Journal of Food Engineering 142 (2014) 46–48

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Food Engineering

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

Research note

The influence of particle size on the accuracy of the thermal conductivity

probe
James K. Carson a,⇑, Robert M. Kemp b
a
University of Waikato, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand
b
AgResearch Ltd, Hamilton 3214, New Zealand

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

Article history: The thermal conductivity probe is widely used to determine the thermal conductivity of foods; however,
Received 25 July 2013 its accuracy is limited by a number of factors. In this paper the influence of particle size (relative to probe
Received in revised form 26 April 2014 diameter) on measurement accuracy was examined by measuring the thermal conductivity of sucrose of
Accepted 8 June 2014
varying grades, and coffee (both whole beans and ground) using two different methods; the thermal con-
Available online 18 June 2014
ductivity probe and a transient comparative method. Results showed that the measurement methods
were in agreement for the small particulates; however, for the larger particulates the probe method
Keywords:
appeared to under-predict thermal conductivity. A possible explanation for this observation is that the
Thermal conductivity probe
Particulates
probe causes a local variation in the porosity of the sample due to the alteration of the packing density.
A suggested rule-of-thumb is that thermal conductivity probes may not be suitable for particulate mate-
rials where the particle diameter is greater than the probe diameter.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The thermal conductivity probe is a simple device based on the
line-source method for measuring absolute values of thermal
conductivity. It has received widespread use in recent years, partic-
ularly for intermediate and low thermal conductivity materials
(Rahman, 2009). However, practical thermal conductivity probes
are at best approximations of a line-source of heat, and measure-
ments from such devices are subject to a range of uncertainties,
depending on their design and the material being tested. A number
of studies have been performed in order to provide recommenda-
tions for the design of practical devices (Murakami et al., 1996a,b;
Elustondo et al., 2001; Pilkington and Grove, 2012). A general ‘rule
of thumb’ to emerge is that the probe should be as thin as possible
(i.e. the length to diameter ratio should be maximized) with the limit
that the probe must have the mechanical strength to remain rigid.
Users of a particular device should be aware of its limitations
when the thermal conductivity value for the sample is extracted
from the temperature vs. time data. In particular, determining
which part of the temp vs. time data is ‘linear’ can be difficult.
Pilkington and Grove (2012) discussed this point and made recom-
mendations on how best to determine what part of the curve
should be used in determining the thermal conductivity of the
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +64 7 838 4206; fax: +64 7 838 5087.
E-mail address: j.carson@waikato.ac.nz (J.K. Carson).
sample. A problem, however, that does not appear to have received
much attention is related to the use of thermal conductivity probes
with particulate materials. The problem is related to the fact that
the thermal conductivity probe takes a local measurement, but
the probe’s presence has the potential to alter the porosity of the
sample in the region around it. In this study the thermal conductiv-
ity of particulate materials of different sizes was measured using
two different methods, in order to investigate whether the size of
the particles relative to the probe’s diameter affects the reliability
of the measurement.
2. Experimental method
A Hukseflux™ TP08 thermal conductivity probe was used in
these experiments. Its design complies with ASTM D 5334-00, D
5930-97 and IEEE 442-1981 standards (Hukseflux, n.d.). The specifi-
cations of the probe are summarized in Table 1. The samples were
contained within a watertight, stainless-steel sample container
(constructed as per recommendations in the TP08 user manual)
and the samples were placed in a Julabo™ FP40 temperature-
controlled bath. Measurements were performed with baseline tem-
peratures of 20 °C or 2 °C. The thermal conductivity probe was
inserted into the sample which was allowed to equilibrate at the
base-line temperature. Once the sample had equilibrated the heater
was switched on and the probe temperature was recorded. After a
period of time the heater was switched off and the sample was

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2014.06.011
0260-8774/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J.K. Carson, R.M. Kemp / Journal of Food Engineering 142 (2014) 46–48
Nomenclature
k thermal conductivity (W m1 K1)
Q heater power (W m1)
t time (s)
T temperature (°C)
allowed to return to the base-line temperature before a replicate
measurement was performed. Once the value of the slope of the
linear portion of the curve has been determined, the thermal con-
ductivity of the sample may be calculated from Eq. (1) (Elustondo
et al., 2001):
Q lnðt2 =t 2 Þ
k¼
4pDT
where k is thermal conductivity (W m1 K1), Q is the heater power
(W m1), t1 and t2 are two different times (s) during the linear por-
tion of the DT vs. ln t curve, and DT1 and DT2 (K) correspond to the
differences between the probe and the base-line temperatures at
times t1 and t2 respectively.
In addition to the thermal conductivity probe, a transient com-
parative method was used to measure thermal conductivity. The
method has been described in detail previously in this journal
and elsewhere (Carson et al., 2004; Carson and Noureldin, 2009);
however, in brief the method involved cooling a sample in a bath
alongside a reference material whose thermal properties are
known (1% agar gel in this case). Both the test sample and refer-
ence are initially at a uniform temperature (20 °C in these experi-
ments) and the bath is maintained at a different constant
temperature (2 °C in these experiments). The sample containers
were cylindrical, made of thin stainless steel, with a radius of
40 mm and a length of 120 mm. The temperature was measured
using a T-type thermocouple placed at the centre of the sample.
The thermal conductivity of the sample relative to the thermal con-
ductivity of the reference was determined from the ratio of the lin-
ear portions of the two cooling curves (Carson et al., 2004). The
transient comparative method is cumbersome and much slower
than the probe and requires knowledge of the samples’ specific
heat capacities and densities in order for the thermal conductivity
to be determined. However, its key advantage over the probe
method is that it performs the measurement based on heat trans-
ferred through the entire sample, rather than just a specific region
of the sample, as is the case with the probe.
Since the aim of this investigation was to examine the effects of
particle size on the accuracy of the thermal conductivity probe, it
was desirable to have materials in which the particle size could
be varied while keeping the porosity constant. Table 2 presents
the foods investigated along with their properties which are rele-
vant to thermal conductivity measurement. Bulk densities were
measured using volumetric flasks, and the standard deviation
between replicates was used as an estimate of the measurement
uncertainty.
Table 1
Parameters of TP08 thermal conductivity probe.
Parameter
Length 0.070
Diameter 1.2
Heater resistance 84.17
Input voltage (approx.) 1.5
Thermocouple K-type
47
Subscripts
1 Point 1 (DT vs. t curve, Eq. (1))
2 Point 2 (DT vs. t curve, Eq. (1))
3. Results and discussion
Both the probe and the transient comparative method were cal-
ibrated using a 1% (mass basis) agar gel which has a thermal con-
ductivity similar to water and were in agreement within ±5%, both
with each other and of the literature value for water.
ð1Þ Table 3 shows the thermal conductivities measured by the two
different procedures. For the probe measurements 3 samples of
each of the five materials listed in Table 3 were measured, and at
least 7 measurements were performed consecutively on each sam-
ple (i.e. the data for the probe measurements in Table 3 are the
averages of a minimum of 21 readings). For the transient compar-
ative measurements, at least three replicates were performed.
Table 3 shows that for the mid-sized sucrose crystals and the
ground coffee the thermal conductivities measured by the transient
comparative method lay between the values measured by the probe
at the two different temperatures. However, for the whole coffee
beans, the values obtained by the probe method were much less
than those measured by the transient comparative method. By con-
trast, the difference between the thermal conductivities of the whole
beans and ground coffee measured by the transient comparative
method was small. Similarly, while the fine and coarse sucrose have
the same morphology and very similar bulk densities (Table 2), their
thermal conductivities are quite different, with the thermal conduc-
tivity of the coarse sucrose being much lower than that of the fine
sucrose (note that because the mid-size sucrose has a significantly
higher bulk density than the other two sizes, as listed in Table 2, it
would be expected that it would have a higher thermal conductiv-
ity). The results shown in Table 3 suggest that the thermal conduc-
tivity probe underestimated the thermal conductivities of the
materials with large particles (specifically the whole coffee beans
and the coarse sucrose granules). The exact reason for this cannot
be said with certainty from these data alone; however, a probable
cause may be related to the fact that the thermal conductivity probe
performs localized measurements.
The thermal conductivity probe works by heating the sample,
producing a temperature profile in the region surrounding the
probe, with the highest temperature at the probe surface, decreas-
ing with distance outward from the probe. After a given time the
distance which the ‘heat front’ has penetrated into the sample
depends on the heating power and the thermal conductivity of
the sample; the higher the heater power, the further the heat front
penetration (all other factors being equal); the higher the thermal
conductivity the further the heat front penetration (all other fac-
tors being equal). Low thermal conductivity materials are charac-
terized by ‘steep’ temperature profiles (i.e. for a given heating
power the temperature at the surface is relatively high, but drops
to the base-line temperature within a relatively small distance,
Unit and vice versa for high thermal conductivity materials). It is impor-
m tant to recognize that only the material within the temperature
mm profile region (i.e. between the probe surface and the heat front)
X m1 is involved in the measurement of the thermal conductivity. Hence,
V if the composition of the sample in the region around the probe dif-
fers significantly from the average composition of the sample, then
48 J.K. Carson, R.M. Kemp / Journal of Food Engineering 142 (2014) 46–48

Table 2 decreased the packing density can approach the theoretical maxi-
Experimental Materials. mum value of 0.74 for equal-diameter spheres. Unfortunately, it
Material Bulk density at Particle size seems reasonable to conclude that the thermal conductivity probe
20 °C (kg m3) (%) has accuracy limitations when used to measure the thermal con-
Mean Standard deviation ductivity of large particulates. More work is required, but at this
(mm) (mm)
stage a rule of thumb could be that if the particulate material
Sucrose (coarse) 767 ± 1 2.5 0.8 has a mean diameter greater than the diameter of the probe being
Sucrose (mid-size) 886 ± 1 0.3 0.1
Sucrose (fine) 777 ± 1 >0.15 N/A
used then it may not be suitable for the task.
Coffee (bean) 394 ± 1 8.4 3
Coffee (ground) 399 ± 1 0.79 0.4 4. Conclusions

The results of these experiments showed that the thermal con-

ductivity probe and transient comparative methods were in agree-
Table 3 ment for small particulates (fine sucrose and ground coffee);
Experimental Results (all data in W m1 K1, standard deviations between replicates however, for larger particulates (whole coffee beans) the probe
used as uncertainty estimates). method appeared to under-predict thermal conductivity. A possi-
Material Probe at Probe at Transient comparative ble explanation for this observation is that the probe causes a local
20 °C (%) 2 °C (%) (%) variation (most likely an increase) in the porosity of the sample
Sucrose (coarse) 0.054 ± 15 – – due to the alteration of the packing density, which then causes
Sucrose (mid-size) 0.102 ± 6 0.099 ± 2 0.098 ± 4 the measured thermal conductivity to be lower than would have
Sucrose (fine) 0.085 ± 1 – – been measured for the overall porosity of the sample. Although
Coffee (bean) 0.036 ± 7 0.028 ± 3 0.053 ± 2
more work is required, at this stage a rule of thumb is that thermal
Coffee (ground) 0.055 ± 7 0.047 ± 1 0.051 ± 4
conductivity probes may not be suitable for particulate materials
where the particle diameter is greater than the probe diameter.

the measured thermal conductivity will not be representative of

the average composition.
In the case of particulate materials, a significant localized vari-
ation in porosity around the probe would mean that the measured
thermal conductivity does not correspond to the overall porosity of
the sample. For fine particles, in which the particle diameter is at
least an order of magnitude lower than the diameter of the thermal
conductivity probe, then the presence of the probe is unlikely to
affect the local porosity. However, when the particle diameter is
approximately equal to (e.g. coarse sucrose), or greater (whole
coffee beans) than the diameter of the probe, then the presence
of the probe has the potential to reduce the localized packing den-
sity causing an increase in the porosity of the sample in the region
around the probe, which is the significant region in terms of the
thermal conductivity measurement. This effect is analogous to
fitting rigid spheres into a cylindrical container; when the diame-
ter of the spheres is of similar magnitude to the diameter of the
container, then the packing density will not be close to the theoret-
ical maximum. However, as the diameter of the spheres is
References
Carson, J.K., Lovatt, S.J., Tanner, D.J., Cleland, A.C., 2004. Experimental
measurements of the effective thermal conductivity of a pseudo-porous food
analogue over a range of porosities, and mean pore sizes. J. Food Eng. 63, 87–95.
Carson, J.K., Noureldin, M., 2009. Measurements of the thermal diffusivity of linear-
medium-density-polyethylene/aluminium composites using a transient
comparative method. Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer 36, 458–461.
Elustondo, D., Elustondo, M.P., Urbicain, M.J., 2001. New thermal conductivity probe
design based on the analysis of error sources. J. Food Eng. 48, 325–333.
Hukseflux (n.d.) User manual, TP08 Small Size Non-Steady-State Probe for Thermal
Conductivity Measurement, Hukseflux Thermal Sensors <www.hukseflux.com>.
Murakami, E.G., Sweat, V.E., Sastry, S.K., Kolbe, E., Hayakawa, K., Datta, A., 1996a.
Recommended design parameters for thermal conductivity probes for
nonfrozen food materials. J. Food Eng. 27, 109–123.
Murakami, E.G., Sweat, V.E., Sastry, S.K., Kolbe, E., 1996b. Analysis of various design
and operating parameters of the thermal conductivity probe. J. Food Eng. 30,
209–225.
Pilkington, B., Grove, S., 2012. Thermal conductivity probe length to radius ratio
problem when measuring building insulation materials. Constr. Build. Mater.
35, 531–546.
Rahman, M.S., 2009. Food Properties Handbook, second ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton.