Journal of Food Engineering 48 (2001) 195±202

www.elsevier.com/locate/jfoodeng

E€ect of evacuation rate on the vacuum cooling process of a cooked

beef product
Karl Mc Donald, Da-Wen Sun *
FRCFT, Department of Agricultural and Food Engineering, University College Dublin, National University of Ireland,
Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2, Ireland
Received 5 July 2000; accepted 11 September 2000

Abstract
The in¯uence of evacuation rate during vacuum cooling on the mass loss, temperature reduction per percent mass loss, speed of
cooling, temperature distribution and ®nal product yield, in a cooked beef product was studied. Samples were cooled from a core
temperature of 72°C to 4°C in a laboratory scale vacuum cooler. Six di€erent evacuation rates were used in the study. Mean results
indicated that vacuum cooling was very rapid (< 150 min) in cooling the beef product. However, the chill loss was higher and total
product yield lower than conventional cooling methods commonly available in the food industry. Final evacuation rate had a
signi®cant e€ect on chilling loss and total product yield with slower evacuation rate increasing total product yield and decreasing
chilling loss. However, cooling time was increased as evacuation rate decreased. Ó 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Vacuum cooling; Meat; Beef; Safety; Cooling time; Weight loss; Yield

1. Introduction Some research has indicated the possible application

Concerns about the safety and quality of cooked meat
products such as beef require products to be cooled as
quickly as possible after cooking. Vacuum cooling has
been proposed as a rapid method of cooling certain
foods including cooked meats (Burfoot, Self, Hudson,
Wilkins, & James, 1990; Sun, 1999a; Mc Donald, Sun, &
Kenny, 2000; Desmond, Kenny, Ward, & Sun, 2000).
Vacuum cooling is a rapid cooling technology com-
monly used for large leafy vegetables such as lettuce
(Sun, 1998, 1999b,c). Recent research also shows that it
can be used for rapid precooling of cut ¯owers (Brosnan
& Sun, 1999; Sun & Brosnan, 1999). Vacuum cooling is
achieved by water evaporation from the products held
under sub-atmospheric pressure (Mc Donald & Sun,
2000). In vegetables, the amount of water evaporated
during vacuum cooling can range from 1% to 5% by
weight (Sun, 1998, 1999b,c). However, this loss is de-
pendent on the initial temperature of the vegetable and
the ®nal temperature to be reached (Haas & Gur, 1987).
Typically, a weight loss of 1% will result in a temperature
drop of 5±6°C (Haas & Gur, 1987).
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +353-1-706-7493; fax: +353-1-475-
2119.
E-mail address: dawen.sun@ucd.ie (D.-W. Sun).
0260-8774/01/$ - see front matter Ó 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 2 6 0 - 8 7 7 4 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 1 5 8 - 8
of vacuum cooling to the cooked meat industry to meet
regulations and guidelines on safety in cooling of meats
after cooking (Hofmans & Veerkamp, 1976; Everington,
1997; Evans, Russell, & James, 1996; Sun, Kenny, Mc
Donald, & Desmond, 1999; Mc Donald, Sun, Desmond,
& Kenny, 1999; Sun, 1999a; Mc Donald & Sun, 1999;
Sun & Wang, 2000; Burfoot et al., 1990; Mc Donald,
1999; Mc Donald et al., 2000; Desmond et al., 2000).
Departments of Health in the United Kingdom and
Ireland advise that meat joints should not exceed 2.5 kg
and be cooled to 10°C or less within 150 min after re-
moval from the cooker (Anon, 1989, 1991). Recent
studies have shown that only vacuum cooling can meet
these guidelines (Burfoot et al., 1990; Mc Donald et al.,
2000; Desmond et al., 2000; Sun & Wang, 2000).
However, due to the large di€erence between initial and
®nal cooled temperatures in cooked meats, moisture loss
in vacuum cooling can be high (8±12%), resulting in high
mass losses and subsequently lower yields than more
conventional cooling methods such as air-blast cooling
(Burfoot et al., 1990; Mc Donald et al., 2000; Desmond
et al., 2000). Burfoot et al. (1990) compared three dif-
ferent cooling methods for large hams and other meats
and found that cooling times were shortest using vacu-
um cooling. However average mass losses were 8.2% in
comparison to 2.5% for air-blast cooling. Mc Donald
196 K. Mc Donald, D.-W. Sun / Journal of Food Engineering 48 (2001) 195±202
Nomenclature
P pressure in vacuum chamber (mbar)
Y process variable (minÿ1 )
t time (min)
Dt time from Pi to Pf (min)
Mc moisture content of the sample (% w.b.)
Ml mass loss (kg)
m mass of cooked meat before vacuum cooling (kg)
et al. (2000) also found high average mass losses (11.4%)
for cooked beef joints cooled by vacuum cooling. Re-
sults also indicated an average mass loss of 1.72% for
every 10°C drop in temperature and a cooling rate of
0:5°C= min at an evacuation speed of 500 m3 =h (Mc
Donald et al., 2000). In economic terms, increased loss
of yield is detrimental to the implementation and ac-
ceptance of the vacuum cooling technology.
Literature o€ers little reference to the e€ects of the
rate of evacuation on mass loss (Ml ), temperature re-
duction per percent mass loss (DTml ), speed of cooling,
temperature distribution within the product and percent
®nal product yield, in cooked meats. Self, Nute, Bur-
foot, and Moncrie€ (1990) indicated that the vacuum
cooling rate of cooked chicken breast and weight loss
decreased with reduced pressure reduction rate. In ad-
dition, it has been shown that regulation of vacuum
pumping speed at speci®c times during cooling will in-
crease or decrease cooling rates (Barger, 1961; Mc
Donald & Sun, 2001). The current study aims to address
these quantities in a cooked beef product as a€ected by
rate of evacuation.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Preparation of samples
Triceps brachii muscles were seamed from top rib
joints of beef chucks trimmed of extraneous fat and
connective tissue sheets to minimise the e€ects of this
material on evaporative eciency during vacuum cool-
ing and give a mean unpumped weight of 5  0:05 kg.
All samples were obtained from a local beef processor
on the same production date, 3±5 days post-mortem.
Measurements for pH were taken at three points on
each sample by making a small incision and inserting a
pH probe. Only samples with a pH between 5.70 and
5.85 were used in the experiments.
The samples were injected with a brine solution
composed of 84% water, 11% sodium chloride, 3% so-
dium tripolyphosphate and 2% sucrose (William Blake,
Ireland) at a level of 120% of original weight using a 21-
needle injector (Dorit PSM-21-4.5-ID) at a pumping
pressure of 1200 mbar and air pressure of 800 mbar.
Cp speci®c heat capacity of the cooked meat (kJ=kg °C)
DT temperature di€erence (Ti ÿ Tf †…°C)
hfg latent heat of vaporisation of water (kJ/kg)
DTml temperature reduction per percent mass loss (°C)
Subscripts
i initial
f ®nal
Sample weights after injection were between 5.98 and
6.02 kg.
All muscles were tumbled under vacuum (0.65 mbar)
(Dorit Vario-Vac VV-T-50) at a speed of 6 rpm and a
temperature of 2  1°C for 12 h, with alternate working
and resting for 30 min. The samples were then hand
stu€ed into 9 mm elastic netting (Red Micro Netting
Type NR50M), vacuum packed in cooking bags
(Cryovac BC300 300  55 mm) and heat shrunk by di-
rect immersion in water at 95°C for 5 s. Final mean
dimensions of the elliptical shaped samples were 330±
335 mm in length, 140±150 mm in width, 100±115 mm in
height and the circumference at major axis was 950 mm
and at minor axis 490 mm.
2.2. Cooking and cooling
All samples were cooked in a moist-heat, fan-assisted
oven (Zanussi Model FCV6 Electric Steam Convection
Oven) at 82°C until the core temperature reached 72°C.
Samples were immediately taken from the oven, and the
cooking bags removed carefully. The weight of the
cooked samples is immediately recorded to prevent
weight loss due to evaporation from the meat surface
causing excessive errors in weight measurements (Sar-
torius LP5200P). The time taken between removal of the
samples from the oven to the vacuum cooler was less
than 3 min.
Samples were cooled in a laboratory scale vacuum
cooler (Autec Southport, England), previously described
(Mc Donald & Sun, 2000). The vacuum cooler is
equipped with two rotary vane vacuum pumps provid-
ing up to 500 m3 =h evacuation speed. The vacuum
chamber has a volume of 0:21 m3 . The vacuum pumps
could decrease pressure from normal atmospheric to less
than 100 mbar in an average time of 12 s. Samples were
then placed in the vacuum chamber on a perforated
elevated stainless steel table (100 mm height) which
allowed water evaporation from the under surface of the
samples during vacuum cooling. Each sample had 10
T-type thermocouples inserted at pre-determined posi-
tions to include both the geometric centre and surface of
each sample.
Temperature readings from the thermocouples were
recorded at 1 min intervals. The thermocouples were
 K. Mc Donald, D.-W. Sun / Journal of Food Engineering 48 (2001) 195±202
linked through a data logger (National Instruments,
USA) and connected to a personnel computer system
using LabVIEW software (National Instruments, USA)
to graphically record and display the data. All samples
were weighed before and after vacuum cooling.
2.3. Pressure regulation
Vacuum cooling is achieved by air removal to create a
vacuum and vapour removal to give the cooling e€ect.
During the experiments the pressure of the vacuum
chamber was allowed to decrease to an initial working
pressure (Pi ˆ 100 mbar) at an evacuation speed of
500 m3 =h. During this ®rst period, the components to be
handled in the vacuum chamber are both gases and
water vapour from the chamber itself and from the
cooked beef product. Upon reaching the initial pressure,
the chamber pressure was carefully regulated using a
calibrated air bleed valve to simulate di€erent rates of
evacuation until the chamber pressure reached its ®nal
value (Pf ˆ 6:5 mbar). A Baratron pressure sensor
(MKS Instruments Model: 722A12MGA2F2) via the
data acquisition system allowed monitoring the change
of the chamber pressure and determined the extent that
the bleed valve should be opened to reach the desired
chamber pressure.
In total, six di€erent rates of evacuation treatment
were applied as given in Table 1. Four replicates were
used for each treatment. The order in which the trials
were performed was randomised. The e€ect of applied
vacuum was modelled using the following exponential
decay function:
P ˆ Pi eÿYt :
However, small errors can be encountered with Eq. (1)
as pump eciency decreases as vacuum in the product
chamber increases (Wang & Gitlin, 1964). When the
vacuum chamber reached ®nal pressure the temperature
of the cooked beef product was allowed to decrease to
4°C at the core positions before the vacuum was broken
and the samples removed from the chamber. The lowest
®nal vacuum chamber pressure (Pf ˆ 6:5 mbar) was
chosen to prevent freezing damage to the product as
Table 1
Applied vacuum evacuation rates used
Pi (mbar) Pf (mbar) Dt (min) Pressure
reduction rate
(mbar/min)
100 6.5 10 9.35
100 6.5 20 4.67
100 6.5 30 3.12
100 6.5 40 2.34
100 6.5 50 1.87
100 6.5 60 1.56
197
preliminary experiments indicated that the surface of the
meat would begin to freeze at pressures lower than
6.5 mbar. The Y-value in Eq. (1) controlled the rate at
which the vacuum was decreased and therefore was used
as a process parameter in the current study. The Y-
value was calculated as below and the results are shown
in Table 1.
 
1 Pf
Y ˆ ÿ ln : …2†
t Pi
Mass loss during vacuum cooling was predicted using
the following equation and compared to experimental
mass loss:
mCp DT
Ml ˆ : …3†
hfg
Cp in Eq. (3) was calculated by Siebels equation given
below (Anon, 1998a) and the sample moisture was de-
termined by oven drying to constant weight (Anon, 1990).
Cp ˆ 0:03349Mc ‡ 0:8374: …4†
2.4. Statistical analysis
Data from each replication for Ml ; DTml , percent ®nal
yield and temperature di€erence at various locations in
the samples were analysed using one-way analysis of
variance with the Y-value as the treatment factor (Anon,
1998b). The ®nal product temperature was also analysed
using one-way analysis of variance with the position of
the thermocouples as the treatment factor. The Tukey±
Kramer multiple comparison procedure was then used
to compare treatment means. Signi®cance was accepted
…1† at the 5% probability level (P < 0:05).
3. Results and discussion
As the process variable (Y) decreased, cooling time
decreased at the cores of the samples from 72°C to 4°C
as shown in Fig. 1. However, no signi®cant di€erences
(P > 0:05) were observed between 72°C and 4°C even
though cooling times were up to 50 min quicker at the
highest evacuation rate than the slowest. Self et al.
(1990) also indicated that cooling rate in cooked chicken
breast cooled by vacuum cooling was reduced as evac-
uation pressure increased.
Y-value Rate of cooling was not signi®cantly in¯uenced by
(minÿ1 ) mass of the sample as previously indicated (Mc Donald
et al., 2000). For Y-values between 0.28134 and
0.28134 0:05627 minÿ1 smaller samples cooled quickest to 4°C
0.14067 at their cores. However, samples with the longest cool-
0.09378 ing times were not necessarily the largest in mass. Only
0.07034 in one case (Y ˆ 0:09378 minÿ1 ) did the largest sample
0.05627
take the longest to cool. Thus, the cooling rate, which
0.04689
is determined by the mass transfer coecient of the
198 K. Mc Donald, D.-W. Sun / Journal of Food Engineering 48 (2001) 195±202
250
200
Cooling time (min)
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6
Evacuation rate Pi to Pf (mbar / min)
Fig. 1. E€ect of evacuation rate on core cooling times.
sample, is in¯uenced by other factors such as water ac-
tivity, porosity and surface or mass transfer area avail-
able for water evaporation including the samples
internal void fraction or pore area (Bartos, Houska,
Ho€man, Kyhos, & Sestak, 1999; Dostal, Kyhos,
Houska, & Gree, 1999). Calculation of mean sample
surface areas (0:985  0:05 m2 ) indicated that there was
not a signi®cant di€erence in surface area available for
evaporation, which suggests that the e€ects of variables
such as porosity on cooling rate were more signi®cant
than surface area available.
It has been reported that preparation of cooked beef
products, particularly whether samples are tumbled
under vacuum, minced or whole muscle, packaged in
casing or netting and brine injection level is signi®cant in
the development of porosity. Samples, which are minced
or tumbled under vacuum, have quicker cooling times
after cooking. Porosity development is particularly sig-
ni®cant during the vacuum cooling process, although
samples which have higher porosity prior to vacuum
cooling cool quicker. The research indicated that the
porosity of the beef product increased throughout its
processing and that higher sample porosity improved
vacuum cooling eciency in cooling a cooked beef
product from 72°C to 4°C (Mc Donald & Sun, 2001; Mc
Donald et al., 2001). The in¯uence of sample pore size
will also in¯uence mass transfer coecient and thus
cooling rate. Samples having a higher proportion of
large pores (volume void fraction) to small pores would
be expected to cool more rapidly (Mc Donald & Sun,
2001).
Therefore the beef samples and other meats alike are
assumed to be composed of a matrix of permeable
cavities, which are the result of processing such as brine
injection, cooking and cooling or by the nature of the
meat itself. The evaporation of water from the meat
samples can take place both from the surfaces as well as
through permeable cavities or pores within the matrix
since the local temperature reaches the boiling point of
water, as shown in Fig. 2. Whole muscle beef samples
8 10
Fig. 2. Evaporation of water during vacuum cooling of a cooked beef
joint.
used in the current experiments have a dense structural
matrix, which in turn has a lower percentage of cavities
or pores than reformed meats such as corned beef or
picnic hams which will have higher permeability and
thus would be expected to cool quicker under vacuum
(Mc Donald & Sun, 2001; Mc Donald et al., 2001).
Furthermore, di€erences existed between similar sam-
ples due to random variations in the meat ®bre orien-
tation, texture or meat piece geometry and compression
within a sample.
All samples were trimmed of extraneous fat and
membranes prior to cooking and cooling to allow for as
evenly distributed water evaporation during cooling as
possible. However, di€erences would have been expected
between replicates with some having retarded water
evaporation and thus reduced cooling rates due to the
presence of this material (Tambunan, Morishima, &
Kawagoe, 1994). The cooling rate at any precise point
on a cooked beef sample will be determined by water
evaporation at this point and the surrounding area.
Temperature distribution between di€erent locations
in the vacuum cooled samples illustrated in Fig. 3 were
analysed for the mean temperature, ®nal temperature,
maximum temperature di€erence and temperature dif-
ference at the ®nal vacuum cooling operating pressure
(6.5 mbar) as shown in Figs. 3 and 4. All temperature
di€erences were analysed for signi®cance with combi-
nations of probe depth from the surface to the cores
with (Y) as the treatment factor. No signi®cant di€er-
ences (P > 0:05) due to di€erent evacuation rates (Y )
were found for any of the locations on or within the
samples. In all tests it was observed that the quickest
and slowest cooling points were on the sample surface
and cores respectively. The local temperature within the
cooked meat will be a€ected by its thermal conductivity,
rate of mass transfer and rate of water evaporation (Sun
& Wang, 2000). Therefore, the temperature inside the
samples is relatively homogenous which is distinct to a
 K. Mc Donald, D.-W. Sun / Journal of Food Engineering 48 (2001) 195±202 199

80 80

70
70

60
60
50

Temperature ( oC)
50
Temperature ( oC)

40

40 30

20
30

10
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
10
Time (min)

0
0 50 100 150 200 Surface 20 mm 30 mm 40 mm 50 mm Core
Time (min)

Fig. 5. Temperature distribution inside a cooked beef product during

Surface 20mm 30mm 40mm 50mm Core air blast cooling.

Fig. 3. Temperature distribution inside a cooked beef product during

vacuum cooling. 89.6
89.4
25
89,2
89.0
88.8
Total yield (%)

20

88.6
Temperature ( oC)

15
88.4
88.2
10
88.0
5 87.8
87.6
0 87.4
0 50 100 150 200
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (min)

Evacuation rate Pi to Pf (mbar / min)

Diff Surface/30mm Diff Surface/40mm Diff Surface/Core Fig. 6. E€ect of ®nal evacuation rate on total product yield.

Fig. 4. Temperature di€erence between di€erent regions of a cooked

beef product during vacuum cooling.
more conventional cooling system such as air blast
cooling shown in Fig. 5 and as previously illustrated for
water immersion cooling (Sun & Wang, 2000). Signi®-
cant di€erences (P < 0:05) exists among positions of
probes in similar samples.
As previous research indicated (Burfoot et al., 1990;
Self et al., 1990; Mc Donald et al., 2000, 2001), vacuum
cooling decreases ®nal cooked meat yield based on the
percent loss of initial raw meat weight, and increases
mass loss due to vacuum cooling process itself, relative
to other more conventional cooling methods such as air
blast. However, current results indicated that rate of
evacuation a€ected total yield in large cooked joints
after vacuum cooling. As rate of evacuation was de-
creased from the lowest Y-value to the highest, total
yield in all samples tested signi®cantly increased
(P < 0:05). Total yield in samples at the lowest evacu-
ation rate (Y ˆ 0:04689 minÿ1 ) had an average 1.74%
greater yield as shown in Fig. 6. This small increase in
yield would be economically signi®cant within industry
where large batches of meat could be cooked and cooled
at a time, with a small increase in yield being ®nancially
attractive. Subsequent increases in yield were accom-
panied by a decrease in average mass losses from 12.40%
to 10.66% as evacuation rates decreased (P < 0:05) as
200 K. Mc Donald, D.-W. Sun / Journal of Food Engineering 48 (2001) 195±202

12.6 Preliminary experimental research has indicated that

12.4 overall ®nished product yields can be increased if raw
meat injection levels are increased (Mc Donald et al.,
2001). Furthermore application of a thin layer of chilled
12.2

12.0 water to the surface of cooked meat prior to vacuum

cooling may help reduce mass loss (Sun, 1999c). How-
Mass loss (%)

11.8

11.6
ever, typical mass losses of 400±500 g for a temperature
reduction from 72°C to 4°C in the cooked beef samples
11.4
used will require vacuum pumps capable of handling the
11.2 large amounts of vapour released as pressure decreases
11.0 (over 50 m3 =kg at 22 mbar). Therefore, in commercial
vacuum coolers, condensing units are installed with the
vacuum coolers to condense this large amount of
10.8

10.6
10.4
0 2 4 6
Evacuation rate Pi to Pf (mbar / min)
Fig. 7. E€ect of ®nal evacuation rate on product mass loss.
shown in Fig. 7. Mass losses form atmospheric pressure
to Pi were not measured in the current research.
Average temperature reduction per percent mass loss
(DTml ) increased from 5:35°C at Y ˆ 0:28134 minÿ1 to
6:20°C at Y ˆ 0:04689 minÿ1 (P < 0:05) as shown in
Table 2, which indicated a more ecient cooling pro-
cedure in terms of using available water to reduce
product temperature at slower evacuation rates. Self
et al. (1990) did not indicate mass loss due to evacuation
rate in vacuum cooling cooked chicken breasts. How-
ever, it was observed that mass losses increased with
severity of cooking temperature/time treatments (Mc
Donald et al., 2000). Di€erences with regard to DTml
indicates that a di€erent amount of cooling is required
in conjunction with the speed at which evacuation is
applied with cooling times increasing at slower evacua-
tion speeds. However, vacuum cooling is still more than
50% quicker than other cooling methods such as air-
vapour.
Mass loss during vacuum cooling based on percent
8 10 loss of initial mass before cooling was predicted using
Eq. (3) and compared to the experimental data. The
predicted mass losses were consistently lower (average
15.2%) than actual mass losses, as indicated in Fig. 8.
This may be caused by the prediction of Cp using Eq. (4).
Mass losses were signi®cantly (P < 0:05) in¯uenced
by Y-value with lowest mass losses recorded at slowest
evacuation rate. Predicted mass losses may also be lower
than measured values because the actual losses include
evaporation and drip were the predicted losses only
account for evaporation. Agreement between measured
and predicted losses would probably be closer in the
initial periods of vacuum cooling at 100 mbar. Further
research is necessary to develop a model for predicting
mass losses during vacuum cooling which considers the
e€ects of pressure loss in equipment pipework, mass
transfer coecients, percentage porosity and the di-
mensions of the samples (Fejes, 1994; Houska et al.,
1996; Dostal et al., 1999).
560

blast cooling. 540

Mass losses of vacuum cooled meats are higher than
that of conventional cooling methods such as air-blast. 520
Mass loss (g)

500
Actual Mass Loss
Table 2 480 Predicted Mass Loss
E€ect of process variable on DTml ; Mc and Cp A
460
Y-value (minÿ1 ) DTml …°C†B Mc B Cp …kJ=kg °C†B
440
0.28134 5.35a 76.10a 3.386a
0.14067 5.63ab 76.00a 3.383a 420
0.09378 5.82bc 75.99a 3.382a
0.07034 5.95be 76.09a 3.386a 400
0.05627 6.13ce 75.99a 3.382a 0 2 4 6 8 10
0.04689 6.20de 75.99a 3.382a
Evacuation rate Pi to Pf (mbar / min)
A
a±e Superscripts in the same column with di€erent letters are sig-
ni®cantly di€erent. Fig. 8. Comparison of actual versus predicted mass losses for vacuum
B
Values represent the mean of six replicates analysed. cooled cooked beef product.
 K. Mc Donald, D.-W. Sun / Journal of Food Engineering 48 (2001) 195±202
4. Conclusions
The evacuation rate during vacuum cooling of large
cooked beef joints has a signi®cant e€ect (P < 0:05) on
total yield, total mass loss, and percentage di€erence
between actual and predicted mass losses and DTml .
Results indicate that vacuum cooling was very rapid in
cooling the beef products and can meet all current Eu-
ropean and American guidelines on cooling of cooked
meats. However, reduction of evacuation rate will in-
crease cooling times by up to 50 min. Temperature
distribution within the products during vacuum cooling
was homogeneous and indicates a more balanced cool-
ing regime than conventional cooling methods. Percent
product yield and mass loss where signi®cantly im-
proved by regulation of evacuation rate. These ®ndings
are signi®cantly important for the acceptance and ap-
plication of vacuum cooling in the cooked meats in-
dustry. Furthermore, the ®ndings have an important
signi®cance in the design of vacuum cooling equipment
particularly with regard to size of vacuum pumps nec-
essary in handling water vapour produced during cool-
ing and the systems which allow for pressure regulation
during cooling. However, the implication of pressure
regulation on quality attributes in cooked meats such as
texture, colour and shelf life requires investigation.
Further research will also involve monitoring the e€ect
of the initial decrease in pressure from atmospheric to
100 mbar in the vacuum cooling operation, detailed
analysis of the relationship between cooling rate and
sample mass and methods for compensating for loss of
moisture in terms of weight loss and uniformity of
chemical composition.
Acknowledgements
This research has been part-funded by grant aid un-
der the European Regional Development Fund, which is
administered by the Department of Agriculture, Food
and Forestry, Ireland. Special thanks are given to
Dr. Tony Kenny, Dr. Eoin Desmond and Mr. Patrick
Ward (Teagasc, National Food Centre, Ireland) for
their invaluable help, advice and guidance in the prep-
aration of the samples for this research.
References
Anon (1989). Chilled and frozen. Guidelines on cook-chill and cook-
freeze catering systems. London HMSO, UK: Department of
Health.
Anon (1991). Guidelines on cook-chill systems in hospitals and catering
premises. Report No. 7. Ireland: Food Safety Advisory Committee.
Anon (1998a). Thermal properties of biological materials. In Ma et al.
(Eds.), Engineering Properties of Foods and Other Biological
201
Materials (pp. 77±97). St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659, USA: American
Society of Agricultural Engineers.
Anon (1998b). Minitab Inc., PA, United States. Version 12.1.
Anon (1990). AOAC International. Ocial methods of analysis (15th
edn, Sec. 950.46A, 935.47, 935.48, 992.15), Arlington, Virginia,
USA: Association of Ocial Analytical Chemists.
Barger, W. R. (1961). Factors a€ecting temperature reduction and
weight loss in vacuum cooled lettuce. Marketing Research Report
No. 469, (pp. 5±20). United States Department of Agriculture.
Bartos, P., Houska, M., Ho€man, P., Kyhos, K., & Sestak, J. (1999).
Mass transfer coecient for vacuum cooling of liquid foods. Czech
Journal of Food Science, 17, 204±210.
Brosnan, T., & Sun, D. W. (1999). In¯uence of vacuum pre-cooling on
the vase life of cut da€odil ¯owers. Paper presented at the 20th
International Congress of Refrigeration. 19±24 September 1999,
Sydney, Australia.
Burfoot, D., Self, K. P., Hudson, W. R., Wilkins, T. J., & James, S. J.
(1990). E€ect of cooking and cooling method on the processing
times, mass losses and bacterial condition of large meat joints.
International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 25, 657±667.
Desmond, E. M., Kenny, T. A., Ward, P., & Sun, D. W. (2000). E€ect
of rapid and conventional cooling methods on the quality of
cooked ham joints. Meat Science, 56, 271±279.
Dostal, M., Kyhos, K., Houska, M., & Gree, R. (1999). Vacuum
cooling of solid foods. Czech Journal of Food Science, 17, 103±112.
Evans, J., Russell, S., & James, S. (1996). Chilling of recipe dish meals
to meet cook-chill guidelines. International Journal of Refrigeration,
19, 79±86.
Everington, D. W. (1997). Surface pasteurisation and vacuum cooling
o€al. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 28, 1044.
Fejes, T. (1994). Energetic modelling of batch vacuum coolers.
Hungarian Agricultural Engineering, 7, 26±28.
Haas, E., & Gur, G. (1987). Factors a€ecting the cooling rate of lettuce
in vacuum cooling installations. International Journal of Refriger-
ation, 10, 82±86.
Hofmans, G. J. P., & Veerkamp, C. H. (1976). Vacuum cooling of
broiler carcasses. In B. Erdtsieck (Ed.), Proceedings of the second
European symposium on poultry meat quality. European Federation
Branch of the World Poultry Science Association.
Houska, M., Podloucky, S., Zitny, R., Gree, R., Sestak, J., Dostal, M.,
& Burfoot, D. (1996). Mathematical model of the vacuum cooling
of liquids. Journal of Food Engineering, 29, 339±348.
Mc Donald, K. (1999). Safety in the cooling of large cooked meats.
The Food Science Times, 2, 3±12.
Mc Donald, K., & Sun, D. W. (1999). E€ects of di€erent cooling
methods on microbiological quality of large cooked beef joints.
Paper presented at the 20th International Congress of Refrigeration,
19±24 September, Sydney, Australia.
Mc Donald, K., & Sun, D. W. (2000). Vacuum cooling technology for
the food processing industry: a review. Journal of Food Engineering,
45, 55±65.
Mc Donald, K., & Sun, D. W. (2001). The formation of pores and their
e€ects in a cooked beef product on the eciency of vacuum
cooling. Journal of Food Engineering 47, 175±183.
Mc Donald, K., Sun, D. W., & Kenny, T. (2000). Comparison of the
quality of cooked beef products cooled by vacuum cooling and by
conventional cooling. Lebensmittel Wissenschaft und Technologie,
33, 21±29.
Mc Donald, K., Sun, D. W., & Kenny, T. (2001). The e€ect of
injection level on the quality of a rapid vacuum cooled cooked beef
product. Journal of Food Engineering 47, 139±147.
Mc Donald, K., Sun, D. W., Desmond, E., & Kenny, T. (1999).
Application of vacuum cooling to enhance the safety and quality of
cooked meats. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 38,
150.
Self, K. P., Nute, G. R., Burfoot, D., & Moncrie€, C. B. (1990). E€ect
of pressure cooking and pressure rate change during cooling in
202 K. Mc Donald, D.-W. Sun / Journal of Food Engineering 48 (2001) 195±202
vacuum on chicken breast quality and yield. Journal of Food
Science, 55, 1531±1535, 1551.
Sun, D. W. (1998). Experimental research on vacuum rapid cooling of
vegetables. Paper presented at the International Conference on
Advances in the Refrigeration Systems, Food Technologies and Cold
Chain, 23±26 September, So®a, Bulgaria.
Sun, D. W. (1999a). E€ect of chilling methods on rapid cooling of
cooked ham. Paper presented at the 20th International Congress of
Refrigeration, 19±24 September, Sydney, Australia.
Sun, D. W. (1999b). Comparison of rapid vacuum cooling of leafy and
non-leafy vegetables. ASAE Paper No. 996117, ASAE, 2950 Niles
Road, St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659, USA.
Sun, D. W. (1999c). E€ect of pre-wetting on weight loss and cooling time
of vegetables during vacuum cooling. ASAE Paper No. 996119,
ASAE, 2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659, USA.
Sun, D. W., & Brosnan, T. (1999). Extension of the vase life of cut
da€odil ¯owers by rapid vacuum cooling. International Journal of
Refrigeration, 22, 472±478.
Sun, D. W., & Wang, L. J. (2000). Heat transfer characteristics of
cooked meats using di€erent cooling methods. International Jour-
nal of Refrigeration, 23, 508±516.
Sun, D. W., Kenny, T., Mc Donald, K., & Desmond, E. (1999).
Vacuum cooling of cooked hams. Irish Journal of Agricultural and
Food Research, 38, 149±150.
Tambunan, A. H., Morishima, H., & Kawagoe, Y. (1994). Measure-
ment of evaporation coecient of water during vacuum cooling of
lettuce. In Yano, & Nakamura, Developments in Food Engineering
(pp. 328±330). UK: Chapman and Hall.
Wang, J. K., & Gitlin, H. M. (1964). Vacuum coolers: principles and
design criteria. University of Hawaii Cooperative Extension Service
Bulletin, 69, 1±36.