Journal of Food Engineering 115 (2013) 173–181

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Food Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jfoodeng

Evaluation of convective heat transfer coefficient between fluids and particles

in suspension as food model systems for natural convection using two
methodologies
A. Cariño-Sarabia, J.F. Vélez-Ruiz ⇑
Chemical, Food and Environmental Engineering Department, Universidad de las Américas Puebla, Ex-Hacienda. Sta. Catarina Martir, Cholula, Puebla 72820, Mexico

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

Article history: This study was conducted to evaluate the convective heat transfer coefficient between Newtonian and
Received 21 January 2012 non-Newtonian fluids and food particles inside of a glass vessel and to assess the effect of controlled vari-
Received in revised form 4 September 2012 ables: convection phenomena, heating temperature, immersion fluid, and different food particles. The
Accepted 8 October 2012
coefficient was evaluated from the sample temperature as a function of the heating time by two
Available online 22 October 2012
approaches: a lumped parameter method and an analytical methodology. High values corresponded to
heating in Newtonian fluids (70–181, 57–248 W/m2 K), and lower corresponded in non Newtonian fluids
Keywords:
(31–169, 28–167 W/m2 K). Similarly, major heat transfer coefficient corresponded to the heating of
Convective heat transfer coefficient
Natural convection
mushrooms (32–110, 28–132 W/m2 K), followed by tomatoes (30–181, 35–183 W/m2 K) and potatoes
Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids (31–148, 34–248 W/m2 K), respectively. Fluid properties were more important than the thermal proper-
Lumped parameter and analytical analysis ties of the particles. This coefficient was higher at 85 °C in both types of fluids. Both methods generated
Food particles satisfactory values, but the analytical approach showed more accuracy.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Baptista et al., 1997; Palazoglu, 2006); heating/cooling of food

Food process operations frequently involve heating or cooling
stages between fluids and solid particles, being the heat transfer
by conduction and convection the dominant mechanisms. The
increasing interest for manufacturing high quality, nutritious
and safe food products, as well as thermal processes modeling
and food equipment design have resulted in an imperious need
for evaluation of the convective heat transfer coefficient. It is nec-
essary to understand the contribution of this convective heat
transfer coefficient by self and to the overall heat transfer coeffi-
cient for processes, involving solid foods within Newtonian and
non-Newtonian fluids (Vélez-Ruiz, 2009). The convective coeffi-
cient is commonly quantified from the temperature evolution
obtained from test materials of known shape, size and thermal
properties.
Over the past fifteen years, research efforts around the world
have been conducted to study and characterize a diversity of
heating/cooling treatments in which the convective heat transfer
coefficient between fluids and particles has been evaluated, among
other aspects. Including, heat exchange for non-Newtonian fluids
and irregular particles (Alhamdan and Sastry, 1990), non-
Newtonian fluids and regular items (Awuah et al., 1993, 1995;
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 52 222 2292648; fax: +52 222 2292727.
E-mail address: jorgef.velez@udlap.mx (J.F. Vélez-Ruiz).
particles in Newtonian fluids (Dincer, 1997; Hulbert et al., 1997;
Carson et al., 2006; Laurindo et al., 2010); frying processes of food
items (Costa et al., 1999; Sahin et al., 1999; Budzaki and Seruga,
2005; Seruga and Budzaki, 2005), aseptic processing in continuous
flow (Ramaswamy and Zareifard, 2000; Chakrabandhu and Singh,
2002; Palazoglu and Sandeep, 2002), industrial freezing (Amarante
and Lanoisellé, 2005), and during end-over-end agitation of canned
food items (Anantheswaran and Rao, 1985; Sablani and Ramaswamy,
1998; Varga and Oliveira, 2000; Meng and Ramaswamy, 2007;
Dwevedy and Ramaswamy, 2009), among others. Additional
information on heat transfer between fluid and particulate foods is
required, in which its quantification has remained as a challenging
issue of the transport phenomena in food engineering.
Works on natural and forced convection in food particles in-
clude those of Alhamdan and Sastry (1990) in which irregular
shapes were investigated, finding hfp values between 22 and
153 W/m2 K for cooling, and 75 and 310 W/m2 K for heating. Chan-
darana et al. (1990) studied the effect of the fluid behavior at UHT
conditions, they reported values of 56–90 for particles in a non-
Newtonian fluid, and 65–107 W/m2 K for particles heated in a
Newtonian fluid. Awuah et al. (1993), evaluated the hfp in CMC
solution finding values of 76–556 W/m2 K for cylinders of carrots
and potatoes. Gadonna et al. (1996) developed predicting correla-
tions for hfp in forced convection, where higher values (290–
1587 W/m2 K) were obtained as consequence of the turbulence.

0260-8774/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2012.10.010
174 A. Cariño-Sarabia, J.F. Vélez-Ruiz / Journal of Food Engineering 115 (2013) 173–181

Nomenclature

a sphere radius (m) K consistency coefficient (Pasn)

a thermal diffusivity (m2/s) Lc particle characteristic length (m): radius for sphere, half
A shape dependent function of Biot number (Eq. (13)) of side for cube and ratio of volume/area for mushroom
Ap surface area of the particle (m2) mp particle mass (kg)
b thermal expansion coefficient (T1, °C1) gap apparent viscosity for non-Newtonian fluids (Pa s)
B shape dependent function of Biot number (Eq. (13)) = g viscosity for Newtonian fluids (Pa s)
dn2   n flow behavior index (dimensionless)
h L
Bi Biot number Bi ¼ fpkp c (dimensionless) Nu Nusselt number ðNu ¼
hfp D
Þ (dimensionless)
kp
C Empirical coefficient for Eqs. (17) and (18) Cpf g Cpf gap
Pr Prandtl number ðPr ¼ kf
¼ kf
Þ (dimensionless)
Cp specific heat capacity of the fluid (Cpf) or particle (Cpp)
(J/kgK)
r shear stress (Pa)
r radial position for a sphere (0 < r < a, m) equation 13
D diameter (m)
q density (kg/m3), at temperature T0 (q0) and T1 (q1), of
dn nth positive root of characteristic Eq. (13)
the fluid (qf) or particle (qp)
E Empirical coefficient for Eqs. (17) and (18)  
fH negative reciprocal slope of the straight line portion of Re Reynolds number Re ¼ Dlqv ¼ Dlqv (dimensionless)
ap
the heating curve on semi-log
 coordinates (s)
t time (s)
Fo Fourier number Fo ¼ La2t (dimensionless) T temperature (°C)
 c 
bg q2 L3c DT DT temperature difference between the heated fluid and
Gr Grashof number Gr ¼ gf 2 (dimensionless) the bulk value (°C)  
T T
T dimensionless temperature relationship Tpi T ff
g gravitational acceleration (m/s2)
Tf fluid temperature (°C)
c shear rate (s1)
Ti initial temperature (°C)
hfp surface or convective heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 K),
Tp particle temperature (°C)
also h in Eq. (13)
Xw mass fraction of water (dimensionless)
J Empirical coefficient for Eq. (18)
v velocity (m/s)
k thermal conductivity of the fluid (kf) or particle (kp)
V volume (m3) for suspended particles (Vp) and fluid (Vf)
(W/mK)
z dimension of change (m)

Related to thermal processes, several of the studies on hfp have
been related to pasteurization and sterilization treatments.
Palazoglu and Sandeep (2002) developed a computer program to
determine the effect of hfp on microbial and nutritional responses
during aseptic processing. Using the most conservative value of
hfp, a high quality food product was obtained by Pannu et al.
(2003), who carried out a study to asses the effect of flow direc-
tion and rate, food particle interaction, shape and size, as well
as steam temperature on product temperature during packed
bed heating of carrot and potato cubes and slices. Food center
and surface temperatures were measured by these researchers
under diverse process conditions reporting hfp values of 1500
and 2000 W/m2 K for cubes with low Biot numbers of 14.2, and
17.8, respectively.
To quantify the convective or surface heat transfer coefficient
there are different approaches, the sample temperature as a func-
tion of time is indispensable for all of them. Some methods are very
sophisticated, employing numerical solution (Gadonna et al., 1996)
or finite difference technique (Palazoglu and Sandeep, 2002;
Palazoglu, 2006), other method includes the use of a time–
temperature integrator combined with mathematical modeling
(Maesmans et al., 1994). An alternative instrumental approach
was utilized by Amarante and Lanoisellé (2005) to measure the
heat transfer coefficients in freezing equipment, in which heat
sensors were coupled to temperature recording devices with satis-
factory results. Other approaches are practical and simple, two of
these are the rate method and the ratio approach, both methods
require accurate thermophysical properties in order to get conser-
vative hfp, and other one, is the quasi-steady method.
Additionally most of the revised works, have established
empirical correlations between the Nusselt number as a function
of Reynolds, Grashof, Prandtl, and other dimensional relationships
(Welty et al., 2002; Vélez-Ruiz, 2009, 2010), depending of the
experimental conditions; three of them that are utilized in this
study are next.
for water : hfp ¼ 3:69Re0:434 ð1Þ
for starch solutions : hfp ¼ 2:33Re0:438 Pr0:349 ð2Þ
and; for non Newtonian fluids Nu ¼ 1:41Re0:482 Pr0:355
ð3Þ
Also, the Froude number, density rate, particle concentration
and diameters relationship have been incorporated in more spe-
cific correlations, such those developed by Dwevedy and Ramasw-
amy (2009) for foods canning.
Reviews developed by Maesmans et al. (1992) and Barigou et al.
(1998), on the determination of fluid to particle heat transfer coeffi-
cient for food processes, mention the influence of important factors
in the heat transfer phenomena. These factors are: natural or forced
convection, fluid rheology, particle size and concentration, particle
properties and particle displacement (translational and rotational).
In the included studies of both reviews, a wide range of hfp values, 8–
7870 W/m2 K, has been reported as a function of a diversity of vari-
ables, corresponding to Reynolds number from 0.006 to 50000, as
the important factor; several particle shapes; different solid items;
immersed in Newtonian and non Newtonian fluids.
Even though there are several studies on hfp evaluation and
modeling; still there is a lack of information on it. Very little is
known about the hfp in food process operations in which the heat
transfer is involved, particularly the effect of particle load on the
hfp, and there exist variations from one work to other; conse-
quently more studies are needed. Thus, the objective of this re-
search was to evaluate the convective heat transfer coefficient as
a function of the heating temperature (70 and 85 °C), fluid nature
 A. Cariño-Sarabia, J.F. Vélez-Ruiz / Journal of Food Engineering 115 (2013) 173–181
(two Newtonian and two non-Newtonian fluids), and the shaped
particle number (1, 5, and 10 items of three foods: potato cubes,
mushrooms, and tomato spheres) at natural convection, by using
two evaluation approaches that were compared.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Food items and test fluids
Mushrooms, potatoes and tomatoes (cherry) were selected to in-
clude three particle shapes; they were acquired at a local supermar-
ket and stored at 5 °C. Cubes of potatoes were cut (2.0 cm side) with
a fine knife, whereas mushrooms (0.47 cm characteristic dimen-
sion), and tomatoes (2.5 cm diameter) were used in natural form.
The mass and the area of each food particle was averaged, the area
for the potato cubes was computed as 6 times of the side area, for
tomato the area was the correspondent to a sphere, and for mush-
room the area was the sum of the cylindrical part plus the semi-
spherical top of the body (without the consideration of the
contact zone among the top and cylindrical parts of the mushroom).
Deionized water was taken from an institutional lab, tomato
puree (‘‘Del Fuerte’’ brand) was purchased from local supermarket;
whereas, salt (NaCl 3% w/w) and carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC
1.2% w/w) solutions were prepared by adding the corresponding
amounts of salt and CMC powders to water and thoroughly mixed
to break down undispersed lumps. The prepared solutions were
left one night to ensure total dispersion of the solute, finally hand
mixing was completed to homogenize the solution.
The four fluids were heated up to the desired temperature (70
and 85 °C) in a steam kettle, taking sample for properties measure-
ment and transferring it to a glass vessel with a constant temper-
ature water bath, for determination of the heat transfer coefficient.
2.2. Determination of physical properties
Physical properties, such as density, particle dimensions and
flow properties were measured by means of official or known
methods. Density of fluids was determined with the pycnometric
method: a glass picnometer was used for water and sugar solution,
and a Grease picnometer was utilized for CMC solution and tomato
puree. For solid foods, a displacement method using xylene was
applied. Particle dimensions were measured with a Vernier scale.
Mass of particles was measured by an analytical balance (Ohaus,
Pine Brook, NJ, USA).
Flow properties were determined instrumentally with a Brook-
field Viscometer (DV-I, Brookfield Engineering Laboratories Inc.,
Middleboro, MA, USA) using a programmable sequence, with
400 mL of sample at studied temperatures. Thus a set of velocities
(upward curve) was programmed from 0 to 100 rpm (0–36 s1)
and the corresponding torque values were recorded. From pairs
of rotational velocity vs. torque values, and applying the manufac-
turer given constants for spindle and instrument equations, the
apparent shear rates (0–50 s1) and shear stresses were evaluated
by duplicate. For Newtonian fluids the viscosity was obtained,
whereas for non-Newtonian fluids the flow behavior index, consis-
tency coefficient and apparent viscosity were computed. From the
flow curves, the rheological parameters were fitted to the Power
Law model at both temperatures (70 and 85 °C).
r ¼ K c_ n
2.3. Thermal properties and moisture content
Thermal properties (specific heat, thermal conductivity and
thermal diffusivity) of particles and immersion fluids were
175
estimated at bath temperatures by using the next equations from
different authors (Singh, 1992):
Specific heat (for fluids and particles):
Cp ¼ 0:837 þ 3:349X w ð5Þ
Thermal conductivity for fluids and, thermal conductivity for
food particles:
kf ¼ ð326:58 þ 1:0412T  0:00337T 2 Þ
ð0:46 þ 0:54X w Þ1:73x103 ð6Þ
kp ¼ 0:148 þ 0:493X w ð7Þ
Whereas from the density, specific heat and thermal conductiv-
ity, the relation for the thermal diffusivity is:
k
a¼ ð8Þ
qCp
Thermal expansion coefficient for fluids was computed with
next relationship (Welty et al., 2002):
1  ðq1 =q0 Þ
b¼ ð9Þ
DT
Moisture content supported on water evaporation by using a
vacuum oven at 70–75 °C, was obtained in according with AOAC
(1995) methodology.
2.4. Heating experimental procedure
Heat transfer experiments were carried out with four fluids
(two Newtonians and two non-Newtonians), three food particles
of different shape (potato cubes, mushrooms, and tomatoes as
spherical bodies), using three different particle units (1, 5 and
10), two heating temperatures (70 and 85 °C) and 1 natural con-
vection systems, generating 72 model systems or experimental
conditions; at least three experiments were done for each
condition.
The equipment consisted of one insulated vessel of 1 L without
stirring; two or more copper-constantan thermocouples (type K),
previously calibrated, were utilized in the food items and immer-
sion fluid; a data logger and a recording system were used
(69200–00 Digi-Sense, USA). Electrical and recirculation (water
bath) mediums were utilized to control the fluid temperatures at
70 and 85 °C. Each food particle had its corresponding thermocou-
ple placed at the lowest point of heating that corresponded to the
geometric center of the cube and sphere, and to the center of the
union zone between the top and base of the mushroom (it was
experimentally detected). The temperatures of the food center
and the fluid bulk were monitored and recorded, every 5 s, up to
reach thermal equilibrium within the immersion fluid, when the
particles recorded 70 or 85 °C, correspondently.
2.5. Data analysis
Heat transfer coefficients were determined by analyzing the
temperature–time plots by two approaches: the so named lumped
parameter method and an analytical solution.
2.5.1. Lumped parameter or quasi-steady state method (LP)
ð4Þ The evaluation of the heat transfer convective coefficients was
based on the assumption of a negligible internal resistance with
Biot number less than 0.1 (Alhamdan and Sastry, 1990; Rahman,
2009; Barigou et al., 1998; Welty et al., 2002; Vélez-Ruiz, 2010),
in which the rate of energy increase within the food item is consid-
ered equal to the rate of heat addition by convection, by mean of
the following equations:
176 A. Cariño-Sarabia, J.F. Vélez-Ruiz / Journal of Food Engineering 115 (2013) 173–181

 
mp Cp Tp  Tf following this solution, knowing fH from experimental heating data,
ln ¼ hfp t ð10Þ
Ap Ti  Tf B can be computed and substituted into the transcendental Eq. (14)
of a sphere (and similarly for the other two geometries) to deter-
or well:
mine the Biot number and hence the heat transfer coefficient.
Ap hfp The aforementioned methodology was also followed for the
ln T ¼  t ð11Þ particle cubes and mushrooms, taking the radius for tomato as
mp Cp
sphere. The half of the side for potato as cubic shape, and the vol-
From the temperature history of the particle, plots of ln ume/area relation for mushrooms, as the characteristic dimension
T ((Tp  Tf)/(Ti  Tf)) vs. time can be carried out to obtain the slope were introduced in order to simplify some of the relationships and
value; thus, the convective heat transfer coefficient may be evalu- calculation, without significant differences due to the specific form.
ated from the next equation that implies the knowledge of the
particles properties (area, mass, and specific heat):
2.6. Correlation fitting
 
mp Cp
hfp ¼ ðslopeÞ ð12Þ
Ap Finally and based on the system characteristics, fluid and parti-
cle properties and determined heat transfer coefficients, an empir-
ical correlation fitting was carried out with a computer software
2.5.2. Analytical approach (AA) (KaleidaGraph version 3.5, Synergy Software, Reading, PA, USA).
In this case, the evaluation of the convective coefficient was By using two relationships, from Awuah et al. (1993) and from
based on finite surface and internal resistances with Biot numbers Meng and Ramaswamy (2007) correspondingly.
 2

in the range 1–40. It takes the Fourier second law @T
@t
¼ a @@z2T as the
For single particles : Nu ¼ CðPr GrÞE ð17Þ
starting point, that is solved under convective boundary conditions
(T = T0 at t = 0; @T
@z
¼ 0 at the centerline of the body; k @T
@z
¼ hðT  T f Þ  J
VP
at the surface) for three geometries: infinite plate, infinite cylinder For multiple particles : Nu ¼ CðPr GrÞE ð18Þ
and sphere (Awuah et al., 1995; Welty et al., 2002; Vélez-Ruiz, Vf
2010). In which the useful equations for a sphere (Awuah et al., In which the viscosity of Newtonian liquids is substituted by the
1995; Zareifard and Ramaswamy, 1999) are the following: apparent viscosity for non-Newtonian fluids.
h i
X1 d2n þ ðBi  1Þ2 Sindn Sinðdn r=aÞ
T ¼ 2Bi  expðd2n FoÞ ð13Þ 2.7. Statistical analysis
2 2 r=a
n¼1 dn ðdn þ BiðBi  1ÞÞ
Analysis of variance and t student test were performed to
Bi ¼ 1  dCotðdÞ ð14Þ determine significance differences (p 6 0.05) of the heat transfer
coefficient magnitudes, by using the Minitab statistical software
The series solution (Eq. (13)) converges rapidly to the first term
(v.15, Minitab Inc., State College, PA, USA).
beyond a Fourier number value of 0.2. Thus, it can be generalized
for the first root and equated as:
3. Results and discussion
T ¼ A expðBFoÞ ð15Þ
or well in order to include any shape, the characteristic length (Lc) 3.1. Physical properties of food samples
was used:
! Those physical properties for the selected materials (particles
Bat and fluids) employed in this study, are included in Tables 1 and
log T ¼ log A  ð16Þ
2:303L2c 2. Some of these properties were experimentally measured or com-
puted; they are comparable with those magnitudes utilized or re-
Eq. (16) represents the straight line portion of a heating curve ob- ported by other authors. Existing discrepancies are attributed to
tained by a plot of log T vs. t, in which the slope value, also known differences of brand, food nature, variety and ripeness of the tested
 2

as heating rate index, is related to B fH ¼ 2:303LaB
c
. Therefore by food items, among others aspects of the experimentation.

Table 1
Physical properties of food particles.

Food Potato Mushroom Tomato

Property Experimentala Reported Experimentala Reported Experimentala Reported
b b
Conductivity (W/m°C) 0.52 ± 0.02 0.55 0.35 ± 0.02 0.37 0.57 ± 0.01 0.57b
Density (kg/m3) 1079 ± 28 1050c 652 ± 63 656c 1037 ± 29 1010c
Moisture (%) 81.64 ± 0.01 83.5c 94.00 ± 0.01 93.0c 92.78 ± 0.04 92.3c
Specific heat (J/kg°C) 3571 3670d 3985 3933d 3944 3928d
Thermal diffusivity (m2/s) 1.34  107 1.31  107e 1.33  107 1.40  107e 1.38  107 1.47  107e
Mass (g) 9.58 ± 0.81 – 12.0 ± 1.80 – 11.24 ± 2.33 –
Side/Vol:area/radius (m) 0.01 – 0.0047 ± 0.0004 – 0.0125 ± 0.001 –
Surface (m2) 0.0024 – 0.0041 ± 0.81 – 0.0024 + 0.00 –
Volumen (m3) 8.00  106 – 1.19 ± 0.29  105 – 1.06 ± 0.23  105 –
a
Most of data were measured or computed. Reported data from:
b
Ahmed and Rahman (2009).
C
Michailidis et al. (2009).
d
Singh et al. (2009).
e
Rahman and Al-Saidi (2009).
 A. Cariño-Sarabia, J.F. Vélez-Ruiz / Journal of Food Engineering 115 (2013) 173–181 177

Table 2
Physical properties of experimental fluids.a

Food Waterb Salt solutionc CMC solutiond Tomato pureee

Property Experimental/Reported Experimental/Reported Experimental/Reported Experimental/Reported
Conductivity (W/m°C) 0.661(70) & 0.672(85) 0.652(70) & 0.672(85) 0.657(70) & 0.671(85) 0.641(70) & 0.645(85)
Density (kg/m3) 979(70) & 969(85) 1002 ± 3(70)&993 ± 5(85) 954 ± 2(70)&953 ± 4(85) 978(70) & 968(85)
Moisture (%) 100 97.0 ± 0.1 98.8 ± 0.2 87.7 ± 0.4
Specific heat (J/kg°C) 4196(70) & 4208(85) 4085(comp) & 4102(70) 4145(comp) & 4188(85) 3985(comp) & 3940(85)
Thermal diffusivitye (m2/s) 1.63(70) & 1.67  10-7(85) 4.23(70) & 4.36  10-7(85) 5.76(70) & 5.83  10-7(85) 1.49(70) & 1.54  10-7(85)
T. expansion coefficient 6.81(comp) & 6.79  104(70) 7.54  104 4.14  104 6.10  104
Consistency coefficient (Pa sn) – – 32 ± 3(70) & 29 ± 2(85) 49 ± 3(70) & 44 ± (85) g
Flow behavior index 1.0 1.0 0.81 ± 0(70) & 0.88 ± 0(85) 0.53 ± 0(70) & 0.52 ± 0(85)
Viscosityf (m Pa s) 0.411(70) & 0.344(85) 0.474(70) & 0.39(85) 14.6 ± 1.1(70) & 12.3 ± 2.4(85) 27 ± 3(70) & 22 ± 6(85) g
a
Most of data were measured or computed. Reported data from:
b
Welty et al. (2002).
c
Perry et al. (1992).
d
Alhamdan and Sastry (1990).
e
Rao and Cooley (1992), at temperatures of 70 and 85 °C.
f
Apparent viscosity for non-Newtonian fluids.
g
Viscosity in Pa s.

80

70

60
Temperature ( C)

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Time (s)

Fig. 1. Temperature profile of potato cube (one particle) in water at 70 °C.

100
90
90
80
80
Temperature ( C)

70
Temperature ( C)

70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0
0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Time (s) Time (s)

Fig. 2. Temperature profile of mushroom (five particles) in salt solution at 85 °C. Fig. 3. Temperature profile of tomato Cherry (10 particles) in CMC solution at 85 °C.

90

3.2. Temperature profiles 80

70
Typical time–temperature profiles for different experimental
Temperature ( C)

60
systems are represented by figs. 1–4, showing the centre tempera-
50
ture of the particle as a function of time. Heating up in free convec-
tion with one particle of potato in water at 70 °C is included in fig. 40

1, taking 640 s to reach the fluid temperature. The evolution of five 30

mushrooms in salt solution is shown by fig. 2 in which a longer 20
time (695 s) was taken to reach the 85 °C, in both plots the heating 10
trend is consequence of natural convection. Whereas figs. 3 and 4,
0
are for heating in non-Newtonian fluids; in one case, tomato with 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Time (s)
ten particles in CMC solution at 85 °C required 1085 s (Fig. 3) to
equalize the fluid temperature, whereas five units of potato in Fig. 4. Temperature profile of tomato Cherry (five particles) in tomato puree at
tomato puree at 85 °C needed 1360 s (Fig. 4), these differences in 85 °C.
178 A. Cariño-Sarabia, J.F. Vélez-Ruiz / Journal of Food Engineering 115 (2013) 173–181

natural heating rate are mainly due to the system characteristics Table 3
(food particle, immersion fluid and temperature). Heat transfer coefficients for potato, evaluated from the lumped parameter approach
and including the Biot number.
Due to the higher temperature difference, the food temperature
increased faster in a first stage, and lately in a second period in System (fluid, particles, number, temperature) h (W/m2°C) Bi
which the increasing rate diminished, as consequence of a minor Water, (1), 70 °C 123 ± 5 2.4 ± 0.1
driven force, being an asymptotic tendency. Notably and as ex- Water, (5), 70 °C 118 ± 3 2.3 ± 0.1
pected, the time required to reach a maximum temperature is low- Water, (10), 70 °C 78 ± 2 1.5 ± 0.0
Water, (1), 85 °C 145 ± 3 2.8 ± 0.0
er when the heating fluid behaves as Newtonian, due to low Water, (5), 85 °C 148 ± 8 2.9 ± 0.1
viscosity favors the movement of the fluid, in contrary to non New- Water, (10), 85 °C 93 ± 0 1.8 ± 0.0
tonian fluids. Salt sol. 3% (1), 70 °C 124 ± 8 2.4 ± 0.2
Temperature evolution in each model system exhibits the influ- Salt sol. 3% (5), 70 °C 120 ± 3 2.3 ± 0.1
Salt sol. 3% (10), 70 °C 78 ± 7 1.5 ± 0.1
ence of heating temperature, fluid nature, and number and type of
Salt sol. 3% (1), 85 °C 144 ± 7 2.8 ± 0.1
particles on the heating rates of the specific food. As expected, Salt sol. 3% (5), 85 °C 133 ± 8 2.6 ± 0.1
heating rates are higher for lower particle number (same heat rate Salt sol. 3% (10), 85 °C 89 ± 3 1.7 ± 0.0
for less particle mass), for the temperature of 85 °C (higher driven CMC 1.2% (1), 70 °C 88 ± 5 1.7 ± 0.1
force than 70 °C), for Newtonian fluids (lighter consistency than CMC 1.2% (5), 70 °C 83 ± 1 1.6 ± 0.0
CMC 1.2% (10), 70 °C 59 ± 5 1.1 ± 0.1
non Newtonians); and for potato as a consequence of its small size
CMC 1.2% (1), 85 °C 92 ± 3 1.8 ± 0.1
and mass. CMC 1.2% (5), 85 °C 90 ± 3 1.7 ± 0.1
CMC 1.2% (10), 85 °C 70 ± 4 1.3 ± 0.1
3.3. Heat transfer coefficients (hfp) Tomato puree, (1), 70 °C 56 ± 5 1.1 ± 0.1
Tomato puree, (5), 70 °C 45 ± 7 0.9 ± 0.1
Tomato puree, (10), 70 °C 32 ± 0 0.6 ± 0.0
From the experimental temperature profiles for each heating Tomato puree, (1), 85 °C 66 ± 8 1.3 ± 0.1
model system, the corresponding hfp values were computed by Tomato puree, (5), 85 °C 50 ± 3 1.0 ± 0.0
applying the lumped parameter and analytical methodologies, Tomato puree, (10), 85 °C 35 ± 1 0.7 ± 0.0
higher correlation coefficients were obtained for the analytical ap-
proach, perhaps reflecting the effect of a more accurate basis.
Figs. 5a and b show two plots of ln T and log T vs. time for mush-
Table 4
room in water for the application of both methodologies. Magni- Heat transfer coefficients for tomato, evaluated from the lumped parameter approach
tudes of the surface coefficient for lumped parameters are and including the Biot number.T1.
summarized in Tables 3–5, whereas Tables 6–8 summarize the re-
System (fluid, particles, number, temperature) h (W/m2°C) Bi
sults of the analytical method, for the three food particles.
Water, (1), 70 °C 162 ± 6 3.4 ± 0.1
Thus, taking into account the effect of the analyzed variables on
Water, (5), 70 °C 154 ± 5 3.3 ± 0.1
hfp, such as heating temperature, immersion fluid, type and shape Water, (10), 70 °C 90 ± 8 1.9 ± 0.2
of the food, as well as number of particles, some highlights may Water, (1), 85 °C 181 ± 7 3.8 ± 0.1
be mentioned next. For natural convection hfp is in the range of Water, (5), 85 °C 174 ± 2 3.7 ± 0.0
30–181 W/m2 K for the first method, being smaller than for the Water, (10), 85 °C 105 ± 4 2.2 ± 0.1
Salt sol. 3%, (1), 70 °C 157 ± 7 3.1 ± 0.1
analytical approach, 28–248 W/m2 K, and observing higher values,
Salt sol. 3% (5), 70 °C 142 ± 4 2.1 ± 0.1
Salt sol. 3% (10), 70 °C 92 ± 2 1.9 ± 0.1
(a) 5 Salt sol. 3% (1), 85 °C
Salt sol. 3% (5), 85 °C
174 ± 8
166 ± 5
3.6 ± 0.1
3.2 ± 0.1
4
Salt sol. 3% (10), 85 °C 108 ± 1 2.1 ± 0.1
3 CMC 1.2% (1), 70 °C 149 ± 4 1.1 ± 0.0
y = -0.0079x + 4.3935
R² = 0.9889
CMC 1.2% (5), 70 °C 101 ± 4 0.9 ± 0.1
2 CMC 1.2% (10), 70 °C 90.3 ± 3 0.6 ± 0.0
CMC 1.2% (1), 85 °C 168 ± 7 1.3 ± 0.1
LnT

1
CMC 1.2% (5), 85 °C 153 ± 7 1.2 ± 0.1
0 CMC 1.2% (10), 85 °C 98.9 ± 5 0.8 ± 0.1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Tomato puree, (1), 70 °C 52 ± 2 3.3 ± 0.1
-1 Tomato puree, (5), 70 °C 45 ± 4 3.0 ± 0.1
Tomato puree, (10), 70 °C 30 ± 1 2.9 ± 0.0
-2 Tomato puree, (1), 85 °C 61 ± 3 3.7 ± 0.2
Tomato puree, (5), 85 °C 57 ± 3 3.5 ± 0.1
-3
Time (s) Tomato puree, (10), 85 °C 35 ± 3 2.3 ± 0.0

(b)
0

-0.5
as expected, when the food was heated in Newtonian fluids. In gen-
-1 eral terms, hfp is highest in water, then in salt and CMC solutions
y = -0.0036x + 0.1423
R² = 0.99
and lowest in tomato puree. It is higher when one particle is im-
log T

-1.5 mersed in the heating medium than five and ten units, in that or-
der (with only four exceptions of twenty-four cases). And as
-2
expected, high convection coefficients were associated at 85 °C
-2.5
for all the particles in both types of fluids.
With respect to the immersion fluid, they exhibited the next
-3 trend: water (71–181, first method; and 57–248 W/m2 K, second
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 method) and salt solution (70–174, first method; and 63–175 W/
Time (s)
m2 K, second method) as Newtonian fluids, generating higher con-
Fig. 5. Semilog plot for mushroom (one particle) in water at 70 °C: (a) lumped vection coefficients, in comparison with CMC solution (59–168,
parameter approach, and (b) analytical method. first method; and 52–167 W/m2 K, second method) and tomato
 A. Cariño-Sarabia, J.F. Vélez-Ruiz / Journal of Food Engineering 115 (2013) 173–181 179

Table 5 Table 7
Heat transfer coefficients for mushroom, evaluated from the lumped parameter Heat transfer coefficients for tomato, evaluated from the analytical approach and
approach and including the Biot number. including the Biot number.

System (fluid, particles, number, temperature) h (W/m2°C) Bi System (fluid, particles, number, temperature) h (W/m2°C) Bi
Water, (1), 70 °C 102 ± 13 1.1 ± 0.1 Water, (1), 70 °C 167 ± 5 3.5 ± 0.1
Water, (5), 70 °C 99 ± 13 1.1 ± 0.1 Water, (5), 70 °C 165 ± 4 3.5 ± 0.1
Water, (10), 70 °C 72 ± 8 0.8 ± 0.1 Water, (10), 70 °C 102 ± 5 2.2 ± 0.1
Water, (1), 85 °C 142 ± 8 1.6 ± 0.1 Water, (1), 85 °C 182 ± 9 3.9 ± 0.2
Water, (5), 85 °C 132 ± 3 1.5 ± 0.0 Water, (5), 85 °C 171 ± 5 3.6 ± 0.1
Water, (10), 85 °C 89 ± 7 1.0 ± 0.1 Water, (10), 85 °C 110 ± 7 2.3 ± 0.2
Salt sol. 3% (1), 70 °C 103 ± 12 1.1 ± 0.1 Salt sol. 3% (1), 70 °C 153 ± 6. 3.2 ± 0.1
Salt sol. 3% (5), 70 °C 99 ± 2 1.1 ± 0.0 Salt sol. 3% (5), 70 °C 146 ± 1 3.1 ± 0.0
Salt sol. 3% (10), 70 °C 70 ± 15 0.8 ± 0.2 Salt sol. 3% (10), 70 °C 90.6 ± 5 1.92 ± 0.1
Salt sol. 3% 85 °C 149 ± 5 1.7 ± 0.1 Salt sol. 3% (1), 85 °C 167 ± 3 3.5 ± 0.1
Salt sol. 3% (5), 85 °C 129 ± 6 1.5 ± 0.1 Salt sol. 3% (5), 85 °C 153 ± 10 3.2 ± 0.2
Salt sol. 3% (10), 85 °C 83 ± 6 0.9 ± 0.1 Salt sol. 3% (10), 85 °C 109 ± 4 2.3 ± 0.1
CMC 1.2% (1), 70 °C 78 ± 13 0.9 ± 0.1 CMC 1.2% (1), 70 °C 143 ± 4 3.0 ± 0.1
CMC 1.2% (5), 70 °C 82 ± 13 0.9 ± 0.1 CMC 1.2% (5), 70 °C 103 ± 1 2.2 ± 0.0
CMC 1.2% (10), 70 °C 62 ± 7 0.7 ± 0.1 CMC 1.2% (10), 70 °C 94 ± 2 2.0 ± 0.0
CMC 1.2% (1), 85 °C 110 ± 16 1.2 ± 0.2 CMC 1.2% (1), 85 °C 167 ± 9 3.5 ± 0.2
CMC1.2% (5), 85 °C 99 ± 10 1.1 ± 0.1 CMC 1.2% (5), 85 °C 159 ± 3 3.4 ± 0.1
CMC1.2% (10), 85 °C 72 ± 13 0.8 ± 0.1 CMC 1.2% (10), 85 °C 102 ± 7 2.1 ± 0.1
Tomato puree, (1), 70 °C 57 ± 11 0.6 ± 0.1 Tomato puree, (1), 70 °C 52 ± 0.1 1.1 ± 0.0
Tomato puree, (5), 70 °C 47 ± 2 0.5 ± 0.0 Tomato puree, (5), 70 °C 51 ± 0.2 1.1 ± 0.0
Tomato puree, (10), 70 °C 33 ± 14 0.4 ± 0.2 Tomato puree, (10), 70 °C 36 ± 7 0.8 ± 0.1
Tomato puree, (1), 85 °C 69 ± 16 0.8 ± 0.2 Tomato puree, (1), 85 °C 56 ± 3 1.2 ± 0.1
Tomato puree, (5), 85 °C 51 ± 6 0.6 ± 0.1 Tomato puree, (5), 85 °C 55 ± 2 1.2 ± 0.0
Tomato puree, (10), 85 °C 36 ± 13 0.4 ± 0.1 Tomato puree, (10), 85 °C 42 ± 9 0.9 ± 0.2

Table 6 Table 8
Heat transfer coefficients for potato, evaluated from the analytical approach and Heat transfer coefficients for mushroom, evaluated from the analytical approach and
including the Biot number. including the Biot number.

Sistema (fluido, número de partículas, temperatura) h (W/m2°C) Bi System (fluid, particles, number, temperature) h (W/m2°C) Bi
Water, (1), 70 °C 147 ± 7 2.8 ± 0.1 Water, (1), 70 °C 87 ± 12 1.0 ± 0.1
Water, (5), 70 °C 141 ± 9 2.7 ± 0.2 Water, (5), 70 °C 84 ± 13 0.9 ± 0.1
Water, (10), 70 °C 104 ± 2 2.0 ± 0.1 Water, (10), 70 °C 57 ± 7 0.6 ± 0.1
Water, (1), 85 °C 243 ± 9 4.7 ± 0.2 Water, (1), 85 °C 106 ± 18 1.2 ± 0.2
Water, (5), 85 °C 248 ± 8 4.8 ± 0.1 Water, (5), 85 °C 98 ± 12 1.1 ± 0.1
Water, (10), 85 °C 123 ± 8 2.4 ± 0.2 Water, (10), 85 °C 723 ± 16 0.8 ± 0.2
Salt sol. 3% (1), 70 °C 139 ± 9 3.2 ± 0.2 Salt sol. 3% (1), 70 °C 84 ± 15 0.9 ± 0.2
Salt sol. 3% (5), 70 °C 132 ± 8 3.2 ± 0.2 Salt sol. 3% (5), 70 °C 79 ± 9 0.9 ± 0.1
Salt sol. 3% (10), 70 °C 85 ± 1 1.6 ± 0.0 Salt sol. 3% (10), 70 °C 63 ± 6 0.7 ± 0.1
Salt sol. 3% (1), 85 °C 175 ± 8 3.4 ± 0.1 Salt sol. 3% (1), 85 °C 126 ± 10 1.4 ± 0.1
Salt sol. 3% (5), 85 °C 168 ± 8 3.2 ± 0.2 Salt sol. 3% (5), 85 °C 105 ± 18 1.2 ± 0.2
Salt sol. 3% (10), 85 °C 108 ± 3 2.1 ± 0.0 Salt sol. 3% (10), 85 °C 71 ± 7 0.8 ± 0.1
CMC 1.2% (1), 70 °C 102 ± 8 2.0 ± 0.2 CMC 1.2% (1), 70 °C 68 ± 12 0.8 ± 0.1
CMC 1.2% (5), 70 °C 91 ± 8 1.7 ± 0.1 CMC 1.2% (5), 70 °C 75 ± 8 0.8 ± 0.1
CMC 1.2% (10), 70 °C 73 ± 5 1.4 ± 0.1 CMC 1.2% (10), 70 °C 52 ± 7 0.6 ± 0.1
CMC 1.2% (1), 85 °C 108 ± 3 2.1 ± 0.1 CMC 1.2% (1), 85 °C 96 ± 12 1.1 ± 0.1
CMC 1.2% (5), 85 °C 96 ± 2 1.9 ± 0.0 CMC 1.2% (5), 85 °C 90 ± 5 1.0 ± 0.1
CMC 1.2% (10), 85 °C 73 ± 3 1.3 ± 0.1 CMC 1.2% (10), 85 °C 69 ± 10 0.8 ± 0.1
Tomato puree, (1), 70 °C 72 ± 4 1.4 ± 0.1 Tomato puree, (1), 70 °C 47 ± 4 0.5 ± 0.0
Tomato puree, (5), 70 °C 42 ± 9 0.8 ± 0.2 Tomato puree, (5), 70 °C 42 ± 9 0.5 ± 0.1
Tomato puree, (10), 70 °C 35 ± 2 0.7 ± 0.0 Tomato puree, (10), 70 °C 29 ± 8 0.3 ± 0.1
Tomato puree, (1), 85 °C 75 ± 0 1.4 ± 0.0 Tomato puree, (1), 85 °C 60 ± 4 0.7 ± 0.0
Tomato puree, (5), 85 °C 52 ± 0 1.0 ± 0.0 Tomato puree, (5), 85 °C 47 ± 3 0.5 ± 0.0
Tomato puree, (10), 85 °C 36 ± 0 0.7 ± 0.0 Tomato puree, (10), 85 °C 33 ± 10 0.4 ± 0.1

puree (30–69, first method; and 28–75 W/m2 K, second method).
Considering potato, tomato and mushroom, the associated heat
transfer coefficient had a range of 31–248, 30–181, and 28–
149 W/m2 K, respectively. Finally for particle number, a decreasing
trend was observed for the convection heat transfer coefficient as a
function of the number of particles due to a same quantity of heat
is utilized for more food mass. Similar values of this convective
coefficient (50–200 W/m2 K) have been reported by several
researchers for analog heat transfer processes.
In order to know the influence of the internal resistance, the
magnitude of Biot number was evaluated from the determined
hfp. The range of the correspondent Biot numbers for the studied
heat transfers systems were 0.37–3.82 for LP and 0.32–4.78 for
AA, being lower for non Newtonian fluids and as a function of the
food particle. Therefore, the studied heating process may be consid-
ered, in according to Awuah et al. (1995), Welty et al. (2002),
Rahman (2009) and Vélez-Ruiz (2010), as a finite resistances pro-
cess (Bi: 0.1–40), and consequently the obtained results for the ana-
lytical approach may be considered with more accuracy. For potato
and tomato is observed that the linear trend of the curve coincides
with the time in which the Fourier number is higher than 0.2 (143 s
for potato and 220 s for tomato particle), that is part of the funda-
mentals of the analytical approach; while for the mushroom parti-
cle, this Fourier number was reached after 32 s of heating and the
linear trend is observed after 85 s, the irregular shape of mushroom
contributed to the observed difference among particles.
180 A. Cariño-Sarabia, J.F. Vélez-Ruiz / Journal of Food Engineering 115 (2013) 173–181

Our experimental Biot numbers are lower or comparable to 3.5. Empirical fittings
some reported data, Biot numbers of 8.3–16.7 were reported by
Palazoglu and Sandeep (2002) for particles of 0.5, 0.75 and 1 cm Finally, although the primary focus of this work was to evaluate
in which hfp was computed by numerical and analytical ap- the convective coefficient by two methods, an attempt was made
proaches; Maesmans et al. (1994) handled Biot numbers up to 40 to compare and fit the evaluated experimental coefficients with
as part of the applied methodology in the determination of hfp; those values obtained from correlations. Thus, in addition to corre-
and, a range of 14–17 for Biot was reported by Pannu et al. lations proposed by Awuah et al. (1993) and Alhamdan and Sastry
(2003) for the thermal processing of diced vegetables, differences (1990) among others, in which high error percentages were ob-
that basically may be attributed to the absence of forced move- tained, the best fittings from KaleidaGraph computer software are:
ment of our experiments. In according to Pannu et al. (2003) for Potato, one particle:
0.1 < Bi < 100, although the internal heat dissipation is slow, the s
ystem maintains its capacity to keep the surface temperature low- Nu ¼ 2:0515ðPr GrÞ0:0914 R2 ¼ 0:87 ð19Þ
er than the heating fluid. Potato, multiple particles:
 0:1562
Vp
3.4. Comparison of applied methods Nu ¼ 1:1075ðPr GrÞ0:0887 R2 ¼ 0:85 ð20Þ
Vf

From the aforementioned results, it can be observed that the
Biot number was higher than 0.1, and both parameters hfp and Bi
exhibited similar trends. In which the tomato was the food particle
with highest values for the heat transfer coefficient and Biot num-
ber in most of the cases, followed by the potato and mushroom
particles, this may be interpreted as a lowest internal resistance
of the specific food in the heating phenomena. Although there
are other factors involved in the Biot number evaluation, such as
the lowest thermal conductivity and characteristic length for
mushroom, reducing the internal resistance of the particle, for in-
stance; and obviously influencing the coefficient magnitudes.
On the other side, there is an important influence of the immer-
sion fluid. The linear trend of the temperature profile was lost at
different times, for water and salt solution a time of 600 s was
coincident with this fact (Fig. 5), whereas for CMC solution and to-
mato puree the elapsed times were 700 and 1500 s, respectively. At
that time the particle has reached a temperature near to the fluid
temperature, reducing the driven force for heating.
It may be also observed, that there is more similarity between
hfp values, obtained with both methodologies, for tomato than for
potato and mushrooms particles (Tables 4 and 7). When the heat
transfer coefficient is lower than 100 W/m2°C, the difference be-
tween methods is minor. Furthermore, for potato particles the
analytical approach generated higher values; in contrary for mush-
room particles the lumped parameter method produced higher
values. The difference between methods was quantified as 1–16%
for tomato, 1.5–32% for mushroom and 1–40% for potato. From sta-
tistical comparison, there was not significant difference (p > 0.05)
between methods for tomato particles, in contrary to potato and
mushroom particles. Therefore it may be concluded that the LP
methodology may be used for tomato spheres, whereas for potato
and mushroom geometries the AA should be applied to get more
accuracy in the convective coefficient evaluation. Additionally, all
the interactions were significant (p 6 0.05) on the hfp values com-
puted by the AA method, being more important the interaction
temperature  fluid type for potato; while for the mushroom, the
interaction temperature  particle number was more important,
that are in agreement with the results of Ramaswamy and
Zareifard (2000).
Maesmans et al. (1992) reported hfp of 239 W/m2°C for potato
cubes (0.03 m side) in water at 75 °C and 146 W/m2°C in sugar
solution (35%) also at 75 °C. For the same cubes in starch solution
at 144 °C, a hfp of 99 W/m2°C was computed; while for aluminiun
shaped mushroom in water at 60 °C, a hfp of 850 W/m2°C was
quantified. Further, for spherical polyacetate particles, a coefficient
of 153 W/m2°C in water at 80 °C was reported. All these values are
similar to our results, and the differences are mainly attributed to
variations in fluids, temperature and materials; the conductivity of
metals is very high in comparison with food items.
Tomato, one particle:
Nu ¼ 2:8450ðPr GrÞ0:0455 R2 ¼ 0:93 ð21Þ
Tomato, multiple particles:
 0:0110
Vp
Nu ¼ 2:3721ðPr GrÞ0:0741 R2 ¼ 0:80 ð22Þ
Vf
Mushroom, one particle:
Nu ¼ 2:9411ðPr GrÞ0:0514 R2 ¼ 0:82 ð23Þ
Mushroom, multiple particles:
 0:0190
Vp
Nu ¼ 2:4158ðPr GrÞ0:0523 R2 ¼ 0:73 ð24Þ
Vf
In general, the fittings coefficients were not as high as expected
(R2 < 0.93), due to the complementary effect of other studied fac-
tors of this work, such as particles shape and fluid flow properties.
It can be noticed, that correlations for one particle generated better
fittings (R2: 0.82–0.93) than those obtained for multiple items (R2:
0.73–0.85).
4. Conclusions
This study points out some facts related to the heat transfer
coefficient evaluation; hfp is higher in Newtonian fluids than in
non Newtonian fluid at high temperature with natural convection;
the number of food particles has a decreasing effect on this convec-
tive parameter, in which some interesting exceptions were ob-
served and related to non Newtonian behavior.
Both applied methods (LP and AA) may be used to evaluate the
heat transfer coefficient, in which the application of the first one is
easier and faster, but when an accurate evaluation of hfp is needed,
by considering the food or internal resistance, the analytical ap-
proach should be utilized.
Rate of heat penetration in a system with food particles is a
function of several factors, rheological and thermal properties of
the involved fluid; as well as, dimensions, number, shape and ther-
mal properties of the solid particles are also very important. All of
them should be known in order to reach the objective of a thermal
treatment.
The knowledge of physical and transport properties, such as
heat capacity, thermal conductivity, consistency coefficient, and
convective heat transfer coefficient is indispensable for the accu-
racy of a thermal treatment of food fluids with solid particles, as
well as, to reach microorganisms destruction, and to avoid nutri-
tive and quality losses; therefore the research on these important
aspects of food engineering must be continued.
 A. Cariño-Sarabia, J.F. Vélez-Ruiz / Journal of Food Engineering 115 (2013) 173–181 181

References Maesmans, G.J., Hendrickx, M.E., De Cordt, S.V., Tobback, P., 1994. Feasibility of the
use of a time-temperature integrator and a mathematical model to determine
fluid-to-particle heat transfer coefficients. Food Research International 27, 39–
Ahmed, J., Rahman, M.S., 2009. Thermal conductivity data of foods. In: Rahman, M.S.
51.
(Ed.), Food Properties Handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp. 581–622.
Meng, Y., Ramaswamy, S., 2007. Dimensionless heat transfer correlations for high
Alhamdan, A., Sastry, S.K., 1990. Natural convection heat transfer between non-
viscosity fluid-particle mixtures in cans during end-over-end rotation. Journal
Newtonian fluids and an irregular shaped particle. Journal of Food Process
of Food Engineering 80, 528–535.
Engineering 13, 113–124.
Michailidis, A.P., Krokida, K.M., Rahman, M., 2009. Data and models of density,
Amarante, A., Lanoisellé, J.L., 2005. Heat transfer coefficients measurement in
shrinkage and porosity. In: Rahman, M.S. (Ed.), Food Properties Handbook. CRC
industrial freezing equipment by using heat flux sensors. Journal of Food
Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp. 397–416.
Engineering 66, 377–386.
Palazoglu, T.K., Sandeep, K.P., 2002. Assesment of the effect of fluid-to-particle heat
Anantheswaran, R.C., Rao, M.A., 1985. Heat transfer to model non-newtonian liquid
transfer coefficient on microbial and nutrient destruction during aseptic
foods in cans during end-over-end rotation. Journal of Food Process Engineering
processing of particulate foods. Journal of Food Science 67 (9), 3359–3364.
4, 21–35.
Palazoglu, K., 2006. Influence of convective heat transfer coefficient on the heating
AOAC International, 1995. Official methods of analysis, 16th ed. AOAC
rate of materials with different thermal diffusivities. Journal of Food
International, Arlintong, VA.
Engineering 73, 290–296.
Awuah, G.B., Ramaswamy, H.S., Simpson, B.K., 1993. Surface heat transfer
Pannu, K.S., Castaigne, F., Arul, J., 2003. Thermal processing of particulte foods by
coefficients associated with heating of food particles in CMC solutions.
steam injection. Part 1. Heating rate index for diced vegetables. In: Welti-
Journal of Food Process Engineering 16, 39–57.
Chanes, J., Vélez-Ruiz, J.F., Barbosa-Cánovas, G.V. (Eds.), Transport Phenomena
Awuah, G.B., Ramaswamy, H.S., Simpson, B.K., 1995. Comparison of two methods for
in Food Processsing. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FLO, pp. 309–326.
evaluating fluid to-surface heat transfer coefficients. Food Research
Perry, H., Green, D., Maloney, J., 1992. Chemical Engineer Handbook. McGraw-Hill.
International 28 (3), 261–271.
México, In Spanish.
Baptista, P.N., Oliveira, F.A.R., Oliveira, J.C., Sastry, S.K., 1997. Dimensionless analysis
Rahman, M., Al-Saidi, G., 2009. Thermal diffusivity of foods: measurement, data and
of fluid-to-particle heat transfer coefficients. Journal of Food Engineering 31,
prediction. In: Food Properties Handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp.
199–218.
649–696.
Barigou, M., Mankad, S., Fryer, P.J., 1998. Heat transfer in two-phase solid-liquid
Ramaswamy, H.S., Zareifard, M.R., 2000. Evaluation of factors influencing tube-flow
food flows: A review. Transactions of IChem 76-C, 3–29.
fluid-to-particle heat transfer coefficient using a calorimetric technique. Journal
Budzaki, S., Seruga, B., 2005. Determination of heat transfer coefficient during frying
of Food Engineering 45, 127–138.
of potato dough. Journal of Food Engineering 66, 307–314.
Rao, M., Cooley, H., 1992. Rheological behavior of tomato pastes in steady and
Carson, J.M., Willix, J., North, M.F., 2006. Measurement of heat transfer coefficients
dynamic shear. Journal of Texture Studies 23, 415–425.
within convection ovens. Journal of Food Engineering 72, 293–301.
Sablani, S.S., Ramaswamy, H.S., 1998. Multi-particle mixing and its role in heat
Chakrabandhu, K., Singh, R.K., 2002. Fluid-to-particle heat transfer coefficients for
transfer during end-over-end agitation of cans. Journal of Food Engineering 38,
continuous flow of suspensions in coiled tube and straight tube with bends.
141–152.
Food Science and Technology (LWT) 35, 420–435.
Sahin, S., Sastry, S.K., Bayindirli, L., 1999. The determination of convective heat
Chandarana, D.I., Gavin, A., Wheaton, F.W., 1990. Particle/fluid interface heat
transfer coefficient during frying. Journal of Food Engineering 39, 307–311.
transfer under UHT conditions at low particle/fluid relative velocities. Journal of
Seruga, B., Budzaki, S., 2005. Determination of thermal conductivity and convective
Food Process Engineering 13, 191–206.
heat transfer coefficient during deep fat frying of ‘‘Krotula’’ dough. European
Costa, R.M., Oliveira, F.A.R., Delaney, O., Gekas, V., 1999. Analysis of the heat transfer
Food Research and Technology 221, 351–356.
coefficient during potato frying. Journal of Food Engineering 39, 293–299.
Singh, R.P., 1992. Heating and cooling processes for foods. In: Heldman, E.R., Lund,
Dincer, I., 1997. New effective Nusselt-Reynolds for food-cooling applications.
D.B. (Eds.), Handbook of Food Engineering. Marcel Dekker Inc., NY, pp. 247–276.
Journal of Food Engineering 31, 59–67.
Singh, R.P., Erdogdu, F., Rahman, M.S., 2009. Specific heat and enthalpy of foods. In:
Dwevedy, M., Ramaswamy, H., 2009. Dimensipnless correlations for convective heat
Rahman, M.S. (Ed.). Food Properties Handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
transfer in canned particulate fluids under axial rotation processing. Journal of
pp. 517–543.
Food Process Engineering 33, 182–207.
Varga, S., Oliveira, J.C., 2000. Determination of the heat transfer coefficient between
Gadonna, J.P., Pain, J.P., Barigou, M., 1996. Determination of the convective heat
bulk medium and packed containers in a batch retort. Journal of Food
transfer coefficient between a free particle and a conveying fluid in a horizontal
Engineering 44, 191–198.
pipe. Transactions of IChemE 74-C, 27–39.
Vélez-Ruiz, J.F., 2009. Evaluation of convective heat transfer coefficient for food
Hulbert, G.J., Litchfield, J.B., Smichdt, S.J., 1997. Determination of convective heat
process operations. In: Sosa-Morales, M.E., Vélez-Ruiz, J.F. (Eds.), Food
transfer coefficients using 2D MRI temperature mapping and finite element
Processing and Engineering Topics. Ed. Nova, NY, USA, pp. 125–153.
model. Journal of Food Engineering 34, 193–201.
Vélez-Ruiz, J.F., 2010. Notes of Food Transport Phenomena. Universidad de las
Laurindo, J.B., Carciofi, B.A.M., Silva, R.R., Dannenhauer, C.E., Hense, H., 2010.
Americas Puebla. Unpublished document. Puebla, Mexico (In Spanish).
Evaluation of the effects of water agitation by air injection and water
Welty, J.R., Wicks, C.E., Wilson, R.E., 2002. Fundamentals of Momentum, Heat and
recirculation on the heat transfer coefficients in immersion cooling. Journal of
Mass Transfer. Limusa, Mexico, In Spanish.
Food Engineering 96, 59–65.
Zareifard, M.Y., Ramaswamy, H., 1999. A calorimetric approach for evaluation of
Maesmans, G.J., Hendrickx, M.E., De Cordt, S.V., Tobback, P., 1992. Fluid-to-particle
fluid-to-particle heat transfer coefficient under tube-flow conditions.
heat transfer coefficient determination of heterogeneous foods: A review.
Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft und-Technologie 32 (8), 495–502.
Journal of Food Processing and Preservation 16, 29–69.