International Journal of Refrigeration 98 (2019) 468–479

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Refrigeration

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

Development of a food temperature prediction model for real time

food quality assessment
Hajin Song a, Jiyoung Kim a,b, Byeong-Sam Kim b, Junemo Koo a,∗
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kyung Hee University, Yongin, Gyeonggi-do 17104, South Korea
b
Research Group of Smart Food Distribution System, Korea Food Research Institute, Wanju-gun, Jeollabuk-do 55365, South Korea

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

Article history: Multilayer food temperature models considering the spatial temperature distribution in the food were
Received 30 May 2018 developed to predict temporal temperature changes experienced by food during distribution considering
Revised 22 November 2018
the surrounding temperature, initial food temperature, and the predetermined surface heat transfer coef-
Accepted 27 November 2018
ficient. Parameters used in the models were determined using the results of unsteady three-dimensional
Available online 30 November 2018
computational fluid dynamics simulations for the conjugated heat transfer problem between the food and
Keywords: surroundings. Models were validated by comparing model predictions with the food temperature experi-
Food temperature model mentally measured under fluctuating temperature conditions with a mean absolute deviation of less than
Freshness monitoring model 1 °C.
Real-time food quality monitoring system The developed food temperature model was integrated with a freshness monitoring model to com-
Heat transfer coefficient plete the real-time food quality monitoring system. Food quality prediction using the integrated food
Thermal network
quality monitoring system was validated for eggs and milk. Quality predictions using the food tempera-
ture model showed better accuracy than when using a single point measurement of food temperature.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd and IIR. All rights reserved.

Développement d’un modèle prédictif de la température des aliments pour

l’évaluation en temps réel de la qualité des aliments

Mots-clés: Modèle de température des aliments; Modèle de surveillance de la fraîcheur; Système de surveillance de la qualité des aliments en temps réel; Coefficient de
transfert de chaleur; Réseau thermique

1. Introduction
In the US, approximately 30–40% of the total amount of food
fails to be consumed and is discarded every year (Buzby et al.,
2014). Food waste (FW) occurs at both the retail and consumer
levels for reasons including erroneous transportation and storage
management, improper packaging, and confusion caused by a lack
of clear understanding of shelf-life. FW results in economic loss
and can also have an adverse impact on the environment.
Development of real-time food quality monitoring systems to
keep track of the food quality index (FQI) history during distri-
bution is a topic of active research with the ultimate goals of
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: shj7034@khu.ac.kr (H. Song), jykim@kfri.re.kr (J. Kim),
bskim@kfri.re.kr (B.-S. Kim), jmkoo@khu.ac.kr (J. Koo).
improving food safety and reducing FW. FQI in a system is mod-
eled as a variable that is dependent on the time history of en-
vironmental factors such as temperature, relative humidity, and
airflow velocity. Among these factors, temperature is the most sig-
nificant. Therefore, FQI is usually represented as a function of the
temperature history only, which highlights the importance of ac-
curate monitoring of food temperature (Carullo et al., 2009; Je-
dermann et al., 2009; Shih and Wang, 2016). Raab et al. (2008),
Bruckner et al. (2013) and Lytou et al. (2016) developed prediction
models of aerobic microbial and Pseudomonas sp. in poultry and
pork under both constant and fluctuating temperature conditions.
Raab et al. (2008) collected the food temperature history from the
fixed temperature sensors in the meat of large packaging unit. In
contrast, Bruckner et al. (2013) and Lytou et al. (2016) used the
chamber temperature history as the food temperature history con-
sidering small sample size. Gwanpua et al. (2015) presented FRIS-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2018.11.032
0140-7007/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd and IIR. All rights reserved.
 H. Song, J. Kim and B.-S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 98 (2019) 468–479 469

Raab et al. (2008) stressed the importance of a food temper-

Nomenclature ature monitoring technique as well as the construction of a food
quality model and infrastructure for food quality monitoring at
A Heat transfer area [m2 ] each stage of distribution. They concluded that further research is
Af Accuracy factor necessary to develop a food temperature monitoring technique and
Bf Bias factor infrastructure to complete the monitoring system despite develop-
Bi Biot number ing food quality models for pork and chicken.
Ci Heat capacitance [J °C−1 ] The rate of food temperature change can be calculated using
Cp Specific heat [J kg−1 K−1 ] the rate of convective and radiative heat transfer to the food from
FMM Food freshness monitoring model the surroundings, which are the two major heat transfer modes for
Fo Fourier number processed and packaged foods in distribution. Heat transfer coeffi-
FQI Food quality index cients are used to calculate the heat transfer rate and vary with
FQMS Real-time food quality monitoring system factors such as the temperature difference between the food and
FTM Food temperature model surroundings in the case of natural convection, fluid velocity, and
h Heat transfer coefficient [W m−2 °C−1 ] surface roughness. Denys et al. (20 03, 20 04) estimated the convec-
hconv Convective heat transfer coefficient [W m−2 °C−1 ] tive heat transfer coefficient during low-temperature pasteuriza-
h̄ Effective average heat transfer coefficient [W m−2 tion of eggs by matching the evolution of temperature distributions
°C−1 ] measured experimentally inside the eggs with that obtained from
HU Haugh unit computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation analysis assuming
k Thermal conductivity [W m−1 K−1 ] a heat transfer coefficient at the surface. Kondjoyan (2006) pub-
L Characteristic length of the food [m] lished a review article that detailed surface heat and mass trans-
MAPE Mean absolute percentage error fer coefficients during air chilling and the storage of food prod-
N Microbial concentration in the milk [CFU mL−1 ] ucts. They used the Nusselt number relationship with the Reynolds
Nu Nusselt number number and turbulent intensity to determine the heat transfer co-
Pr Prandtl number efficient for a single food product with a given food shape under
Q˙ conv Convective heat transfer rate [W] cross- and parallel-flow conditions. They concluded that the heat
Re Reynolds number transfer coefficient should be measured directly under real distri-
Ri Effective thermal resistance [°C W−1 ] bution conditions because it varies depending on the shape and
T Mean temperature of the food [°C] size of the food as well as flow conditions.
Ti Temperature of each layer in food [°C] Van der Sman (2003) developed models to predict the temper-
Tm Mean temperature of the food [°C] ature in high-moisture foods of regular shapes such as cylinders
Ts Food surface temperature [°C] and shell-cores involving convective and evaporative heat transfer
T∞ Surrounding temperature [°C] at the surface. They performed finite volume method-based com-
V Volume [m−3 ] putational simulations to obtain temperature distribution histories.
They observed that the mean temperature location was about
Greek letter
two thirds of the radius from the center for symmetric cases and
α Thermal diffusivity [m2 s−1 ]
developed simple differential equations to predict the evolution of
ε Emissivity
the mean and surface temperatures of foods over time using the
μ Dynamic viscosity [kg m−3 ]
predetermined thermal resistance. However, their models cannot
ρ Density [kg m−3 ]
be applied to foods with complex shapes or a non-symmetric
σ Stefan-Boltzmann constant
temperature distribution. Margeirsson et al. (2012) performed
three-dimensional (3D) heat transfer simulations of cod fillets
packaged in expanded polystyrene (EPS) boxes to investigate the
BEE tool which simulated the food quality change in cold-chain us- spatial distribution of the food temperature inside the boxes
ing the food freshness model by considering the heat transfer in under laminar natural convection conditions. Similar research was
showcase and refrigerators. It evaluated the energy consumption reported by Marai et al. (2012) for small fruits like blueberries,
as well as global warming impact of the cold chain systems based where they compared the simulated temperature distribution to
on the user inputs of cold-chain condition parameters such as per- highlight the usefulness of CFD simulations to analyze the tem-
formance index, type and configuration of refrigeration systems. perature distribution in foods. Gospavic et al. (2012) derived an
Currently, temperatures inside the delivery vehicle cargo, the analytical solution for the temperature distribution in a cuboidal
package box, warehouse, and showcases are measured and as- package of haddock fillets by separating variables for the transient
sumed to be the food temperature. However, when the outside 3D heat conduction equation under laminar natural convection
temperature changes very rapidly or the food heat capacity is large, conditions. They compared the solution with measured data and
there is a measurable discrepancy between the temperature of the CFD simulation results to validate their model. However, it is not
food and the surroundings such that accurate quality monitoring feasible to carry out CFD simulations for individual food objects in
is hindered. To address these issues, it is necessary to provide a distribution at each monitoring time point to obtain information
bridging technology capable of predicting the food temperature about the temperature distribution (Marai et al., 2012; Margeirsson
from the monitored surrounding temperature. et al., 2012). In addition, the analytical solution (Gospavić et al.,
Hoang et al. (2012) analyzed the current cold chain distribu- 2012) is limited to foods of a cuboidal shape under laminar nat-
tion process using existing information from databases and mod- ural convection conditions. It is necessary to develop a simple but
eled the evolution of food temperature and microbial growth in general model to estimate temporal changes in food quality con-
food using combined deterministic and stochastic approaches. They sidering the effects of the spatial temperature distribution in foods.
classified possible distribution environment scenarios at each stage In this study, we developed a food temperature model (FTM)
using information from existing databases, and estimated average to predict food temperature change during distribution consider-
food temperature during distribution stochastically to evaluate mi- ing the surrounding temperature, initial food temperature, and the
crobial growth in the food. predetermined surface heat transfer coefficient. The surface heat
470 H. Song, J. Kim and B.-S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 98 (2019) 468–479
Fig. 1. Schematic process diagram of the real-time food quality monitoring system.
transfer coefficient was measured for each stage of circulation un-
der real distribution conditions. Details of integration of this FTM
into a real-time food quality monitoring system (FQMS) with a pre-
developed food freshness monitoring model (FMM) are presented.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Real-time food quality monitoring system
The process schematics of the real-time food quality monitoring
system are shown in Fig. 1. The changes in the surrounding tem-
perature are monitored by RFID temperature sensors attached to
each package unit such as a box of multiple egg cartons or a crate
containing multiples of milk packages to consider the spatial tem-
perature distribution. The monitored temperature is transferred to
a server computer, which calculates the food temperature and FQI
histories using FTM and FMM. Food status information is delivered
to the customer on demand.
In this study, FTMs for eggs and low temperature pasteur-
ized milk were developed and their validity and applicability were
tested by constructing a FQMS using FMMs for eggs developed by
Yimenu et al. (2017) and for milk by Kim et al. (2016). Eggs in car-
tons as well as milk in bottles of different sizes were selected to
investigate the impact of thermal capacity on the need for FTM.
Experiments and CFD simulations were performed to determine
model coefficients, including the heat transfer coefficient and ther-
mal resistances. The heat transfer coefficient was estimated experi-
mentally using the temperature histories of food and surroundings,
while internal thermal resistances were derived from CFD analysis.
The spatial distributions of food temperature and heat transfer co-
efficients were also analyzed using the CFD results.
2.2. Experimental set-up
Freshly-laid, special-class, unfertilized egg samples were ob-
tained directly from Ireefarm Egg Company, Seoul and storage ex-
periments were conducted at the Korea Food Research Institute in
January 2015. Samples were stored in their commercial packaging
(cartons, each containing 10 eggs) under a fluctuating tempera-
ture of 10–30 °C alternating at 24 hours. Surrounding temperatures
were measured at multiple points by temperature sensor tips fixed
at the surface of the storage chamber near foods, and it was found
that the deviations were negligible between them. The Fourier
number (Fo = α tL−2 ) for eggs was estimated to be 4.26 where
α , t, and L were the thermal diffusivity of the egg, temperature
shift duration, and average length of the long and short axes of
the egg, respectively, indicating that the temperature shift affected
the entire inside of the egg. Temperature was constantly monitored
by electronic, programmable, miniature data loggers (HL-1D/TL-
1D, Rotronic Measurement Solutions, Taiwan) in the storage cham-
bers. Data loggers were placed inside the storage chambers and
were attached to the egg surface and egg core to monitor stor-
age air, egg surface, and egg core temperatures, respectively. To
measure the egg core temperature, the tips of temperature sen-
sor were inserted into the eggs, and the gap between the temper-
ature sensor and the egg shell was filled to alleviate the impact
of the treatment. The tips of the temperature sensors were fixed
on egg shells using film tape to measure the surface temperature.
Temperature data were recorded every 10 min throughout storage.
Haugh unit was determined from egg weight and the albumen
height of a broken egg spread on a horizontal plate using Eq. (1)
(Haugh, 1937):
 
HU = 100log H + 7.51 − 1.7W0.37 (1)
where H is albumen height (mm) and W is the weight of the egg
when tested (g). Refer to Yimenu et al. (2017) for details of mate-
rial preparation of the eggs.
Commercially packaged pasteurized milk (63 °C for 30 min) in
200 mL and 930 mL vessels was obtained from a commercial dairy
on the day of production. Milk samples were collected three times
from April 2011 to June 2012. Wired temperature loggers (Model
TR-5i; T&D Corporation, Japan) were used to monitor the temper-
ature at the centroid of each milk package. RFID temperature log-
gers were attached to the milk package surface, and the surround-
ing temperature was monitored by temperature sensors installed
in the refrigerator. Total aerobic counts of 10 mL samples were an-
alyzed every 2 h. Refer to Kim et al. (2016) for details of the ma-
terial preparation of the milk, including details about the choice
to use FQI for microbial counts. Samples were exposed to fluc-
tuating temperatures by incubation in a refrigerator with a pro-
grammable temperature history. The corresponding Fourier num-
bers were calculated to be 0.78 and 0.53 for 200 mL milk under
type A condition and 930 mL milk respectively, where it ranged be-
tween 0.35 and 4.15 for 200 mL milk under type B condition. This
implies that the experiments encompassed cases of both partial
and full penetration of heat into the milk. The impact of tempera-
ture shift frequency on the accuracy of FTM is discussed in a later
section.
Under real distribution conditions, food temperature is usually
controlled at a constant temperature for a long period of time,
and the impact of temporal temperature shifts decreases with the
proper distribution process. Severe temperature abuse cases were
considered to verify the performance of FTM and FQMS.
2.3. Determination of heat transfer coefficients for foods
in distribution
The rate of convective heat transfer is proportional to the tem-
perature difference. The governing law for convection is Newton’s
law of cooling, as shown in Eq. (2):
Q˙ conv = hconv A(Ts − T∞ ) (2)
where Q˙ conv , A, hconv , Ts , and T∞ represent the rate of heat transfer
due to convection, heat transfer area, convective heat transfer co-
efficient, food surface temperature, and surrounding temperature,
respectively. Convective heat transfer coefficient is defined as the
rate of heat transfer per unit area for a unit temperature differ-
ence. It is a complex function of fluid properties, fluid flow ve-
locity, and the food surface. It is hard to define explicitly and is
usually experimentally determined, because it is difficult to repre-
sent all the complex flow and heat transfer conditions experienced
 H. Song, J. Kim and B.-S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 98 (2019) 468–479
under real distribution conditions, even with computational fluid
dynamics simulations (Kondjoyan, 2006). The heat transfer coef-
ficient is strongly dependent on fluid flow velocity and increases
with velocity as shown in Eqs. (3)–(5) (Cengel, 2014):
h·L
= Nu = C · Rem · P r n
k
ρ ·V ·L
Re =
μ
μ · cp
Pr =
k and the direction of heat transfer is consistent to avoid the ef-
Here h, L, k, Nu, Re, Pr, ρ , V, μ, and Cp are the heat transfer coeffi-
cient, characteristic length of the food, thermal conductivity of the
surrounding air, Nusselt number, Reynolds number, Prandtl num-
ber, air density, air velocity, air dynamic viscosity, and air specific
heat, respectively. C, m, and n are model constants that are deter-
mined based on the flow regime and food shape.
Generally, radiative heat transfer is active in addition to convec-
tive heat transfer for solid surfaces of different temperatures sur-
rounded by fluids. Eqs. (6) and (7) can be used to calculate the
total heat transfer coefficient considering the additive effects of
convective and radiative heat transfer, and the total heat transfer
rate for the case of the same surrounding temperatures for both
heat transfer modes, respectively.
 
h = hconv + εσ (Ts + T∞ ) Ts2 + T∞
2
 
Q˙ = Q˙ conv + Q˙ rad = hconv A(Ts − T∞ ) + εσ Ts4 − T∞
4
= hA(Ts − T∞ )
Here ɛ and σ are the emissivity and Stefan–Boltzmann con-
stant, respectively. In this study, the two modes were not distin-
guished, so the total heat transfer coefficient was determined and
FTM was derived using the total heat transfer coefficient. The to-
tal heat transfer coefficient was estimated by applying the conser-
vation of energy law to the experimentally measured food inter-
nal, surface, and surrounding temperature histories; the amount of
heat transfer to a food was considered equal to the change in in-
ternal energy of the food, as shown in Eq. (8):
 tn
ρV Cp (Tm,tn − Tm,t0 ) = hA(T∞ − Ts )dt
t0
Here ρ , V, Cp , and Tm are the density, volume, specific heat, and
mean temperature of the food, respectively. Tm was estimated as
the arithmetic mean of the measured surface and internal tem-
peratures. When Tm was assumed to be the surface temperature
or the core temperature, the differences in estimations of the
heat transfer coefficient were 0.4 Wm−2 ◦ C−1 for eggs and 1–4
Wm−2 ◦ C−1 for milk. These differences are statistically negligible
because they fall within the standard deviations of the estimations.
The effective average heat transfer coefficient, h̄, was calculated
using Eq. (9):
 tn
h̄ = ρV C p (Tm,tn − Tm,t0 )/ A(T∞ − Ts )dt
t0
The heat transfer coefficient can vary depending on the stage
of distribution as well as the position of foods, which could af-
fect the fluid flow and radiative heat transfer. Considering the dif-
ficulty in estimating heat transfer coefficients that vary with the
relative positions of foods, the primary objective of this study fo-
cuses on cases of neglecting the variations with the relative posi-
tions. Rather, we assumed that the heat transfer coefficient had a
constant value, regardless of the position of the food, and focused
471
on variations according to stage of distribution. The issue of varia-
tion according to relative position was addressed by estimating the
mean temperature difference between the surroundings and foods
at different relative positions. Furthermore, the impact of spa-
tial heat transfer coefficient variation on freshness estimation was
(3) analyzed by considering the standard deviations observed in the
experimental measurements. The mean effective heat transfer co-
efficients should be evaluated using Eq. (9) for different stages of
(4) distribution. They should be estimated using the food and sur-
rounding temperature history ranges where the temperature dif-
ference between the foods and the surroundings are significant
(5)
fect of noise signals considering the fact that the convective heat
transfer coefficient is independent of the temperature difference in
the case of the forced convection mode. Table 1 shows the ma-
terial properties of foods considered in this study. The mean and
standard deviation values of heat transfer coefficients were 7.73 ±
0.44 Wm−2 ◦ C−1 for eggs, 24.19 ± 4.88 Wm−2 ◦ C−1 for 200 mL milk
under type A temperature conditions, 13.66 ± 1.64 Wm−2 ◦ C−1 for
200 mL milk under type B temperature conditions, and 19.48 ±
5.92 Wm−2 ◦ C−1 for 930 mL milk. Milk tended to have higher heat
transfer coefficients for the heating phase than the cooling phase,
which can be attributed to the effects of a film of condensed water
on bottles or asymmetric fluid flow around bottles. However, the
difference was statistically negligible when considering the exper-
imental confidence intervals. In this study, the heat transfer coef-
(6) ficients for heating (22.39 ± 3.14 Wm−2 ◦ C−1 for 930 mL milk) and
cooling (16.57 ± 6.74 Wm−2 ◦ C−1 for 930 mL milk) phases were as-
sumed to be equal. The impact of natural convection outside the
product was analyzed to be negligible statistically (R2 = 0.07) from
the linear regression result of the heat transfer coefficients as a
(7) function of temperature difference between food surface and sur-
roundings. The data for the analysis were selected from the mea-
sured data for 200 ml milk under type B condition where the tem-
perature difference between the surface and surroundings showed
maximum peaks. There should be a meaningful functional rela-
tion between them in case of the significant impact of natural
convection.
2.4. Computational fluid dynamics set-up
Computational fluid dynamics simulations were performed to
(8) determine the model constants in FTM considering an egg and a
single milk bottle. CFD simulations considering 3 × 3 × 3 stacked
crates of milk consisting of 25(5 × 5) unit bottles were carried
out to determine the spatial temperature and heat transfer co-
efficient spreads experienced during distribution. Continuity, mo-
mentum, and energy equations were solved simultaneously, and
the γ − Reθ transition model was used together with the k − ω
turbulence model (Anonymous, 2017a) to consider laminar, tran-
sition, and turbulent flow regimes simultaneously for unit foods.
The k− ∈ turbulence model (Anonymous, 2011) was used for sim-
ulations of stacked crates of milk to alleviate the need for a large
number of grid points. Air flow was assumed to be from the left
side with the specified inlet velocity and temperature conditions.
(9) For example, air inlet velocity was set to 1.7 ms−1 , as at this veloc-
ity, the same heat transfer coefficient value measured experimen-
tally was observed in the simulation. The turbulent intensity and
turbulent viscosity ratio were set to be 10% and 10, respectively.
The measured temperature histories were applied as inlet bound-
ary conditions according to the test cases. As air flowed through
the computational domain, it interacted with the milk to exchange
heat and exited on the right side. The symmetry condition was im-
posed on the other four sides setting no normal gradient of ve-
locity and temperature. CFD simulation was performed using the
commercial packages STAR-CCM + (Anonymous, 2017a) and Fluent
472 H. Song, J. Kim and B.-S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 98 (2019) 468–479

Table 1
The material properties of foods and air considered in this study.

Material Thermal conductivity, k [W m−1 K−1 ] Specific heat, Cp [J kg−1 K−1 ] Density, ρ [kg m−3 ] Dynamic viscosity, μ [kg m−3 ]

Eggs (white) (Anonymous, 1998) 0.56 3880 980 –

Eggs (yolk) (Anonymous, 1998) 0.42 2810 1020 –
Milk (Cengel, 2014; Rao et al., 2014) 0.58 3890 1030 8.89 × 10−4
Air (Cengel, 2014) 2.56 × 10−2 1007 1.18 1.85 × 10−5

(Anonymous, 2011). The impact of natural convection in milk was

evaluated using the Boussinesq model.
The computational domain was discretized with either polyhe-
dral meshes using prism layers on food surfaces to improve the
resolution of boundary layer effects or tetrahedral meshes, and the
number of elements used in the simulations was 330,0 0 0 polyhe-
dral cells for the unit milk case and 20,0 0 0,0 0 0 tetrahedral cells for
the stacked milk crates case. The mesh independence of solutions
was verified with meshes of different densities and the simulation
results showed maximum deviations in heat transfer rate less than
0.8% for milk.

3. Model development

3.1. Derivation of food temperature models for eggs and milk

The thermal resistance circuits considered for eggs and milk,

the milk circuit is shown in Fig. 2 for example. The egg circuit
was not presented for the brevity. Model equations were derived
for the thermal resistance circuit for the heat transfer phe-
nomenon between the surroundings and the food. Heat transfer
was assumed to be one-dimensional, whereas real heat transfer
phenomena are complicated and three-dimensional. Effective
values of the model constants were used to compensate for this
simplification. To use a lumped model neglecting temperature
distribution in the food, the Biot number (= hLk−1 ) should be
small, e.g. Bi < 0.1. The heat transfer coefficients required to meet
this condition were estimated to be < 1.16 Wm−2 ◦ C−1 for 200 mL
milk and < 0.69 Wm−2 ◦ C−1 for 930 mL milk, whereas the actual
values were larger than these as shown in Section 2.3. Multiple
layers with different thermal resistance and capacitance values
were added to consider possible temperature variations in foods,
which may improve the accuracy of the prediction compared to
the case of using a lumped system model or single layer model.
Eqs. (10)–(15) constitute the FTM for milk. Equations for eggs are
omitted for brevity of presentation.
Fig. 2. Diagrams illustrating (a) the configurations of three layers of milk in 200 mL
Q˙ = hA(T∞ − Ts ) (10) and 930 mL containers with the nodal temperature, (b) one-dimensional represen-
tation of the layers, and (c) the corresponding thermal resistance-capacitance net-
work.
Q˙ + (T1 − Ts )/Rs = 0 (11)

C1 T˙1 = (Ts − T1 )/Rs + (T2 − T1 )/R1 (12)

C2 T˙2 = (T1 − T2 )/R1 + (T3 − T2 )/R2
C3 T˙3 = (T2 − T3 )/R2
C = mC p
The series of temperatures, Ti s, in Fig. 2 represent the temper-
ature of each layer in the milk to simulate the one-dimensional
transport of heat. T∞ is the surrounding temperature. Ri and Ci re-
fer to the effective thermal resistance and capacitance between the
nodal points, respectively, and the thermal circuits are shown in
Fig. 2(c). Three layers with thermal resistance circuits for 200 and
930 mL of milk were considered to take into account spatial tem-
perature distributions. Three layers were selected because this is
(13) the smallest number of layers for which a non-linear distribution
of temperature in food can be considered while minimizing com-
putational cost. The models have been developed to be used in the
(14) food freshness monitoring system which runs on a web server to
handle the requests of customers and distributors for each moni-
toring unit of food in distribution nation-wide. Considering the fre-
(15)
quency of the temperature logging per a unit of food to monitor to
be once in 5 minutes as well as the number of food packages to
track simultaneously to be more than thousands and even millions,
the computing load increases significantly with the increase of the
layer numbers in FTM. It was found from this study that the accu-
racy of the food freshness estimation using the three-layer model,
which is the simplest one allowing nonlinear temperature distribu-
 H. Song, J. Kim and B.-S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 98 (2019) 468–479
Fig. 3. Comparison of the temperature field in a milk bottle neglecting (left) and
considering (right) the impact of internal natural convection.
tion in food, was comparable or better than the that of using the
history of single-point food core temperature measurement. Accu-
racy improvement by putting more layers in the model was con-
sidered to be subtle due to the diffusive nature of heat conduction
in food. The three regions were assigned based on the thermal dis-
tribution information from CFD simulations, as shown in Fig. 3(a).
Due to the assumption of one-dimensional heat conduction, Ri in
this case was not just a simple combination of food properties. In
contrast, the Ci values in the FTMs were determined explicitly us-
ing Eq. (15) by considering the food properties. The number of un-
knowns for the FTM for milk was three (Rs , R1 and R2 ) whereas the
other unknown, h, was determined experimentally as discussed in
Section 2.3.
Fig. 4 shows the process used to derive FTMs for eggs and
milk in 200 and 930 mL packages. The effective resistance value,
Ri , was determined by adjusting this value to minimize deviations
between the right-hand side (RHS) and left-hand side (LHS) of Eqs.
(10)–(14) using the temperature histories obtained from the CFD
simulation results. For example, the LHS of Eq. (12) was calculated
using the mass weighted temperature of each layer, i.e., T1 and T2 ,
and by the area weighted temperature of the bottle surface, Ts ,
based on the CFD simulation results at each time step. By assuming
the values of Rs and R1 , the RHS of Eq. (12) could be estimated at
each time step. Correct guesses of the values of the two unknowns
Rs and R1 would lead to smaller deviation between the LHS and
RHS of the equation. The values of the unknowns were chosen to
minimize the sum of absolute deviations for Eqs. (10)–(14) over the
simulated period. The minimization process was performed using
the differential evolution algorithm in the DEoptim package (Price
et al., 2005) as implemented in R (Anonymous, 2017b).
Because FTMs are in the form of a system of ordinary differen-
tial equations, food histories were obtained as solutions of the or-
dinary differential equations. A solver for the FTMs was developed
using an implicit trapezoidal or Crank-Nicolson method, and food
temperature histories were obtained by inputting the surrounding
temperature history and initial food temperature, which was as-
sumed to be the initial surrounding temperature in this study. The
thermal capacity weighted average of the layer temperatures, i.e.,
T1 , T2 and T3 , was taken as the effective food temperature of FTM
to consider the temperature distribution in food.
3.2. Freshness monitoring models for eggs and milk
The quality index used to estimate freshness varies depending
on the food. Weight loss, yolk index, and the Haugh unit (HU) are
possible candidate quality indices for eggs. Yimenu et al. (2017) de-
veloped an Food Freshness Monitoring Model(FMM) using three
473
quality index values to estimate egg freshness under fluctuating
temperature conditions. In this study, FMM using the HU was inte-
grated with the developed FTM to develop a real-time Food Qual-
ity Monitoring System(FQMS) for eggs. The model is shown in
Eqs. (16) and (17):
dHU
= CHU (T ) · HU 3 (16)
dt
CHU (T ) = −2.720 × 10−8 T 2 + 3.124 × 10−7 T − 1.370 × 10−6 (17)
where t, T, and CHU represent time, food temperature in Celsius,
and a coefficient reflecting the variation in HU change rate with
food temperature, respectively. To solve the differential equation in
Eq. (16), an initial value for FQI was provided as HU0 ; we used 83.4
in this study.
The model reported by Kim et al. (2016) that describes the rate
of microbial growth in milk using the Barany and Roberts model
was adopted as the FMM for milk in the current study. The model
is shown in Eqs. (18)–(20):
dN Q (t )

N (t )

= · μmax · 1 − · N (t ) (18)
dt 1 + Q (t ) Nmax
dQ
= μmax · Q (t ) (19)
dt
  
exp A1 − T B(K1 ) f or T ≤ Tc
μmax (T ) =  B2
 (20)
exp A2 − T (K )
f or T > Tc
Here N, N0 , and Nmax are the microbial concentration in the
milk, the initial concentration, and the maximum microbial con-
centration in the stationary phase, respectively. μmax represents
the maximum microbial growth rate under the given temperature
conditions, represented in the form of two-zone Arrhenius equa-
tions, with the model constants of A1 = 62.8, B1 = 18, 450, B2 =
11, 310, A2 = 41.4, Q0 = 1.10 × 10−3 , and Nmax = 1.31 × 107 . Here,
Tc = 11.8 ◦ C is the critical temperature that divides the two zones,
and needs to be converted to the Kelvin scale for use in Eq. (20).
The initial microbial count in milk, N0 , was set to 38.0 CFU mL−1
and 36.3 CFU mL−1 for milk in 200 and 930 mL bottles, respec-
tively.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Validation of the food temperature models for milk
The determined effective values of the model constants and the
measured heat transfer coefficients completed the FTM. The deter-
mined model constants are shown in Table 2. When comparing the
heat transfer resistances shown in Fig. 2(c), we noted that the re-
sistance to surface heat transfer (= h−1 A−1 , 19.0 ◦ C W−1 for eggs,
2.0 ◦ C W−1 for 200 mL milk under type A conditions, 3.5 ◦ C W−1
for 200 mL milk under type B conditions, and 0.9 ◦ C W−1 for
930 mL milk) was greater than other thermal resistances, so that it
was the bottle neck to control the heat transfer phenomena. This
implies that accurate determination of the heat transfer coefficient
is critical for accurate FTM.
The impact of natural convection in milk on the temperature
distribution in milk was investigated using CFD simulations. Re-
sults are shown in Fig. 3(a) and (b). Natural convection decreased
the temperature range in milk, reducing thermal resistance. The
impact of natural convection was considered in the current FTM.
However, this had a negligible effect on the FTM predictions, which
we attributed to the fact the impact of the heat transfer coefficient
on the prediction of FTM was greater than that of internal thermal
resistances.
474 H. Song, J. Kim and B.-S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 98 (2019) 468–479

Fig. 4. Flowchart of food temperature model development and its integration with a freshness monitoring model.

Table 2
Determined model constants of each food type.

Food Rs [°C W−1 ] R1 [°C W−1 ] R2 [°C W−1 ] C1 [J °C−1 ] C2 [J °C−1 ] C3 [J °C−1 ] A [m2 ]

Eggs – 1.75 16.04 57.89 132.14 16.31 6.80 × 10−3

Milk (200 mL) 0.45 0.20 1.27 348.58 353.39 79.33 2.07 × 10−2
Milk (930 mL) 0.14 0.05 0.14 1730.9 1494.5 448.8 5.50 × 10−2

Table 3
Comparison of deviations predicted by food temperature model(T3 ) and the surrounding temperature from the measured food temperature.

Food FTM predictions Surrounding temperature

mean(|T3.meas. − T3.F T M | ) [°C] max(|T3.meas. − T3.F T M | ) [°C] mean(|T3.meas. − T∞ | ) [°C] max(|T3.meas. − T∞ | ) [°C]

Eggs 0.3 1.8 1.4 16.1

Milk (200 mL): type A 0.5 2.6 1.7 12.1
Milk (200 mL): type B 0.9 4.1 2.7 17.0
Milk (930 mL) 1.0 3.6 2.4 10.1
 H. Song, J. Kim and B.-S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 98 (2019) 468–479
Fig. 5. Comparison of FTM prediction temperatures with the measured internal
food temperatures and surrounding temperatures for 200 mL milk type A, 200 mL
milk type B, and 930 mL milk. Gray lines are the average surrounding temperature
values. Blue and red lines are average values of the measured food internal temper-
ature and the predictions using FTMs and T3 , respectively. The red regions in the
figures represent the range of FTM predictions considering the standard deviations
of the heat transfer coefficients estimations. (For interpretation of the references to
colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 5 compares the measured food temperature with the FTM
prediction results for milk under fluctuating temperature condi-
tions. Gray lines are the average values of the surrounding tem-
peratures measured at multiple locations during the experiments.
The average values of the measured food internal temperatures and
the predictions using FTMs are shown as blue and red lines, re-
spectively. The red regions in the figures represent the range of
FTM predictions considering the standard deviations of the heat
transfer coefficient estimations. Mean and maximum absolute dif-
ferences between the measured internal food temperature and the
surrounding temperature as well as the FTM predictions(T3 ) are
shown in Table 3. Errors in the estimation of food temperature
475
were below 0.4 °C and around 1.0 °C on average for the FTM for
eggs and milk, respectively. The mean absolute error of FTM de-
creased for longer exposures to a constant temperature, i.e., cases
with a higher Fourier number, because the food temperature ap-
proached the surrounding temperature with time. The same result
was observed experimentally. The prediction error was the highest
for the case of 200 mL milk under type B temperature conditions,
which had the lowest Fourier number among the tested cases. In
particular, the maximum temperature differences decreased signif-
icantly using FTM, which implies improvement in the accuracy of
food freshness estimation in the case of temperature abuse un-
der real distribution conditions using FTM predictions instead of
the surrounding temperature history. Maximum deviations were as
high as 4 °C near the points of temperature shift as a result of ac-
cumulated error. However, this was for the limiting cases of tem-
perature abuse with sudden and large temperature shifts; the max-
imum deviation in real-life distribution is likely to be much lower
than this.
4.2. Spatial distribution of food temperature and heat transfer
coefficients in stacked milk
Computational fluid dynamics simulations considering 27
(3 × 3 × 3) crates of milk consisting of 25 (5 × 5) unit bottles, i.e.,
a total 675 bottles, were performed to investigate fluid flow and
heat transfer phenomena under the influence of an incoming flow
of velocity 1.7 ms−1 with a temperature shift between 5 and 20 °C
considering real-life distribution conditions.
A figure of the stacked milk bottles is shown in Fig. 6(a). Flow
velocity decreased as fluid flow passed through the stacked bottles
due to the drag force exerted by the surfaces to result in the spatial
variation in the temperature field, as shown in Fig. 6(b).
The means and standard deviations of milk temperature in each
crate were analyzed as functions of distance from the flow inlet
(ROW), location to the flow normal direction (COL), and number of
layers of milk crates (LYR) at 15 min from the start of the heating
shift. ROW had the most significant impact on milk mean temper-
ature in each crate. The mean temperature was lower by 1.2 and
2.2 °C for crates in the second and third ROWs compared to that
in the first ROW. The difference in the mean temperature was sta-
tistically negligible between the first and the third COL, and it was
lower by 0.3 °C in the second COL. The second LYR had a tempera-
ture that was lower than that of the other two LYRs by 0.1 °C. The
standard deviations of milk temperature in each crate increased
with ROW. In the third ROW, the standard deviation was higher
than in the first ROW by 0.5 °C. The effect of COL on the stan-
dard deviation was negligible. The standard deviation increased by
0.2 °C in the second LYR. The maximum standard deviation in a
crate was around 0.9 °C. This implies that there are spatial distribu-
tions of temperature and heat transfer coefficients. However, these
distributions are strongly dependent on the layout of food in the
distribution and the flow field, which are likely to vary under real-
life distribution conditions, and the effects could not be considered
fully in CFD simulations. Hence, the heat transfer coefficient should
be determined experimentally for each stage of distribution as out-
lined in Section 2.3.
4.3. Application of FQMSs to eggs and milk
The validated FTMs were integrated with FMMs to complete
FQMSs for eggs and milk. Food temperature histories were pre-
dicted by FTMs using the monitored temperature histories of the
surroundings and were fed into the FMMs to evaluate the fresh-
ness variation of eggs and milk. The predicted freshness histo-
ries were compared with the measured values to validate the
FQMSs for eggs and milk. To evaluate the improvement using the
476 H. Song, J. Kim and B.-S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 98 (2019) 468–479

Fig. 6. (a) Configuration of 27 (3 × 3 × 3) crates of milk consisting of 25 (5 × 5) unit bottles and (b) the temperature field of the stacked milk bottles.

Table 4 The measured HU values are represented by solid green circles. The
List of three possible combinations of food temperature scenarios and the
three prediction scenarios are distinguished by the gray dashed,
food freshness model used.
blue solid, and red solid lines. It is clear from Fig. 7(a) that the
Food temperature Food freshness model choice of egg temperature histories had no significant effect on the
Case 1 Measured surrounding temperature FMM freshness estimates.
Case 2 Measured food internal temperature FMM Fig. 7(b) and (c) compare microbial growth predictions in milk
FQMS FTM FMM in 200 mL and 930 mL packages using the three scenarios under
fluctuating temperature conditions. Green stars represent experi-
mentally obtained microbial counts. The red shaded area repre-
sents regions of possible deviation in microbial growth predictions
FTM, freshness estimations using the three combinations listed in caused by the standard deviation of the heat transfer coefficient.
Table 4 were compared for the model foods. The measured sur- The accuracy of food freshness predictions using the developed
rounding and food internal temperatures were used as the input FQMS was estimated using the bias factor (Bf ), accuracy factor (Af ),
food temperature histories of the FMMs for cases 1 and 2, respec- and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE). Table 5 compares the
tively, whereas the FTM predicted effective food temperature his- Bf , Af , and MAPE values of each temperature scenario model for
tory was used for the FQMS. the model foods. Bf represents the average logarithmic ratio of the
The predicted and measured HU histories for eggs exposed to predicted and observed values of the freshness index, as shown in
fluctuating temperature conditions shown are shown in Fig. 7(a). Eq. (21). Here n, Cpredicted , and Cobserved are the total number of ex-

Table 5
Comparison of the food freshness prediction accuracy between the three scenarios using the accuracy factor, bias factor,
and mean absolute percentage error.

Food Case 1 Case 2 FQMS

Af [-] Bf [-] MAPE [%] Af [-] Bf [-] MAPE [%] Af [-] Bf [-] MAPE [%]

Eggs 1.03 1.02 2.56 1.03 1.02 2.83 1.03 1.02 2.92
Milk (200 mL): type A 1.25 1.20 27.54 1.21 1.16 23.14 1.19 1.14 20.71
Milk (930 mL) 1.13 1.11 14.12 1.13 1.11 14.17 1.11 1.09 11.74
 H. Song, J. Kim and B.-S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 98 (2019) 468–479 477

Fig. 7. Comparison of the predictions and measured food quality index histories with the predictions obtained using the three model scenarios in Table 4 for (a) eggs, (b)
200 mL milk (type A), and (c) 930 mL milk; solid green circles and green vertical lines in (a) represent measured Haugh units and standard deviations, respectively. The solid
green stars in (b) and (c) represent the experimentally obtained microbial counts. The upper line graphs show the temperature histories of the surroundings for each case.
(For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

perimental samples and the predicted and observed freshness in- Bf is 1.0 when the two values are averagely identical. It is less
dex values, respectively. than unity when the model underestimates the measured data and
  
it is greater than unity for the case of overestimation. Af is an index
log C predicted / Cobserved / of the error dispersion of the model predictions and is defined in
n
B f = 10 (21)
478 H. Song, J. Kim and B.-S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 98 (2019) 468–479

Eq. (22). ployed as platform technologies for real-time food quality monitor-
ing systems to estimate food quality changes during distribution.
   

log Cpredicted / Cobserved 

/
n
A f = 10 (22)
Acknowledgments

A model is more accurate when the value is closer to 1.0 but is This research was supported by the Main Research Program
not less than unity (Ross, 1996). MAPE is a relative error measure (E0162501) of the Korea Food Research Institute (KFRI) funded by
of prediction accuracy and is defined in Eq. (23) the Ministry of Science and ICT of South Korea.
 
1   Cobserved − C predicted 
MAP E =   × 100
n Cobserved
Case 2 showed better or compatible freshness estimation ac-
curacy than case 1, as shown in Table 5, which means that the
food internal temperature is a better representation of the effec-
tive milk temperature for microbial growth than the surrounding
temperature. The FQI estimates of FQMS, which used FTM to pre-
dict the effective food temperature, were more accurate with the
best Af , Bf , and MAPE values than the other two scenarios. We at-
tributed this to the fact that FTM estimates the effective food tem-
perature considering the temperature distribution in food, whereas
the food internal temperature is measured only at a single point in
food.
5. Conclusions
In this study, food temperature models (FTMs) for eggs and
milk were developed to predict food temperature changes dur-
ing distribution using surrounding temperature histories and
initial food temperatures. Surface heat transfer coefficients were
determined from fluctuating temperature experiments; heat trans-
fer coefficients should be measured in the same way during each
stage of a real-life distribution. We found that the resistance to sur-
face heat transfer was much greater than the interior resistances.
This implies that accurate determination of the heat transfer coef-
ficient is critical for accurate FTMs, and this should be determined
experimentally for each distribution stage. Mean absolute model
prediction errors of temperature history were about 0.3 °C and 1 °C
for eggs and milk in two different types of containers, respectively.
The developed food temperature model was integrated with
freshness monitoring models (FMMs) to complete real-time food
quality monitoring systems (FQMSs). The improvement in food
quality prediction using the FQMSs was tested with eggs and milk,
where Haugh unit and microbial concentration were used as qual-
ity indices, respectively. Haugh unit predictions of eggs using the
measured surrounding temperature, measured food internal tem-
perature, and effective food temperature from the FTM were sim-
ilar. We attributed this to the low thermal capacity of eggs and
concluded that the surrounding temperature can be used as the
effective food temperature for foods with small thermal capaci-
ties. The accuracy of milk quality predictions using the effective
food temperature predicted by the FTM was better than that ob-
tained using the measured food internal temperature. While the
measured food internal temperature is merely a single point mea-
surement in food, the effective temperature, i.e., the thermal ca-
pacity weighted average temperature of the layers in the model,
predicted by the FTM contains integrated information of the tem-
perature field in milk. Therefore, it reflects quality changes in milk
better.
We anticipate that the proposed FQMSs, by considering the spa-
tial food temperature experienced during distribution, will be em-
(23) References
Anonymous, 2017. STAR-CCM + User Guide. CD-adapco.
Anonymous, 2017. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Core
Team.
Anonymous, 2011. FLUENT Theory Guide. ANSYS, Canonsburg, PA.
Anonymous, 1998. Thermal Properties of Foods. ASHRAE Refrigeration Handbook,
Atlanta, GA.
Bruckner, S., Albrecht, A., Petersen, B., Kreyenschmidt, J., 2013. A predictive shelf
life model as a tool for the improvement of quality management in pork and
poultry chains. Food Control 29, 451–460. doi:10.1016/J.FOODCONT.2012.05.048.
Buzby, J.C., Farah-Wells, H., Hyman, J., 2014. The estimated amount, value, and calo-
ries of postharvest food losses at the retail and consumer levels in the United
States. SSRN Electron. J. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2501659.
Carullo, A., Corbellini, S., Parvis, M., Vallan, A., 2009. A wireless sensor network for
cold-chain monitoring. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 58, 1405–1411. doi:10.1109/
TIM.20 08.20 09186.
Cengel, Y., 2014. Heat and Mass Transfer: Fundamentals and Applications. Mc-
Graw-Hill Higher Education.
Denys, S., Pieters, J.G., Dewettinck, K., 2004. Computational fluid dynamics analysis
of combined conductive and convective heat transfer in model eggs. J. Food Eng.
63, 281–290. doi:10.1016/J.JFOODENG.20 03.06.0 02.
Denys, S., Pieters, J.G., Dewettinck, K., 2003. Combined CFD and experimental ap-
proach for determination of the surface heat transfer coefficient during ther-
mal processing of eggs. J. Food Sci. 68, 943–951. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.2003.
tb08269.x.
Gospavić, R., Margeirsson, B., Popov, V., 2012. Mathematical model for estimation
of the three-dimensional unsteady temperature variation in chilled packaging
units. Int. J. Refrig. 35, 1304–1317. doi:10.1016/J.IJREFRIG.2012.04.002.
Gwanpua, S.G., Verboven, P., Leducq, D., Brown, T., Verlinden, B.E., Bekele, E.,
Aregawi, W., Evans, J., Foster, A., Duret, S., Hoang, H.M., Van Der Sluis, S.,
Wissink, E., Hendriksen, L.J.A.M., Taoukis, P., Gogou, E., Stahl, V., El Jabri, M.,
Le Page, J.F., Claussen, I., Indergård, E., Nicolai, B.M., Alvarez, G., Geeraerd, A.H.,
2015. The FRISBEE tool, a software for optimizing the trade-off between food
quality, energy use, and global warming impact of cold chains. J. Food Eng. 148,
2–12. doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2014.06.021.
Haugh, R.R., 1937. The Haugh unit for measuring egg quality. United States Egg
Poult. Mag. 43, 522–555.
Hoang, H.M., Flick, D., Derens, E., Alvarez, G., Laguerre, O., 2012. Combined deter-
ministic and stochastic approaches for modelling the evolution of food prod-
ucts along the cold chain. Part II: a case study. Int. J. Refrig. 35, 915–926.
doi:10.1016/J.IJREFRIG.2011.12.009.
Jedermann, R., Ruiz-Garcia, L., Lang, W., 2009. Spatial temperature profiling by semi-
passive RFID loggers for perishable food transportation. Comput. Electron. Agric.
65, 145–154. doi:10.1016/j.compag.20 08.08.0 06.
Kim, B.-S., Lee, M., Kim, J.-Y., Jung, J.-Y., Koo, J., 2016. Development of a freshness-
assessment model for a real-time online monitoring system of packaged com-
mercial milk in distribution. LWT - Food Sci. Technol. 68, 532–540. doi:10.1016/
j.lwt.2015.12.049.
Kondjoyan, A., 2006. A review on surface heat and mass transfer coefficients during
air chilling and storage of food products. Int. J. Refrig. 29, 863–875. doi:10.1016/
J.IJREFRIG.20 06.02.0 05.
Lytou, A., Panagou, E.Z., Nychas, G.-J.E., 2016. Development of a predictive model
for the growth kinetics of aerobic microbial population on pomegranate mari-
nated chicken breast fillets under isothermal and dynamic temperature condi-
tions. Food Microbiol. 55, 25–31. doi:10.1016/j.fm.2015.11.009.
Marai, S.V., Ferrari, E., Civelli, R., 2012. Post harvest cold chain optimization of little
fruits. In: Proceedings of the COMSOL Conference. Milan.
Margeirsson, B., Pálsson, H., Gospavic, R., Popov, V., Jónsson, M.Þ., Arason, S., 2012.
Numerical modeling of temperature fluctuations of chilled and superchilled cod
fillets packaged in expanded polystyrene boxes stored on pallets under dynamic
temperature conditions. J. Food Eng. 113, 87–99. doi:10.1016/J.JFOODENG.2012.
05.017.
Price, K.V., Storn, R.M., Lampinen, J.A., 2005. Differential Evolution : A Practical Ap-
proach to Global Optimization. Springer.
Raab, V., Bruckner, S., Beierle, E., Kampmann, Y., Petersen, B., Kreyenschmidt, J.,
2008. Generic model for the prediction of remaining shelf life in support of
cold chain management in pork and poultry supply chains. J. Chain Netw. Sci.
8, 59–73. doi:10.3920/JCNS2008.x089.
Rao, M., Rizvi, S., Datta, A., Ahmed, J., 2014. Engineering Properties of Foods, Fourth
Ed. CRC Press doi:10.1201/b16897.
 H. Song, J. Kim and B.-S. Kim et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 98 (2019) 468–479 479

Ross, T., 1996. Indices for performance evaluation of predictive models in food
microbiology. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 81, 501–508. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2672.1996.
tb03539.x.
Shih, C.-W., Wang, C.-H., 2016. Integrating wireless sensor networks with statisti-
cal quality control to develop a cold chain system in food industries. Comput.
Stand. Interfaces 45, 62–78. doi:10.1016/J.CSI.2015.12.004.
van der Sman, R.G.M., 2003. Simple model for estimating heat and mass transfer
in regular-shaped foods. J. Food Eng. 60, 383–390. doi:10.1016/S0260-8774(03)
0 0 061-X.
Yimenu, S.M., Kim, J.Y., Koo, J., Kim, B.S., 2017. Predictive modeling for monitor-
ing egg freshness during variable temperature storage conditions. Poult. Sci. 96,
2811–2819. doi:10.3382/ps/pex038.