Drying Technology, 24: 195–200, 2006
Copyright # 2006 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0737-3937 print/1532-2300 online
DOI: 10.1080/07373930600559100
Thermophysical Properties of Stone Fruit
W. Phomkong, G. Srzednicki, and R.H. Driscoll
Food Science and Technology, School of Chemical Engineering and Industrial Chemistry,
Faculty of Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
The thermophysical properties of the stone fruits plum, peach,
and nectarine were modeled from experimental data as functions
of moisture content. Samples were dried to preset moistures in a lab-
oratory cabinet dryer, and the thermal conductivity, specific heat,
apparent density, bulk density, and porosity of the fruit were
determined. The thermal conductivity and specific heat were found
to be linear functions of moisture content, whereas apparent bulk
density and porosity followed second-order polynomials. Tempera-
ture dependence was not found to be significant.
Keywords Thermal conductivity; Specific heat; Bulk properties;
Plum; Peach; Nectarine
INTRODUCTION
Thermophysical properties are required for modeling
heat and mass transfer processes such as dehydration. In
this article, studies were conducted to supplement literature
knowledge on stone fruit, so that property models for
isotherms, specific heat, thermal conductivity, thermal dif-
fusivity, and bulk properties could be developed. These
models were constructed as functions of moisture content
of the fruit only. Since product moisture decreases during
drying, all models were obtained over a range of moistures
consistent with commercial dehydration.
Previous studies of thermophysical properties of foods
have used constants, linear, and nonlinear models. Singh[1]
established a food properties database for a variety of fresh
fruit, listing thermophysical properties as constants.
Sweat,[2] and Krokida et al.,[3,4] used linear models for
modeling the thermal conductivity of fresh stone and berry
fruits, dried fruit, and fruit juice. Singh and Lund[5] and
Telis-Romero et al.[6] used linear functions of moisture
content, temperature, and composition for specific heat.
Singh and Lund[5] found strong moisture dependence,
although the change of specific heat with temperature
was found to be negligible within the usual range of drying
Correspondence: G. Srzednicki, Food Science and Technology,
School of Chemical Engineering and Industrial Chemistry,
Faculty of Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney
2052, Australia; E-mail: g.srzednicki@unsw.edu.au
195
and above freezing storage temperatures. Hwang and
Hayakama[7] studied the specific heat of cookies, wheat
flour and tomato using a calorimeter, presenting results
as constants only. Sharma and Thompson,[8] Singh and
Lund,[5] Sweat,[9] Singh,[1] Rahman,[10] and Stewart et al.[11]
all found that the specific heat of frozen and fresh foods
was linear with moisture content. Telis-Romero et al.[6]
studied the effect of temperature and water content on
the density of Brazilian orange juice, and also found that
the moisture dependence was more important than
temperature dependence.
However, the thermophysical properties of food materi-
als have also been found by some authors to follow non-
linear regression models. Maroulis et al.[12] found that the
thermal conductivity of food materials fitted an Arrhenius
model for temperature dependence and used a nonlinear
model for moisture content. A structural model of thermal
conductivity in apple drying, combining the effect of pro-
duct shrinkage as a function of material moisture content
and temperature, was studied by Maroulis et al.[13] Lozano
et al.[14] developed nonlinear models for bulk and particle
density of foodstuffs at changing moisture content. Suk
Shin Kim and Bhowmik[15] measured the bulk density of
yogurt and fitted a nonlinear power law relationship.
For stone fruit such as plums, peaches, and nectarines,
single value estimates of some thermophysical properties
have been reported,[2–4] but no moisture- or temperature-
dependent models were found.
The objective of this research was the development of
mathematical models of the thermophysical properties of
stone fruit.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Freshly harvested peaches and nectarines were obtained
from a wholesaler (Flemmington Markets, Sydney). The
plums (d’Agen variety) were provided by J.C. Granger &
Sons, located in Kingsvale, NSW. The fresh fruits were
stored in a cold room at 4–5
C until required for experi-
ments. Peaches and nectarines were prepared into slabs,
in which a half of the fruit was cut into four pieces of equal
196 PHOMKONG, SRZEDNICKI, AND DRISCOLL
thickness, which resulted in 8 pieces per fruit. In contrast,
plums were directly used without pitting. The fruits were
dried using a temperature-controlled cabinet dryer at
70
C. The samples of stone fruit were collected during dry-
ing at different time steps, in order to obtain five different
moisture contents. The dried samples were placed in 1.25-L
sealed jars and kept in a cold room at 4–5
C. The moisture
contents of the stone fruit samples were determined by dry-
ing in a vacuum oven set at 70
C with a vacuum pressure of
85 kPa for 6 h.[16]
Thermal Conductivity
The thermal conductivity of stone fruit was determined
using the Rahman-Fitch method.[17] This equipment con-
sists of water as a heat source=sink in an insulated vessel,
a 19-mm copper rod insulated on all sides but one, a
tapered cork stopper holding the rod and sealing the insu-
lated vessel, and a polystyrene disk glued to the top of the
cork stopper, in close thermal contact with the copper rod.
A 15-mm-diameter- copper disk (Mcu ¼ 8.648  103 kg)
was placed in a second polystyrene disk with an excavated
compartment of 15 mm diameter and depth 4 mm for hold-
ing the disk-shaped food sample. Two thermocouples were
installed, the first on the surface of the copper rod and the
second on the surface of the copper disk. Clamps were used
to hold the disk in place during the experiment.
The sample and copper disk assembly were thermally
equilibrated at room temperature. The insulated vessel
was filled with crushed ice and water. Stone fruit samples
were cored in a disk-shaped form to match the sample
holder. The temperatures were recorded using a thermo-
couple (type K), which was read by a data logger. The
temperature was recorded at 10-s intervals for 320 s. The
experimental values were averaged over five replications.
The equipment was calibrated using 0.4% agar gel[18]
and confirmed by using apple and potato of known moist-
ure content and thermal conductivity (see Rahman[10]). The
equation used for calculating the thermal conductivity,
based on transient heat flow into the copper disk above
the sample, was:
AkðT  Ts Þ dT
¼ Mcu Cp;cu ð1Þ
L dt
The solution of Eq. (1) with an initial condition at
t ¼ 0; T ¼ T0 is


T0  Ts Akt
ln TR ¼ ln ¼ ð2Þ
T  Ts LMcu Cp;cu
The thermal conductivity is calculated from the slope
obtained by linear regression of ln TR versus time. A
correction factor (f ) was calculated from the following
equation, from calibration of the equipment,[10] where k
is based on known literature:[18]
true k of specimen
f ¼ ð3Þ
measured k
This factor accounts for radial heat losses and was calcu-
lated using the agar solution, then the calibrated equipment
checked using the known samples of apple and potato.
Specific Heat
The method of mixtures was used to measure specific
heat. A calorimeter (a vacuum-jacketed flask) fitted with
a screw plastic foam lid and cover) was used. A magnetic
stirrer was placed in the flask. A thermocouple wire (type
K) was inserted through a hole made in the center of the
lid and placed in such a way that the thermocouple junc-
tion was below the liquid surface, allowing temperatures
to be recorded by a data logger.
The method was calibrated using 50 g of distilled water,
which allowed the equivalent thermal mass of the calori-
meter to be calculated. The calibration was confirmed
using aluminum powder of known specific heat. In each
test, 100 mL of cold distilled water was weighed and added
to the flask, the lid closed, and the flask allowed to equilib-
rate at room temperature for 30 min. The test samples were
then weighed and placed in a glass jar with a lid, and equi-
librated in a temperature- controlled water bath at 50
C
water temperature. Samples at 50
C were then considered
ready for insertion into the thermal flask.
The water temperature in the flask was recorded con-
tinuously for 10 min at 10-s intervals. The test sample
was then added quickly to the flask and the temperature
recorded continuously for a further 10 min at 10-s intervals.
The thermal mass (E) of the calorimeter was calculated
from Eq. (4):
Cs Ws ðTs  Te Þ  Cw Ww ðTe  Tw Þ
E¼ ð4Þ
ðTe  Tt Þ
The specific heat of aluminium powder (as a standard)
and that of the stone fruit samples were calculated using
Eq. (5):
Cw Ww ðTe  Tw Þ þ EðTe  Tt Þ
Cs ¼ ð5Þ
Ws ðTs  Te Þ
Bulk Properties
The following bulk properties were determined:
 apparent density, defined as the ratio of mass to
the apparent volume of the material (the volume
enclosed by the surface of the particles, and includ-
ing all internal pores)
 THERMOPHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF STONE FRUIT 197

TABLE 1 TABLE 3
The moisture contents used in experiments Values of the constants for the thermal conductivity
Plum (% wb) Peach (% wb) Nectarine (% wb) models of stone fruit
Stone fruit a b R2
1 67:5  1:3 86:02  0:49 83:09  0:14
2 66:23  0:32 81:19  0:16 74:74  0:71 Plum 0.27 0.0037 0.98
3 46:67  1:02 67:7  1:6 50:7  1:6 (0.025) (0.00048)
4 41:55  0:99 64:3  2:2 36:4  2:2 Nectarine  0.035 0.0085 0.95
5 16:4  1:3 23:7  2:7 29:9  1:1 (0.098) (0.0017)
Peach 0.11 0.0053 0.99
(0.022) (0.00033)
 bulk density, defined as the mass of material con- Note. Values in parentheses are standard deviations.
tained within a known volume
 bulk porosity, defined as the volume fraction of
void space or air outside the individual material, ductivity of 0.622 W=m K for 0.4% agar.[18] The thermal
when packed or stacked in bulk. conductivity of apple and potato were calculated using
the correction factor and compared with the literature
Five different moisture contents for each fruit were used
data.[10] The results, shown in Table 2, are consistent with
for determination of apparent density, using the water dis-
the literature data with standard errors of 15 and 5.5% for
placement method.[10] Each measurement was replicated
apple and potato, respectively. Subsequently, this correc-
ten times. The bulk density at different moisture contents
tion factor was used to calculate the thermal conductivity
was measured by filling a container of known volume,[19]
of stone fruit as a function of moisture content.
averaged over ten replications. The bulk properties were
The relationship between thermal conductivity and
calculated using the following equations:
moisture content for the stone fruit was then determined
Ws using a linear model by the method of least-squares (Eq.
qap ¼ ð6Þ (9), see Table 3 for values of constants). The linear
DV
regression models correlated well with the experimental
Ws data (R2 > 0.95).
qb ¼ ð7Þ
V k ¼ a þ bMw ð9Þ
qb
eb ¼ 1  ð8Þ
qap

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The sample moisture contents obtained by drying the
fresh fruit are given in Table 1.

Thermal Conductivity
The correction factor for the Rahman-Fitch apparatus
(Eq. (3)) was found to be f ¼ 3:7927, using a thermal con-

TABLE 2
Thermal conductivity of apple and potato
Experimental Literature
Sample k1 (W=m K) k2 (W=m K) P (%)4
Apple (green) 0.4827  0.0613 0.406 15.22
Potato 0.5533  0.00503 0.523 5.47
1
Obtained from 3 replications.
2
According to Rahman.[10]
3
Thermal conductivity of stone fruit after equipment cali-
bration.   
N C
P 
4 100 p;experiment  Cp;literature FIG. 1. Comparison of thermal conductivity models with Sweat’s
Mean relative deviation P ¼ N C :
i¼1 p;experiment model.[2]
198 PHOMKONG, SRZEDNICKI, AND DRISCOLL

TABLE 4
Thermal conductivity of stone fruit compared with literature data
Moisture content k, Experiment1 k, Literature2
Stone fruit (decimal) (W=m K) (W=m K) P (%)3
Plum 0.68 0.54  0.012 0.48 10
Nectarine 0.83 0.65  0.019 0.56 14
Peach 0.86 0.58  0.089 0.57 11
1
Obtained from 3 replications.
2
According to Rahman.[10]
 
PN k 
3 experiment  kliterature
Mean relative deviation P ¼ 100 :
N
i¼1
k experiment

In order to verify the accuracy of the empirical equation, in Eq. (10), and the values of the constants are given in
thermal conductivity values of stone fruit were compared Table 5.
with Sweat’s model,[2] which was proposed for predicting
the thermal conductivity for fruits and vegetables in the Cp ¼ a þ bMw ð10Þ
range of moisture content 60–95% wet basis. The results
were in good agreement with Sweat’s model between moist- The empirical models were compared with the models of
ure content 0.6–0.9 (wet basis, decimal) for peach and nec- fruits and vegetables from the literature and were found to
tarine and moisture content 0.7–0.9 for plum (as shown in agree with the models of Comini et al.,[20] Lamb,[21] and
Fig. 1). However, the significant differences were obtained Siebel[22] cited by Sweat,[9] as shown in Fig. 2. The standard
for moisture content of stone fruit lower than 0.6–0.7. The deviation of specific heat of stone fruit compared between
values obtained experimentally were also compared with the experimental data and the literature data were 0.19 for
Rahman[10] for fresh fruits as shown in Table 4. plum, 0.18 for peach, and 0.12 for nectarine. The discre-
pancies could be speculated that major components of
the fruit solids, namely sugars, underwent thermal reac-
Specific Heat tions that resulted in changes in the chemical composition
The thermal mass of the calorimeter using distilled water that effected the specific heat.
was determined to be 0.0404  0.0038 kJ=K and the spe-
cific heat of aluminum powder was measured as
0.9074  0.0001 kJ=kg K. The specific heat of aluminum
was compared with the value given by Hwang and
Hayakama,[7] who recorded 0.892 (kJ=kg K) for aluminum
powder, with a standard deviation of 0.008. The correction
factor for the apparatus was thus obtained from Eq. (3) as
f ¼ 0:9874.
The specific heat values for stone fruit were linear with
moisture content (R2 > 0.90). The empirical model is given

TABLE 5
The values of constants for the specific heat models for
stone fruit
Stone fruit a b R2
Plum 2.11 0.017 0.99
(0.053) (0.0013)
Peach 2.53 0.017 0.99
(0.15) (0.0022)
Nectarine 2.89 0.012 0.90
(0.21) (0.0035)
FIG. 2. Specific heat of stone fruit compared with models of Comini
Note. Values in parenthesis are standard deviations. et al.,[20] Lamb,[21] and Siebel[22] cited by Sweat.[9]
 THERMOPHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF STONE FRUIT 199

TABLE 6
Values of constants used in equations 11, 12, and 13 for the bulk property models of stone fruit
Bulk property Fruit a b c R2 STD
Apparent density Plum 1206 110 260 0.87 26
Peach 677 812 477 0.99 2.9
Nectarine 867 585 411 0.92 6.9
Bulk density Plum 596 846 744 0.97 10
Peach 249 493 125 0.90 37
Nectarine 452 67 330 0.99 14
Bulk porosity Plum 0.51 0.68 0.51 0.98 0.0063
Peach 0.64 0.24 0.005 0.79 0.0404
Nectarine 0.49 0.34 0.51 0.98 0.0096
Note. Values in parenthesis are estimated standard deviations for the constants.

Bulk Properties Apparent density model of stone fruit:

The apparent density, bulk density, and porosity of


stone fruit, obtained from 10 replications at different Mw Mw 2
qab ¼ a þ b þc ð11Þ
moisture contents, were expressed as functions of moisture Mw0 Mw0
ratios. The experimental data showed a nonlinear relation-
ship with moisture content, consistent with the litera- Bulk density model of stone fruit:
ture.[10,14] A second-order polynomial equation was used



to fit the experimental data. The bulk density of peaches Mw Mw 2
was the most variable property. The empirical models of qb ¼ a þ b þc ð12Þ
Mw0 Mw0
apparent density, bulk density and porosity for stone fruit
are given in Eqs. (11), (12), and (13), and the values of the
constants and the standard deviation of the parameters are Bulk porosity model of stone fruit:
listed in Table 6.


Mw Mw 2
eb ¼ a þ b þc ð13Þ
Mw0 Mw0

where a, b, and c are constants determined by the method

of least-squares regression against the data sets for each
product and property.
The resulting empirical models of density were com-
pared with the work by Lozano et al.,[14] who developed
an equation to predict the density of fruits and vegetables
during drying. Values for carrot, pear, and sweet potato
were selected to compare with the empirical model of den-
sity for stone fruit drying, and the empirical models were in
general a good agreement, as shown in Table 6 and Fig. 3.

FIG. 3. The correlation of apparent density of stone fruit with moisture
content ratio and compared with Lozano et al.[14]
CONCLUSIONS
The thermophysical properties of stone fruit during
drying showed strong moisture dependence but were not
significantly dependent on temperature. Thus, moisture-
dependent linear models of specific heat and thermal
conductivity, and nonlinear models for other properties,
were fitted. The models for thermal conductivity and spe-
cific heat gave predictions consistent with values published
in the literature. The results for the physical properties
200 PHOMKONG, SRZEDNICKI, AND DRISCOLL

were compatible with literature results for other fruits and 3. Krokida, M.K.; Panagiotou, N.M.; Maroulis, Z.B.; Saravacos, G.D.
vegetables. Thermal conductivity: Literature data compilation for foodstuffs.
International Journal of Food Properties 2001, 4 (1), 111–137.
4. Krokida, M.K.; Michailidis, P.A.; Maroulis, Z.B.; Saravacos, G.D.
NOMENCLATURE Literature data of thermal conductivity of foodstuffs. International
A Area of disk-shaped sample (m2) Journal of Food Properties 2002, 5 (1), 63–111.
Cp Specific heat (kJ=kg K) 5. Singh, R.K.; Lund, D.B. Mathematical modeling of heat and moisture
Cp,cu Specific heat of copper rod (380 J=kg K) transfer-related properties of intermediate moisture apples. Journal of
Food Process and Preservation 1984, 8, 191–210.
Cs Specific heat of sample (kJ=kg K) 6. Telis-Romero, J.; Telis, V.R.N.; Gabas, A.L.; Yamashita, F. Thermo-
Cw Specific heat of distilled water (kJ=kg K) physical properties of Brazilian orange juice as affected by tempera-
E Thermal mass of the calorimeter (kJ=K) ture and water content. Journal of Food Engineering 1998, 38, 27–40.
k Thermal conductivity (W=m K) 7. Hwang, M.P.; Hayakama, K. A specific heat calorimeter for foods.
L Thickness of disk-shaped sample (m) Journal of Food Science 1979, 44 (2), 435–438.
8. Sharma, D.K.; Thompson, T.L. Specific heat and thermal conduc-
Mcu Mass of copper rod (8.648  103 kg) tivity of sorghum. TransactionS of the ASAE 1973, 16 (1), 114–117.
Mw Moisture content (%wb) 9. Sweat, V.E. Thermal properties of foods. In Engineering Properties of
m Slope obtained from the plot of lnTR against Foods, 2nd Ed.; Rao, M.A.; Rizvi, S.S.H., Eds.; Marcel Dekker, Inc.:
time(s) New York, 1995; 99–138.
N Total number of data 10. Rahman, S. Food Properties Handbook; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL,
1995.
P Mean relative deviation (%) 11. Stewart, H.E.; Farkas, B.E.; Blankenship, S.M.; Boyette, M.D. Physi-
R2 Coefficient of determination cal and thermal properties of three sweet potato cultivars (Ipomoea
STD Standard error of estimate batatas L.). International Journal of Food Properties 2000, 3 (3),
T Temperature (
C) 433–446.
Te Equilibrium temperature (K) 12. Maroulis, Z.B.; Saravacos, G.D.; Krokida, M.K.; Panagiotou, N.M.
Thermal conductivity prediction for foodstuffs: Effect of moisture
Ts Temperature of sample (
C) content and temperature. International Journal of Food Properties
Tt Temperature of thermos (K) 2002, 5 (1), 231–245.
Tw Temperature of distilled water (K) 13. Maroulis, Z.B.; Krokida, M.K.; Rahman, M.S. A structural genetic
T0 Initial temperature (
C) model to predict the effective thermal conductivity of fruits and vege-
V Volume of container (m3) tables during drying. Journal of Food Engineering 2002, 52, 47–52.
14. Lozano, J.E.; Rotstein, E.; Urbicain, M.J. Shrinkage, porosity and
DV Volume of water displaced (m3) bulk density of foodstuffs at changing moisture content. Journal of
Ws Weight of sample (kg) Food Science 1983, 48, 1497–1502.
Ww Weight of distilled water (kg) 15. Suk, S.-K.; Bhowmik, S.R. Thermophysical properties of plain yogurt
as functions of moisture content. Journal of Food Engineering 1997,
Greek Letters 32, 109–124.
qap Apparent density (kg=m3) 16. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, 17th Ed.;
qb Bulk density (kg=m3) AOAC International: Gaithersburg, MD, 2000.
17. Rahman, M.S.; Driscoll, R.H. Thermal conductivity of seafood:
eb Porosity
Calamari, octopus and king prawn. Food Australia 1991, 43 (8),
356–360.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 18. Delgado, A.E.; Gallo, A.; De Piante, D.; Rubiolo, A. Thermal con-
The authors are grateful to J.C. Granger & Sons, King- ductivity of unfrozen and frozen strawberry and spinach. Journal of
svale, NSW, Australia, for providing stone fruit for this Food Engineering 1997, 31, 137–146.
19. ASAE. Standards Engineering Practices Data: American Society of
research.
Agricultural Engineers. St. Joseph, MI. ASAE: 2000.
20. Comini, G.; Bonacina, C.; Barina, S. Thermal properties of food stuffs.
REFERENCES Bull. International Institute of Refrigeration, Annexe 1974, 3, 163.
1. Singh, P.R. FOODPRO: A Food Properties Database; CRC Press: 21. Lamb, J. Influence of water on the thermal properties of foods. Chem-
Boca Raton, FL, 1995. istry Industry 1976, 24, 1046–1048.
2. Sweat, V.E. Experimental values of thermal conductivity of selected 22. Siebel, E. Specific heats of various products. Ice and Refrigeration
fruits and vegetables. Journal of Food Science 1974, 39, 1080–1083. 1982, 2, 256.