V. E.
SWEAT
EXPERIMENTAL
OF SELECTED
INTRODUCTION
THERMAL PROPERTIES of fruits and
vegetables are necessary in order to pre-
dict heating or cooling rates during proc-
essing or to estimate heating or cooling
loads. Specific heat is all that is required
when estimating heating or cooling loads,
but the thermal conductivity is also
necessary to predict heating or cooling
rates or times.
Thermal conductivity data have been
collected by Kostaropoulos (197 1 ),
Vachon et al. (1972) and Dickerson
(1968). Data were not found for several
fruits and vegetables such as cucumbers,
turnips, cantaloupe, bananas and pine-
apples. One objective of this study was to
fill some of the existing gaps in thermal
conductivity data.
A second objective of this study was
to demonstrate a technique which can be
used for measuring thermal conductivity
of small samples such as strawberries.
Data for strawberries (Smith et al., 1952)
is of limited value because it is an “ap-
parent” value for a bulk mass of berries.
The thermal conductivity of an individual
strawberry had not been measured be-
cause past methods have not been appli-
cable to such a small sample.
The third objective of the study was to
test the hypothesis that thermal conduc-
tivity of fruits and vegetables can be
estimated using the water content and
temperature of the sample.
EXPERIMENTAL
STRAWBERRIES, cherry tomatoes, cucum-
L TRERMOCOWLR CONNECTORS
Fig. 1 -Cross section of line heat source probe.
1080--JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE-Volume
Agricultural Engineering
VALUES OF THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY
FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
bers, onions, beets and carrots were obtained
fresh from the author’s garden. The other sam-
ples were obtained from a retail grocery store.
Citrus fruits were peeled immediately prior to
testing. Therefore, thermal conductivity, water
content and density data do not include the
peelings for these samples. Data for the canta-
loupe are for a slice which includes the peel.
Density data for the pit fruits include the pit.
Varieties of most products tested were not
available since they were obtained from a retail
outlet. However, it is anticipated that different
varieties of a particular product would have
thermal conductivities of the same magnitude
unless water contents or densities are substan-
tially different. All samples were equilibrated in
an insulated container ‘at room temperature
prior to testing. First the thermal conductivity
was measured. Then water content and density
measurements were made.
Thermal conductivity probe
Thermal conductivity was measured with a
line source probe similar to that described in
detail by Sweat et al. (1973). Only a brief
description of the probe and technique will be
presented here. For theory of the line heat
source technique the reader is referred to Nix et
al. (1967) or other authors who have reviewed
the theory in detail.
The probe which was used was developed
specifically for thermal conductivity measure-
ment of small food samples. A cross section of
the probe is shown in Figure 1. The hypoder-
mic tubing is 1.9 cm long and 0.5 m m in diam-
eter. Inside the tubing is a 0.076 m m diameter
constantan heater wire coated with a 0.076 m m
thickness of Teflon. This heater wire is joined
to the tubing at the tip by a solder joint. One
lead is soldered to the heater wire within the
plastic handle, and the other lead is soldered to
the probe shaft at the base of the handle.
PROBE
Fig. 2-Thermocouple,
39 (1974)
Dept., Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
Chromel-constantan thermocouple wire
0.05 m m in diameter insulated with plastic
tubing of 0.19 m m outside diameter is wrapped
around the upper half of the probe shaft and
held in place by Eastman cement. The thermo-
couple junction is located at the end of the
wrapping midway down the shaft.
Subsequent improvements to this probe
construction have been made since the data
were collected. One change extended the
thermocouple wrapping all the way to the tip
of the probe. The tip of the probe is grooved
and the thermocouple is hooked in this groove.
The location of the junction is still midway
down the probe shaft. A second change was
made which brought the heater wire entirely
inside the tube. The heater wire was looped
down to the tip of the probe and doubled back
inside so that the hypodermic tubing is no long-
er a heater lead. This reduces corrosion of the
probe in acid foods. It also isolates the hypo-
dermic tubing from the heater circuit so that
grounding of the hypodermic needle does not
affect the heater circuit.
Figure 2’ shows the thermocouple circuit
and the probe heater circuit. The 20-gain ampli-
fier, filter and digital computer were located in
a separate laboratory about 100 ft from the rest
of the equipment.
The current to the probe heater was con-
trolled by a 2-stage transistor switch capable of
being activated by logic level signals from a
remote computer. The current level was meas-
ured to the nearest 0.1 milliamp with a digital
volt meter by measuring the voltage drop across
a standard l-ohm resistor, which was in series
with the probe heater. The signal from the
probe thermocouple was first amplified by a
factor of 200 and then transmitted to the digit-
al computer over a shielded instrumentation-
grade line. At the computer this signal was
passed through a 20-gain amplifier, a l-Hz low
pass filter, a solid state multiplexer and into a
probe heater and control circuits.
 THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY OF FRUITS & VEGETABLES-1081

high-speed sample-hold amplifier which drove

the analog-to-digital converter. The multiplexer
and A/D converter were operated under pro-
gram control of the associated digital computer.
A digital volt meter was connected across the .’
thermocouple output for observation of the 28.5 / .'
probe temperature prior to and during a run. " /'
/'
Thermal conductivity measurement /'
When measuring thermal conductivity of a /'
sample with the probe, the sample was first
equilibrated at room temperature. The probe 28.0
was then inserted into the sample, the number
of the test was entered into the computer-
linked controlling teletype, and the conductiv-
ity test was carried out under the control of the
computer.
The initial sample temperature was recorded
prior to the test. Then the probe heater was
activated. After the heater was turned on, time
and probe temperature were recorded every 0.2
sec. After 10 set had elapsed the probe heater
was turned off. Time and temperature data
were printed out, and a linear regression line TUE. SECOND
was fitted to the (In-time)-temperature data
between 4 and 10 set by the least squares meth-
od. A straight line was normally obtained with Fig. Z-Temperature versus time for thermal conductivity measurement
a food sample in less than 2 sec. Figure 3 shows in a turnip.
a temperature curve for a thermal conductivity
measurement in a turnip.
A correlation coefficient was calculated to
describe the linearity of the (ln-time)-tempera-
ture curve. The run was normally rejected if the
correlation coefficient was less than 0.999. The
heater power level used was 4.2 watts/meter. Table l-Thermal conductivities of selected fruits and vegetables
Thermal conductivity of the sample was
calculated and printed out, using the equation k Water Thermala No. Std
= Q/(4 * M) where Q is the heat supplied by the content Temp Density conductivity of Devc
probe in watts/m and M is the slope of the Product %, w.b. CC) s/cc watts/m-C testsb %
(In-time)-temperature curve in degrees C.
The thermal conductivity probe used was Cucumber, Burpee M+M 95.4 28 0.95 0.598 10 5
calibrated using standard samples of gum rub- Onion 87.3 28 0.97 0.574 15 4
ber, glycerine and a mixture of distilled water 2
Beet, red, Detroit 89.5 28 1.53 0.601 9
and 0.4% agar by weight.
Carrot, Danver 90.0 28 1.04 0.605 9 3
A minimum of nine separate thermal con-
ductivity tests were made in each product. The Turnip 89.8 24 1.00 0.563 10 6
average value is reported. Cantaloupe 92.8 28 0.93 0.571 10 6
Cherry tomato, 92.3e 28 l.Ole 0.462 5 7
Water content
core,d Burpee Basket Pak
Water contents of all samples were measured
Cherry tomato, 92.3e 28 l.ote 0.527 5 3
using four lo-20g samples. The initial wet
weights were measured immediately after the side,f Burpee Basket Pak
samples were taken. Then the samples were Strawberry 88.8 28 0.90 0.462 14 9
frozen, freeze dried and vacuum dried at 100” C Banana 75.7 27 0.98 0.481 24 8
to a constant weight. Water content values re- Apple, green 88.5 28 0.79 0.422 9 7
ported are averages for the four samples of each Apple, red 84.9 28 0.84 0.513 9 4
product.
Peach 88.5 28 0.93 0.581 10 2
Density Nectarine 89.8 28 0.99 0.585 10 2
Density was determined by weighing the Pear 86.8 28 1 .oo 0.595 IO 3
samples and then measuring the volume of the Plum, blue 88.6 26 1.13 0.551 10 3
sample by measuring the weight of water dis- Pineapple 84.9 27 1 .Ol 0.549 10 6
placed by the sample in a beaker filled with Avocado 64.7 28 1.06 0.429 10 4
water. The entire fruit was used for strawber-
Orange, peeled 85.9 28 1.03 0.580 10 11
ries, cherry tomatoes, pit fruits and the smaller
Lime, peeled 89.9 28 1 .oo 0.490 9 7
vegetables. For cantaloupe, pineapple and the
larger vegetables, 50-150g samples were used. Lemon, peeled 91.8 28 0.93 0.525 9 12
Several segments of the citrus fruits were used. Grapefruit, peeled 90.4 26 0.95 0.549 10 2
Accuracy was estimated as f 5%. Applesauce 78.7 29 -g 0.549 10 6
Water 100 28 0.611 h

RESULTS a Multiply by 0.5778 to get Btu/hr-ft-F; multiply by 0.8598 to get Kc&/m-hr-C

b Number of thermal conductivity tests
RESULTS of this study are in Table 1. i Standard deviation of thermal conductivity tests expressed as % of mean
The standard deviation of thermal con- Probe inserted in top through core axis
ductivity values for each product is in- t Water content and density values were for a whole tomato
Probe inserted in side, perpendicular to core axis
cluded to illustrate the variation of the g Not measured
thermal conductivity result. Thermal con- ‘Value from Dickerson (1968)
1082-JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE-Volume
5s 60 65 70
WRTER CONTENT, %
Fig. 4-Thermal conductivity versus water content
ductivity data are plotted in Figure 4
along with data from the literature which
will be discussed later in the paper. Some
gaps were filled for those products for
which no data had existed.
The automated line source technique
worked well for collecting the data. Since
each conductivity test required only 10
set, the limiting factor during data collec-
tion was sample preparation and handling
rather than the actual thermal conductiv-
ity measurements.
For the present study water contents
ranged from 65% for avocado to 95% for
cucumber. There was strong correlation
between water content and thermal con-
ductivity of all products except for the
apples which were considerably less
dense. Low density values apparently
reduce thermal conductivity because of
the void spaces in the product, but high
density values as in the case of beets did
not appear to increase thermal conductiv-
ity significantly.
While the greatest variation in thermal
conductivity was due to water content,
there were also variations due to type of
product and location of measurement
within the product. Variation due to
product type may be due to differences
in physical and chemical makeup, but
these differences appear to be of the same
order of magnitude as differences be-
tween different locations on the same
fruit or vegetable. Nonhomogeneity is a
cause of some variation in thermal con-
ductivity. Some obvious nonhomogene-
ities were not considered such as differ-
ences between peel and interior of citrus
fruits, and flesh and pits of the pit fruits.
39 (19741
m not enough is known about what factors
. SWEAT
D KRETOV
+ MSLIKON AND KOLARW
m x GRCMM, SAYINA AND YIXHELESKIJI
7s 80 85 90 9s
for fruits and vegetables.
Experimental error caused some varia-
tion in the results. Systematic error was
estimated at jI 5%. Calibration in materi-
als of known thermal conductivity was
necessary. Random error was estimated at
2-3% due to limitations in the precision
of the instrumentation.
Comparison with data
from the literature
Data from the literature are included
in Figure 4 for comparison with the writ-
er’s data. The sources of the other fruit
and vegetable data are all Russian (cited
by Kostaropoulos, 197 1); very little prod-
uct description was available. Data from
Maslikon and Medwedew (1969) and
Kolarow (1969) are for concentrated
tomato products with water contents
ranging from 60-96% and temperatures
from 25-70°C. At a specific water con-
tent the variation in these data is due to
temperature differences. Higher thermal
conductivity values are for higher temper-
atures.
The data from Kretov and Pleschkow
(1966) are for carrots and beets for tem-
peratures from 20-65°C. No details were
given, but these data are apparently for a
bulk mass of product which contained air
spaces, thus giving lower thermal con-
ductivity values than would otherwise be
expected.
Temperatures were not reported for
the data reported by Gromow and
Krasowskaja (1967), Sawina (1969) and
Wischeleskiji and Gromow (1963). These
data are for potatoes, carrots and beets.
The worth of these data is somewhat
questionable since there appears to be
very little if any change in thermal con-
ductivity with an increase in water con-
tent. If these values are accurate they
must be for rather high temperatures
since most of the thermal conductivities
are greater than the thermal conductivity
of water at room temperature.
Modeling thermal conductivity
of fruits and vegetables
There are not enough thermal conduc-
tivity data for fruits and vegetables availa-
ble in order to obtain the ultimate model
for predicting thermal conductivity. Also,
influence thermal conductivity and the
correlation between these factors and
thermal conductivity. However, there are
some very strong reasons for trying to
develop a model to use to estimate the
thermal conductivity of foods. (1) Exist-
a0
ing data are not complete. We do not
have data for all the raw products, and we
have very little data for prepared or proc-
essed foods. With the rapid increase in the
number of prepared foods and new for-
mulations, it would be practically im-
possible to measure and catalog thermal
conductivity data for every food product.
(2) Only a few easily measured properties
may be required to predict thermal con-
ductivity. Water content has by far the
greatest influence. Temperature could be
included since it has an effect on the
thermal conductivity of water, the great-
est constituent of most foods. Density
would appear to be necessary only for
those foods significantly less dense than
water. (3) For most purposes, a rough
estimate of thermal conductivity (+ 20%)
would be sufficient. A model using water
content and temperature would probably
give this kind of accuracy for many
foods. Greater accuracies may not be
required since many foods do not exhibit
uniform and consistent properties any-
way.
Linear regression models
A linear regression line was fitted to
most of the data in Figure 4 except for
seven points which appeared to be too
low (due to low density) and seven points
which seemed too high. The equation for
this line is: k = 0.148 + (0.00493 x W)
where k is thermal conduciivity in watts/-
m-C and W is water content expressed as
percent, wet basis. With one or two minor
exceptions, this equation will predict all
data used in the linear regression within f
15% of its value. It is limited to water
contents greater than 60%. An additional
refinement would be to add temperature
to this equation. Unfortunately there are
not enough data yet. My data are all at
practically the same temperature, and
about half of the data from the literature
did not specify the temperature at which
the data were measured.
The above equation could not be used
to estimate the thermal conductivity of
 THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY OF FRUITS & VEGETABLES-1083

low density fruits and vegetables. Future REFERENCES Tanger, G.E. 1967. Direct determination of
thermal diffusivitv and conductivitv with a
study is expected in the specific area of Dickerson, R.W. Jr. 1968. Thermal properties
refined line-source technique. In “Progress
low density foods and foods containing in Aeronautics and Astronautics: Thermo-
of food. In “The Freezing Preservation of physics of Spacecraft and Planetary Bod-
void spaces such as apples, granular Foods,” 4th ed, Vol 2, Ed. Tressler, D.K.,
Van Arsdel, W.B. and Copley, M.J. Avi Pub- ies,” Vol 20, P. 865. Academic Press, New
materials in bulk and baked products lishing Company, Westport, Conn.
York.
Sawina. N.J. 1969. Warmephysikalische Eigen-
such as bread and cake. Gromow. M.A. and Krasowskaja, G.I. 1967. Die schaften van feuchten und vorgebratenem
warmephysikalischen Stoffwerte van Kar- Gemuse (Orig. russ.). Konserwnaja i. Owos-
toffeln und Gemusen. (Or&. NSS.) Konser-
taches. Promischl. 24(4).
. ,. S. 15/16. [Cited
wnaia i. Owostsches. Pimischl. 22(g), by Kostaropoulos (1971)l.
S13/16. [Cited by Kostaropoulos (1971)l.
CONCLUSIONS Kolarow. K. 1969. Warmephysikalisch Eigen-
Smith, J.G., Ede, A.J. and Gane, R. 1952. The
thermal conductivity of frozen foodstuffs.
schaften van konzentrierten Tomatenpro- Modern Refr. 55 S. 254. [Cited by Kostar-
THE MINIATURE thermal conductivity dukten (Orig. russ.). Konserwnaja i. opoulos (1971)l.
probe is suitable for measuring the ther- Owostsches. Promischl. 24(5), S. 34/36. Sweat. V.E., Haugh, C.G. and Stadelman, W.J.
mal conductivity for fruit and vegetable [Cited by Kostaropoulos (1971)J. 1973. Thermal conductivity of chicken
Kostaropoulos, A.E. 1971. “Warmeleitzahlen meat at temperatures between -75’ and
samples, including samples as small as a van Lebensmittein und Methoden zu deren 20°C. J. Food Sci. 38: 158.
Sg strawberry. Bestimmung.” Heft: 16. Berichtsheft der Sweat, V.E. and Huggins, L.F. 1974. Automa-
Fachgemeinschaft Lufttechnische und tion of a miniature thermal conductivity
There is a strong correlation between Trocknungs-Anlagen im VDMA. 6 Frank- probe. Proceedings of 13th Annual Confer-
water content and thermal conductivity furt/M Niederrad 71-Postfach 320. ence on Thermal Conductivity. To be pub-
of fruits and vegetables except for those Kretov, J.T. and Pleschkow. A.I. 1966. Ander- lished.
ungen der warmephysikalischen Stoffwerte Vachon, R.I., Qashou, S. and Touloukian, Y.S.
considerably less dense than water. bei der Trockenung van Gemuse. (Orig. 1972. Thermal conductivity of foods.
It is possible to obtain at least rough russ.) Pistschewaja Techn. 61(4), S. ASHRAE Trans. 78: 165.
144/146. [Cited by KostaroDouIos (1971)l. Wischeleskiji. A.N. and Gromow. M.A. 1963.
estimates of the thermal conductivities of Warmephysikalische Eigenschaften van Kar-
MasIikdn, W.A. and Medwedew, O.k. 196s.
fruits and vegetables with a simple linear Einige thermophysikalische Konstanten van toffeln und Gemuse. Konserwnaja i. Owos-
equation, given the water content of the Tomatenprodukten (Orig. mss.). Pistschew- tsches. Promischl. 18(11). [Cited by Kostar-
aja Technol. 64(6), S. 69170. [Cited by oPoulos (1971)l.
material. More data are needed to further Kostaropoulos (1971)l. M S received 5112174: revised 7113174: accepted
refine thermal conductivity models. Nix, G.H., Lowery, G.W.. Vachon, R.I. and 7116174.