisms, without any pro-
blems with its performance.
(e) The vertical load resistance values were considered satisfactory and little influ-
enced by the different treatments. A minimum value of 83 kgf was obtained
PERFORMANCE OF ALUMINIUM TRAYS FOR STERILIZED PRODUCTS zyxw
Table 9. Effect of contamination on the heat seal area as measured by burst
resistance
71

Contaminant Value Burst resistance (psi.)

Without contamination M 27a

IV 25-28
SD 1.2
cv (%) 4.1
Vegetable fat M 27'
IV 26-29
SD 1.o
cv (%) 3.5
CMC M 26'
IV 22-28
SD 1.8
cv (%) 6.9
Water drops and vapour (hot filling) M 27a
IV 26-29
SD 1.1
cv (%) 3.9
Vegetable fat + water drops and vapour (hot filling) M 27a
IV 26-29
SD 0.92
cv (%) 3.4
CMC + water drops and vapour (hot filling) M 26'
IV 25-27
SD 0.47
cv (%) 1.8
LSD 1.4
M, mean of 10 determinations.

zyxwv
IV, interval of variation (minimum-maximum values).
SD, standard deviation.

zyxwvu
CV, coefficient of variation.
aMeansfollowed by the same letter do not differ significantly among themselves, by Tukey's test,
at 5% of error level.
LSD, least significant difference at 5% of error level.

after sterilization at 121°C and 8 r.p.m., which is fully adequate to withstand

the normal processing/distribution system.
(f) The heat seal performance evaluated through burst resistance was considered sa-
tisfactory for all of the tested treatments, being little influenced by the type of test
product, headspace volume and thermal treatment applied. The minimum value
measured (25 p.s.i.) is considerably above the recommended value (8 p.s.i.).
(g) The effect of the contaminants of the heat sealing area studied can be considered
72

insignificant, since the average values of burst resistance were found to be equal or
superior to 26 p.s.i., which is regarded as excellent for this application.
zy
S. A. ORTlZ ET AL.

zyxw
zyxwv
zyxwv
REFERENCES

zyxwvutsrq
1. Oliveira, L. M., DErrico, P. A,, Martins, M. I., Ortiz, S. A. and Anjos, V. D. A. Retortable Pouch & Retortable Container,
CETEA/ITAL., Campinas, Brasil (1990).

zyxwvutsrq
2. Eisner, M. Introduction into the Technique and Technology of Rotary Sterilization, EUA, Private Author's Edition (1988).
3. Padula, M., Sarantopoulos, C. I. G. L., Ardito, E. F. G., Garcia, E. E. C., Oliveira, L. M. and Alves, R. M. V. Embalagens
Plhticas: Controle de Qualidade, ITAL, Campinas, Brad (1989).
4. Shappee, J. and Werkowski, S. J. Study of a Nondestructive Testfor Determining the Volume of Air in Flexible Food Packages,
United States Army Natick Laboratories, Natick, MA (1972).
5. Ghosh, A. and %mi, S. H. Correction factors for nondestructive measurement of residual volume of air in retort pouches, J.
Food Sci. 47,969-978 (1982).
6. Metal Box. Lamipac Heat Sealing, Worcester (1985).