Food Control, Vol. 6, No. 2. pp.
81-94, 1995
REVIEW
Thermal process design
Nikolaos G. Stoforos
To calculate the necessary processing time at some appropriate temperature
needed to achieve a target preserving action for several food products, heat
penetration data must be coupled with kinetic data of microbial destruction.
Quality degradation calculations must thereafter be performed in order to select
the thermal process which results in the highest product quality retention. In this
overview, the key elements involved in designing thermal processes are outlined.
Keywords: thermal processing; sterilization; canning; process calculations
INTRODUCTION
One means of extending the shelf life of a variety of
food products is thermal processing; that is, exposure
of the product at elevated temperatures for a relatively
short period of time. This heat treatment can be used as
the single preserving technique (commercial steriliza-
tion) or it can be used as one step in conjunction with
other preserving factors or processes (blanching, pas-
teurization). The extent of the heat treatment will vary
depending on the specific objectives concerning the
preserving action of the heat treatment and the nature
of the product. However, for quantitative description
of the effects of a heat treatment, the same principles
hold independently of the extent of the treatment. In
the following discussion, we will refer to heat treat-
ments severe enough to produce commercially sterile,
low-acid, products. The same principles, however, can
be extended to milder heat treatments.
Several issues must be addressed before a thermal
process can be established. There are also critical
control points that must be monitored, depending on
the processing system used to deliver the scheduled
thermal process. For example, during thermal proces-
sing in aseptic systems, the residence time distribution
Thermopilon 5, 35100 Lamia, Greece. Current address
Kathoheke Universiteit Leuven, Faculty of Agricultural and
Applied Biological Sciences, Department of Food and Micro-
bial Technology, Laboratory of Food Technology, Kardinaal
Mercierlaan 92, B-3001 Heverlee, Belgium. Received 10 May
1994; revised 8 October 1994; accepted 13 October 1994
Copyright 0 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0956-7135195 $10.00 + 0.00
of the various food elements must be considered.
Obviously, this is not a concern for traditional, in-
container, processing. Nevertheless, there are general
requirements common to all thermal processes. Figure
I is a schematic diagram of the key elements involved in
designing thermal processes. The time-temperature
history of the food during processing must be known
and be appropriately coupled with microbial death rate
data in order to calculate the effect of the heat treat-
ment on microbial destruction. However, while micro-
bial destruction or the destruction of other spoilage
agents is achieved during the thermal process, quality
degradation (e.g. nutrient, colour loss) also occurs.
Therefore, from all the time-temperature combina-
tions that result in the same microbial destruction, the
one that best preserves product quality must be chosen.
This can be achieved through an optimization scheme
by knowing the kinetics of quality degradation and by
calculating the quality retention for a specific thermal
process (i.e. a specific time-temperature history). It is
conceivable that a target, in terms of preservative
requirements of the product, must be established prior
to the design of the thermal process. Finally, the
microbiological validation of the established thermal
process is considered a desirable, process confirmation,
step.
The purpose of this article is to outline the proce-
dures used in dealing with each of the elements neces-
sary for thermal process design. The main topics discus-
sed are food safety and optimal process design, based
on quality retention. Several examples are given to
provide a better understanding of some of the issues
involved. Specific problems encountered are identified.
Food Control 1995 Volume 6 Number 2 61
Thermal process design: N.G. Stoforos
Microbiological Data
Estimate a ‘Ihermal Process
Figure 1 Schematic diagram of the key elements involved
MICROBIOLOGICAL DATA
One of the basic requirements in designing thermal
processes is knowledge of the kinetics of microbial
destruction. When a microbial population is exposed to
a constant, lethal, temperature, then, assuming that
microbial death follows the kinetics of a first-order
reaction (Esty and Meyer, 1922), we obtain
-+_C
which for DT=lnlO/kT reduces to
d(logC) 1 sions. DT (or kT) values are related to the slope of the
--=-
dt DT
Equations (1) and (2), although widely used in thermal
process calculations, do not accurately describe the
experimental observations at the initial stages of micro-
bial destruction. More sophisticated models, combining
first-order kinetics for distinct microbial inactivation
processes (direct inactivation of dormant and of acti-
vated spores, and inactivation of dormant spores only
after activation) have been reported (Sapru et al.,
1992). A comparison of the various inactivation models
has been presented by Sapru et al. (1993).
The effect of temperature on the rate of microbial
destruction, in the classical thermobacteriological
(TDT:thermal death time) approach, (e.g. Ball and
Olson, 1957; Stumbo, 1973) is expressed as follows:
DT = D,, 10(T=f-~‘r
Contrary to the above approach, originated from the
obervations of Bigelow (1921)) several researchers
prefer the Arrhenius equation to express the effect of
temperature on the reaction rate constant, kT (Levine,
1956; Deindoerfer, 1957; Simpson and Williams, 1974;
Lenz and Lund, 1977a; Swartzel, 1982; Simpson et al.,
1989). Presenting the Arrhenius expression in a form
similar to Equation (3), we have (e.g. Lund, 1975)
_-- E, V,,,-T)
kT = kTrerIO 2.303R T,rT
82 Food Control 1995 Volume 6 Number 2
Heat Penetration Data Quality Factor Kinetics
Calculate Quality Retention
1
Microbiological Validation
in designing sterilization processes
Note that T and T,,, in Equation (4) are absolute
temperatures.
We must mention here, that the two expressions,
Equations (3) and (4), are incompatible. Furthermore,
neither of them can describe the temperature effect on
microbial death for extensive temperature ranges. The
general belief is, however, that both methods can be
used satisfactorily within a relatively short temperature
range in which experimental data are available (Jons-
son et al., 1977; Ramaswamy et al., 1989; David and
Merson, 1990).
(I)
Traditionally, the reaction rate constants (DT or kT
values) and the parameters expressing the effect of
temperature on the reaction rate constants (z or E,) are
estimated by performing two sequential linear regres-
(2) straight line (Equations 1 or 2) when concentration
(survivors) versus time data, obtained at constant
temperature, are plotted on semi-logarithmic coordin-
ates (survivor curve). Similarly, .z or E, values can be
obtained from a semi-logarithmic plot of the DT (ther-
mal death time curve) or kT values as a function of
temperature or l/T, respectively, as suggested from
Equations (3) or (4). However, in kinetic studies,
better estimates (narrower confidence intervals) of the
parameters involved are obtained when concentration
data as a function of exposure times at different
temperatures are treated as a single data set, and the
parameters are estimated through an appropriate, non-
linear, regression scheme (Arabshahi and Lund, 1985;
Cohen and Saguy, 1985; Haralampu et al., 1985).
In this section, we also want to define, at least
qualitatively, the microbiological requirements for pre-
venting spoilage of the final, processed, product. There
(3) are two types of spoilage that must be considered, one
of significance to public health and the other of com-
mercial significance. From a food safety point of view,
in designing thermal processes, the acceptable remain-
ing microbial population which does not impose a
public health hazard must be determined in advance.
Assuming that one viable spore, remaining in a con-
tainer after processing, can spoil the container, it
becomes obvious that, in defining remaining concentra-
tions, we are using some probabilistic approach; for
example, by stating 0.00001 spores per container we are
accepting one surviving spore per 100 000 containers.
(4) Furthermore, it must be realized that a condition of

‘zero survivors’ is unattainable (in view of the logarith-
mic nature of microbial destruction) and, therefore,
absolute safety is impossible. It is somewhat intuitive
that, in quantifying the microbial requirements in terms
of adequate processing time at some appropriate con-
stant temperature, the most heat resistant organism
that is expected to be present in the food under
consideration as well as the initial load of that organism
in the product must be considered; the heat resistance
of the organism may be different in different foods.
As mentioned earlier, acceptable, remaining, con-
centrations of non-pathogenic (mesophilic or thermo-
philic, spore-forming) organisms must also be set in
order to minimize economic losses due to product
spoilage. So, processes should be designed based on the
strictest requirements resulting from safety and econo-
mic considerations. Obviously, adequate safety factors
must be included. Experience should complement sci-
ence. As a starting point, a lOI reduction of the initial
concentration of Clostridium botulinurn is considered
as the minimum process requirement for low-acid
foods. Based on the discussion above, the percentage
reduction of the initial concentration is not useful.
However, this lOi* reduction figure should be viewed
as having an adequate safety factor incorporated in it.
Some comments on this issue are given by Pflug (lY87).
As far as food safety is concerned, Stumbo et al. (1975)
assumed ‘a high degree of safety’ if only one viable
spore of C. botulinurn (02500F=0.2 min) is remaining
after the thermal process for every lOI* processed
containers. They also considered satisfactory processes,
in economic considerations (‘commercial sterility with a
high degree of assurance’) when only one viable spore
of a high heat resistant mesophilic microorganism
(D2500F=1.5 min) is surviving in lo4 containers. In
setting process requirements, they also assumed that
the initial spore concentration was one spore per ml of
product.
HEAT PENETRATION DATA
Equations (1) or (2) can quantify the microbial destruc-
tion only when the temperature of the food undergoing
a thermal process is constant. When the temperature of
the food becomes a function of the processing time,
T(t), then Equation (3) or (4) must be introduced into
Equations (1) or (2) in order to calculate the cumula-
tive effect of the heat treatment on the microbial
population. For example, introducing Equation (3) into
Equation (1) and integrating the resulting expression
between the beginning and the end of the processing
time, we obtain (Merson et al., 1978)
-
s.
Ch
c
d(logC) = -
1
D,Cf
Ih 10(T(f)- Trcr)h&
1.8
(5)
An analogous expression can be obtained when Equa-
tion (4) is used (with Equations 1 or 2).
Thermal process design: N.G. Stoforos
As it now becomes apparent, the temperature of the
food during processing must be known in order to
evaluate the integral of the right-hand side of Equation
(5) and thereafter the effects of the thermal process on
microbial destruction. Obviously, this product temper-
ature is a function (all other parameters being constant)
of the temperature of the process heating medium,
(when a heating medium is used as a heat source) or, in
general, the processing characteristics of the heat
source (e.g. voltage field in the case of ohmic heating).
In this article, the term ‘processing temperature’ will be
used to characterize the heat source requirements
irrespective of the type of heat source. Processing
temperature does not have to be constant throughout
the thermal process. In fact, in its simplest form, a
thermal process consists of two steps (as far as product
temperature is concerned): a heating, and a cooling
cycle. In this case, the lethal effects of at least the initial
stage of the cooling cycle must be considered.
If the relationship between product and processing
temperature is known, it is adequate to determine the
processing temperature for thermal process design.
This relationship can either be found experimentally or
predicted using appropriate mathematical models.
Both tasks can vary in difficulty and, in most cases,
should be considered complementary to each other.
For example, the relatively simple and traditional
method of using thermocouples for product tempera-
ture measurements is not considered appropriate for
monitoring the solid phase temperature in the case of
axially rotating liquid/particulate foods (such as meat
based particles in sauce) due to motion restrictions of
the monitored particle. For this situation, a more
laborious method, which involves the use of liquid
crystals as temperature sensors, has been suggested
(Stoforos and Merson, 1991). Similarly, the mathema-
tical models can be simple in nature, as for the case
shown by Equation (6) for homogeneous, perfect mix-
ing, liquid canned foods (Merson et al., 1978).
CJ,A(T,-T)=mC, $ (6)
or considerably complicated, as for Equations (7) and
(8) which, with the appropriate boundary and initial
conditions, govern the heat transfer to liquid/
particulate mixtures during aseptic processing (Stofo-
ros, 1994)
-
U,A(Tm - Tf) =& mfCpf 2
Tf
+ m,C,,
dTpi
2 fi -
i=l d0
(7)
and
Food Control 1995 Volume 6 Number 2 83
Thermal process design: N.G. Stoforos
1 t aT,i
V2Tpi = --!?-
ap Zi de
A mathematical model is often used to extrapolate
experimental data for different conditions, avoiding
unnecessary and extended experimentation (Schultz
and Olson, 1938,194O; Taggart and Farrow, 1941). For
example, from experimental data for a conduction
heating product at some initial temperature it is possi-
ble to design processes for the same product under the
same processing conditions but for a different initial
product temperature (Ball, 1923). On the other hand,
experiments are also needed before a mathematic
model can be used; not only for the experimental data
(usually obtained for special or extreme cases) to be
used to verify the model predictions, but also to be used
in order to obtain the necessary parameters needed by
the model. For example, in view of Equation (6), a
series of experiments must be performed in order to
obtain the appropriate values for the heat transfer
coefficient, U,.
THERMAL PROCESS CALCULATIONS
With both kinetic and temperature data, we can esti-
mate a thermal process; i.e. determine the adequate
processing time at an appropriate processing tempera-
ture which will satisfy the target process requirements.
By slightly rearranging Equation (5) and performing
the integration on the left hand side, we obtain two
expressions for the F value
Fcrcf= DT,, (log C, - log&) = 1” 10(T(‘)-Trcr)‘zdt (9)
The first expression, i.e. Equation (lo),
= DTr,,(logca
- l"gcb)
basically defines a target F value, the required F value
(Merson et al., 1978); i.e. the time at a constant
reference temperature required to destroy a given
percentage of microorganisms. Equation (10) quanti-
fies the microbiological requirements mentioned ear-
lier, in terms of food safety. We should also mention
here (space limits any further discussion on microbiolo-
gical validation) that Equation (10) is the basis for
designing and evaluating inoculated pack experiments.
The second expression, i.e. Equation (ll),
(11)
defines the F value of the process, i.e. the equivalent
time at a constant reference temperature which will
produce the same microbial destruction as the actual
thermal process. Equation (11) is the basic design
equation for thermal processes. Obviously, the two
84 Food Control 1995 Volume 6 Number 2
expressions given by Equations (10) and (11) can be
used interchangeably. For example, if a given process
(for which time-temperature data are available) is
known to produce commercially sterile product, then
Equation (11) can be used to determine the required F
value and thereafter a series of equivalent processes.
On the other hand, if experimental microbial concen-
tration data are obtained at the beginning and the end
of a thermal process, Equation (10) can be used to
calculate the F value of the process. It must be noted,
however, that the use of Equation (10) to calculate
F processvalues involves lengthy experimentation and
should be considered less accurate than using Equation
(11) , due to calibration errors and inherent variability
associated with biological systems (Pflug et al., 1980).
Nevertheless, Equation (10) is the alternative choice
when direct temperature measurements are impractic-
able. For aseptic processing of liquid/particulate foods,
a number of researchers have used Equation (10) in
order to back-calculate (through Equation 9 and
appropriate models for particle temperature predic-
tions) the value of the liquid-particle heat transfer
coefficient, a parameter necessary in predicting product
temperatures for this situation (Hunter, 1972; Heppell,
1985; Maesmans et al., 1994).
A question arising at this point, in view of Equations
(10) and (ll), is what temperature or concentration
data are to be used when there is a distribution of
temperatures or concentrations within the product dur-
ing the thermal process. Concerning this matter, two
schools of thought have evolved two different proce-
dures for calculating thermal processes. The first one
calculates point F values (FJ by using data for a single,
critical, point of the product: the point least affected (in
terms of microbial destruction) by the heat treatment
(Bigelow et al., 1920; Ball and Olson, 195.5, 1957). This
is based on the fact that if this critical point becomes
commercially sterile after processing, then the rest of
the product (which by definition of the critical point
receives more severe treatment) will also be commer-
cially sterile. Obviously, knowledge of the location of
the critical point (or better critical area) is very impor-
tant. Several researchers have dealt with this issue
following experimental or analytical approaches (Flam-
bert and Deltour, 1972a; Zechman and Pflug, 1989).
For thermal processing of foods in metal containers, it
is customary to consider the critical point as being
located at the geometric centre of the product as far as
conduction heating products are concerned, while for
natural convection heating products (placed in a vertic-
al position and processed in still mode) at 38 mm (1.5
in) or at 19 mm (0.75 in) on the longitudinal axis above
the bottom of the can for No. 10 (603 X 700) or for
smaller cans, respectively (NCA, 1968). In general, for
natural convection heating products the critical point
(zone) is considered to be at the lowest 25% of the
container height (Zechman and Pflug, 1989). The
location of the critical point, however, depends upon a
variety of factors, including type and style of product,
type and dimensions of the container, heating and

cooling cycle characteristics, degree of agitation, micro-
bial concentration distribution, and extent of treat-
ment. If there is any uncertainty concerning the exact
location of the critical point, an an,alysis on this matter
must be included in thermal process design.
The second procedure calculates an integrated F
value (Fs) by appropriately integrating the effects of the
heat treatment throughout the whole volume of the
product (Gillespy, 1951; Hicks, 1951; Stumbo, 1953,
1973; Ball and Olson, 1957; Hayakawa, 1969; Teixeira
et al., 1969a, 1969b; Jen ef al., 1971). This is done
through Equation (10) by using average initial and
remaining microbial concentrations for the whole
volume of the product (and not by integrating point F
values throughout the product volume). Remaining
concentration data in each of the elementary product
volumes, needed to calculate average values, presup-
pose calculation of point F values for each elementary
volume. For this, temperature data at different posi-
tions in the product are required. A relatively simple
procedure for calculating volume average values has
been presented by Hayakawa (1971). The idea behind
using integrated F values to calculate the effects on a
microbial population of a given heat treatment is the
one which defines food safety based on the total
number of survivors per container. (Note that the
references at the beginning of this paragraph include
methodologies applicable to relatively general proces-
sing conditions.)
Concerning the two procedures mentioned above,
there is no theoretical basis of preferring one over the
other as far as food safety is concerned. Both proce-
dures are based on very sound principles. If the proce-
dures are appropriately implemented (this might re-
quire a re-evaluation of the target F value according to
each procedure) they should produce equivalent re-
sults. It is interesting to notice that Stumbo et al.
(1983), in setting tables with guide thermal process
schedules for low-acid canned foods, converted re-
quired F, values to appropriate target F, values before
calculation. Ball (1949), commenting on Stumbo’s early
work (Stumbo, 1948, 1949a), stated that the ideas
(upon which the two procedures are based) are ‘in
perfect harmony’. According also to Hayakawa’s eva-
luation, the two procedures ‘produce similar results’
(Hayakawa, 1978). Some additional comments on this
issue are given by Jakobsen (1954). The relative sim-
plicity of the procedures involving calculation of F,
values (compared to F, values) can make these proce-
dures more attractive to use. Nevetheless, a number of
researchers (especially those using computerized
mathematical models) have calculated integrated F
values for their specific applications (Teixeira et al.,
1969a; Manson, et al., 1970; Flambert and Deltour,
1972a; Manson and Cullen, 1974).
Mathematical procedures
The mathematical procedures used for thermal process
calculations are basically providing some means of
Thermal process design: N.G. Stoforos
evaluating F values through Equation (11). A number
of mathematical methods, each one varying in difficulty
of use and in accuracy, have been reported. A critical
literature review has been presented by Hayakawa
(1978). This discussion will be restricted to mathematic-
al procedures used to calculate point F values and
intended for general use. Calculation of point F values
is also a prerequisite in calculating integrated F values.
Depending on how each method approaches the prob-
lem (i.e. the calculation of F values), the mathematical
procedures can be divided in two broad categories: the
general methods and the formula methods. Both gener-
al and formula methods are using a kinetic model to
describe microbial destruction. However, general
methods are not imposing any assumptions on the
time-temperature relationship, while formula methods
are relying on a model, based on the process tempera-
ture, for internal product temperature predictions.
General methods
The main characteristic of general methods is that
the time-temperature relationship needed in Equation
(11) is not explicitly given. Instead, values of the
function (temperature) at discrete time points are
known. The evaluation of the integral in Equation (11)
is performed using graphical or numerical integration
techniques. The general method proposed by Bigelow
et al. (1920), who graphically integrated experimental
data, was the first mathematical procedure ever used
for thermal process calculations. To make this method
less laborious, a special coordinate paper was later
introduced (Schultz and Olson, 1940; Cass, 1947;
Hayakawa, 1973; Leonhardt, 1978). Graphical integra-
tion was also employed by Deindoerfer (1957). Numer-
ical integration of Equation (11) using the trapezoidal
rule (Patashnik, 1953), Simpson’s rule (Anonymous,
1952), and Gaussian integration (Hayakawa, 1968) has
also been proposed. Note that general methods do not
have any specific requirement about the shape of the
time-temperature curve. They are therefore accurate
and they should be the methods of choice for handling
‘complex’ temperature data (Ball, 1928). All research-
ers using computerized mathematical models for pre-
dicting time-temperature data are undoubtedly em-
ploying a ‘general method’ scheme (i.e. numerical
integration of Equation (11) using the predicted
temperature points) for F value calculations (e.g. Teix-
eira and Manson, 1982; Datta et al., 1986; Sastry, 1986;
Chandarana and Gavin, 1989; Chang and Toledo,
1989; Lee et al., 1990).
However, there is a basic weakness of general
methods when used with experimental temperature
data. In general, there are two types of problems that a
thermal process calculation procedure must be able to
handle. The first type of problem is a straightforward
one; it involves the calculation of the Fprocess from
temperature data through Equation (11). For this
calculation, a general method can be as exact as the
method of integration employed, and should be the
method against which any other mathematical proce-
Food Control 1995 Volume 6 Number 2 85
Thermal process design: N.G. Stoforos
dure (or non-general method type) should be checked.
The second type of problem involves calculation of the
process time, tb, that is, the upper limit of the integral
in Equation (ll), which is satisfying a given target F
value. Having experimental temperature data only for
a single process time, some assumptions must be made
about what is happening for different process times.
Bigelow et al. (1920) assumed that the shape of the
universe of the integrand in Equation (11) versus time
curve, after the steam-off time, is geometrically the
same irrespective of the steam-off time. Obviously, this
assumption cannot always be true. For example, the
shape of the previously mentioned curve is a function of
the difference between food and processing tempera-
tures at the steam-off time. In any case, under this
assumption, a relationship between process time and F
value can be established (for a single set of ex-
perimental temperature data) and the process time
corresponding to the target F value can be located. The
above or similar assumptions associated with process
time calculations when using general methods limit
their accuracy unless they are used only for process
evaluations (i.e. calculation of F values).
Formula methods
Due to their nature, general methods require lengthy
calculations. Evaluation of the integral in Equation
(11) must be performed for every new set of tempera-
ture data. The formula methods should be considered
as being initially developed in order to facilitate the
calculations involved and provide relatively simple
procedures for routine calculations. For this simplifica-
tion, several assumptions have been made and the user
should be cautious about the limited applicability of the
formula methods. The starting point of all formula
methods is a formula which gives the temperature of
the food as an explicit function of time. This function is
then substituted for T(t) in Equation (11) and thereaf-
ter integration is performed.
Both empirical and theoretical T(t) functions have
been used. Based on the origin of these time-
temperature functions, Hayakawa (1978) further di-
vided formula methods into empirical and theoretical
formulae. Empirical formulae (e.g. Ball, 1923;
Hayakawa, 1970; Stumbo, 1973) are usually based on
log-linear (after some initial lag) medium minus pro-
duct temperature heating and cooling curves without
distinguishing about different modes of heat transfer.
Within their limitations, they are intended to be used to
almost any thermal process. On the contrary, theoretic-
al formulae (e.g. Gillespy, 1953; Teixeira er al., 1969a,
1969b; Flambert and Deltour, 1972b) are based on
analytical or numerical solutions to the theoretical heat
transfer equations. Today, theoretical formulae are
basically restricted to conduction heating foods in
cylindrical containers.
The first and main source of errors in the formula
methods originates from the assumed time-
temperature relationship. Ball (1923), in developing
the first formula method for thermal process calcula-
86 Food Control 1995 Volume 6 Number 2
tions, assumed that one or more straight lines (when
the differences between processing medium and food
temperatures are plotted as a function of time on
semi-logarithmic coordinates) could accurately de-
scribe, during the heating cycle, the centre point
temperature of canned foods processed in steam retorts
operated at constant temperatures. For the first seg-
ment, Ball used the following equation
T(t) = T,,-j,(T,, - T,,)lO-‘lf” (12)
In general, modelling the food temperature during
the heating cycle of a thermal process is not that
demanding for most practical cases. This is basically
true because any deviation from the ‘straight’ line
equation at the beginning of heating does not cause
serious problems in calculating F values because it
usually occurs at sub-lethal temperatures. On the con-
trary, all subsequent cycles (e.g. holding or cooling)
need very careful treatment. In fact, the extent of
applicability of each of the formula methods greatly
depends upon the way each specific method treats the
process cycles which follow the heating phase. Several
researchers have, in particular, focused their investiga-
tions on the cooling cycle for in-container thermal
processes (Stumbo and Longley, 1966; Hayakawa,
1970; Larkin and Berry, 1991). The equations used to
describe the food temperature during the cooling cycle
are considerably more complicated than those used
during the heating cycle. This is due to the temperature
distribution that develops inside the product by the end
of heating and the fact that microbial destruction in the
initial stage of cooling cannot be ignored since the
product is still at lethal temperatures. For example,
Ball (1923) used a hyperbolic function (Equation 13) to
describe the centre point temperature of canned foods
during the initial portion of a water cooling phase (at
constant temperature):
(Ts + 0.3(Ts - Tcw) - T(&))2 e
= 1 (13)
(0.3(Ts - Tcw))2 - (0.175fiJ2
After this initial cooling [which, according to Ball, ends
at T(t,)= Tg-0.343( T,-Tcw)] he assumed a ‘straight’
line equation for the remaining cooling cycle (similar to
Equation 12, presented here for the heating phase).
Integration of Equation (ll), after substitution of the
appropriate T(t) function, is the second source of
errors, or rather losses in generality, in formula
methods. The complexity of the T(t) functions used
(and actually observed during heat penetration experi-
ments) makes it difficult for the integral in Equation
(11) to be evaluated by analytical means. Therefore,
the investigators proposing formula methods had to
evaluate the integral graphically or numerically and
present the results of this integration in tabulated or
graphical form for general use. This need for explicit
presentation of the results can lead to restrictions in the
general applicability of formula methods, even in cases
for which the T(r) functions used are appropriate.

Additional assumptions might have been imposed just
to facilitate the repeated routine integrations involved
in developing a given formula method. For example,
Ball (1923) assumed that there is no microbial spore or
vegetative cell destruction taking place if the food
centre temperature drops to 80°F below the processing
temperature. This might be at least of theoretical
concern for high temperature sterilization processes
(Dail, 1985). However, as can be inferred following
Ball’s derivation, the validity of this limit is a function
of the z value (see also Steele and Board, 1979a).
Furthermore, due to the large number of tables needed
in order to cover the whole range of the parameters
involved, one might face a situation for which data
from a particular formula method are simply not avail-
able.
F values as a function of processing time (th-tJ
covering the applicable range of the parameters in-
volved, are basically the data needed for thermal
process calculations. The parameters involved are
those introduced either from the equations describing
microbial destruction or the equations giving the T(t)
function. For example, if Equations (1 l), (12) and (13)
are the equations upon which a hypothetical formula
method is based, and assuming that there is no micro-
bial destruction beyond the initial cooling phase, which
ends at the same point as the one assumed by Ball, the
parameters affecting the F versus processing time data
are: z, TR.,-, Tl.r, jh,fh and Tcw. Note that, although the
choice of a particular Tref will affect the tabulated
values, Trcf is not considered as an additional para-
meter since Equation (11) provides a simple means of
converting F values from one reference temperature to
another (since both Trcf are constants, Equation (11) is
reduced to Equation (3) with F replacing the D values).
Therefore, as long as the value of Trer used for the
tabulated results is explicitly stated, the same tables,
after the appropriate conversions, can be used for any
reference temperature. Furthermore, note that if the
total heating time (i.e. steam-off time) is known, Tg can
be evaluated from Equation (12). Then, the tempera-
ture at the end of the initial portion of cooling can be
calculated according to Ball’s assumption and thereaf-
ter the cooling time can be found from Equation (13).
Total processing time can be calculated by adding the
heating and the cooling times. So, for this hypothetical
formula method, Tg is not one of the parameters
involved. It is also probably more convenient, especial-
ly if a retort operator is the end user of the method, to
tabulate F versus steam-off, instead of processing time,
data. It is conceivable, that if F versus processing time
are the tabulated data available, there must be some
simple, ‘working’ equations accompanying the tables so
that the steam-off time could be calculated.
There are a number of choices concerning the form
that the results of integration can be presented. For
example, Ball (1923) presented his results as a function
of the difference between retort and food centre
temperature at the steam-off time. For the simplest
case considered, a ‘working’ equation (originated from
Thermal process design: N.G. Stoforos
Equation 12) has been introduced in order to relate
steam-off times with given temperature difference
values (see also Anonymous, 1952). More complicated
situations can still be evaluated from the same tabu-
lated data through use of relatively complex ‘working’
equations. For a formula method, an intelligent choice
of dimensionless groups for the variables involved can
greatly reduce the large number of tables needed
without losing any information (Hayakawa, 1970;
Steele and Board, 1979a). It must be noted that, before
using a formula method, it is first required to calculate
the necessary parameters employed by the specific
method. The use of a method, especially for complex
sets of data, is not necessarily simple and free from
human error. Computerized formula methods
(Hayakawa, 1977; Anonymous, 1989) can gain popu-
larity. Several researchers attempted to simplify the use
of certain original formula methods. As an example, we
might refer once more to Ball’s formula method (Olson
and Stevens, 1939; Sasseen, 1969; Vinters et al., 1975).
The reason we refer somewhat extensively to Ball’s
formula method is not only because it was the first
formula method proposed for thermal process calcula-
tions, but mainly because it is the method most widely
used for the food industry. Several researchers have
exclusive reviewed this method (Flambert et al., 1977;
Merson et al., 1978; Steele and Board, 1979b; Larkin,
1990; Stoforos, 1991) or tried to extend its use (e.g.
during aseptic processing of liquid-particulate foods:
Dail, 1985; Larkin, 1989). The implications of the wide
use of Ball’s formula method (or any particular
method) by the food industry are beyond the obvious
ones. The accuracy of a method used for thermal
process evaluation does not only affect the calculation
of FrrOCessbut, in relation to the discussion made earlier
about the interconnection between the required and
the process F values, it can greatly affect the target F
value. It is interesting to see some F, values used as
required F values by the industry. Taking an example
(for a rather extreme case) from Stumbo (1949b), the
centre point F, values used in the industry for cream
style corn processed in different size containers were:
2.50 min for large, No 10 (603 x 700) cans, and 5.00
min for small, No. 2 (307 x 409) cans. Commerical
experience has shown that the product in both contain-
ers was commercially sterile. However, it is astonishing
to see a lower F value for the larger can. This paradox
was attributed by Kimball and Unverferth (personal
communication, 1991) as being purposely imposed in
an attempt to overcome the inability of Ball’s formula
method to account for any temperature rise at the
product centre after steam-off. Product centre temper-
ature rise after steam-off is rather common for conduc-
tion heating foods under normal production conditions
(Flambert and Deltour, 1971). Obviously, these F
values were established from evaluating commercially
sterile processes. When a different, more accurate,
method is to be used these required F values should be
(and in fact they are) redefined.
It is beyond the scope of this article to present an
Food Control 1995 Volume 6 Number 2 87
Thermal process design: N.G. Stoforos

Table 1 Chronological list of distinct groups of thermal process calculation methods

Group Method/ I.D. Fprocess(m4 Remarks

reference
Conduction Conduction Convection
(geometric (0.75 in (geometric
centre) above bottom) centre)

General Method Bigelow et al. 1920

1 3.4 7.3 15.7 Simpson’s rule
Ball (original) 1923
Ball 2.6 7.9 14.7 1923
Ball 3.0 7.7 15.5 FS 1923
Sasseen 3.0 7.8 15.4 ccomhputerized #3 1%9
Vinters et al. 2.6 7.9 14.6 regression of #2 1975
Vinters et al. 3.1 7.7 14.4 regression of #3 1975
3.5 7.9 15.5 as #3 for Ts being the
maximum food temperature
Conduction heating
Gillespy 8 3.5 9.4 15.4 f==fs; temperature rise 1951
(and Gillespy, 1953) after steam-off
Jakobsen 9 3.1 3.5 13.4 fc=fh; correction for fc#fh can 1954
be made
New Ball
Ball and Olson 10 3.8 7.7 16.1 use of Pi, and P, functions 1957
Hicks 11 3.6 8.3 16.0 revision of #lO 1958
Pflug 12 3.6 8.3 16.0 revision of #lO 1968
Stumbo
Stumbo and Longley 13 2.7 7.4 14.7 fc=fh, variable jc 1966
Jen et al. 14 2.8 7.8 15.3 finite difference 1971
Stumbo 15 2.8 7.7 15.4 refined #14 1973
(see also Purohit and Stumbo,
1973)
16 3.3 7.5 15.6 as #15, but for fc#fh
(heating part from #2)
Pham 17 2.8 7.8 14.6 1987
Pham 18 3.3 7.6 15.6 c h
PZ 1990
Herndon different cooling curve from #3
Herndon ef al. 19 2.8 7.3 15.3 f&, variable jc 1968
(and Griffin ef al., 1969,197l)
Steele and Board, 1979a 20 2.8 7.2 15.2 ‘sterilizing ratios’ 1979
Hayakawa empirical formulae 1970
Downes and Hayakawa 21 7.2 15.5 f=#f,,, variable jc 1977
Hayakawa 22 7.2 15.4 computerized #21 1977
Kao et al. 23 2.6 7.5 14.6 regression of #11 and 21 1981
24 3.5 7.4 15.5 as #21 for Ts being the
maximum food temperature

evaluation of the existing methods for thermal process consider the most representative methods intended for
calculations. Limited comparisons of some of the avail- general use, we are presenting part of our unpublished
able methodologies have been presented (Board et al., results in Table 1. The experimental time-temperature
1960; Smith and Tung, 1982; Manji and van de Voort, data (Figure 2), upon which the values presented in
1985; Ghazala et al., 1991). As a summary of what we Table I were based, were obtained for a conduction

..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. ’ convccliorl (CellbE)
.
.
n condtiorl wken~) .
.
A Conduction(cmtre) .rn
. . . ..I.‘.‘-1-.-..I’.“..‘-‘.-I-...‘.’.’..I.”--’.-.--I..““.‘.‘.’
0 IO u) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
ProcessTime (min)

Figure 2 Experimental time-temperature data used for F value calculations

66 Food Control 1995 Volume 6 Number 2

 Thermal process design: N.G. Stoforos

Table 2 Experimental conditions and heat penetration parameters (from hand-plots)

Conduction Conduction Convection

(geometric (0.75 in (geometric
centre) above bottom) centre)

Retort temperature (“F) 240.4 240.4 258.1

Cooling temperature (“F) 60.0 60.0 80.0
Initial product temperature (“F) 163.3 155.8 118.4
Retort coming-up time (CUT, min) 1.25 1.25 1.67
Steam-on to steam-off (min) 83.0 83.0 9.0
g (experimental, “F) 7.0 2.4 0.3
g“ (calculated, OF) 6.89 2.30 0.01
fh (min) 60.0 60.0 1.92
jh (at 0.58CUT) 2.10 0.61 1.12
L (min) 100.6 46.5 5.13
L 1.26 1.0 1.29
Can size 307 x 513 307 x 513 401 x 411

“This g value (calculated from Eqn 12 for I equals steam-on to steam-off minus 0.58 x coming-up time) was used in all subsequent calculations

heating product, at the geometric centre as well as an
off-centre position (the thermocouple was inserted at
the axis of the can, 0.75 in above the can bottom to
challenge the various thermal process calculation
methods) processed (vertically) in a vertical still retort,
and for a convection heating product, at the geometric
centre, processed in a Steritort (at 6 rev/min). The
experimental data were treated in accordance with each
of the thermal process calculation method require-
ments. Fprocesr values (Table 2) are point F values
calculated for z = 18°F. 7’,.cf = 250°F and the para-
meters listed in Table 2.
It must be noted that the results from Table I should
not be generalized. Undoubtedly, comparison of the
various methods through limited temperature (ex-
perimental or predicted) data will favour one or
another method. An understanding of the assumptions
involved, and therefore the limitations of each method,
is considered essential before application of the specific
method. Some remarks, associated with the tested data
and using the general method F values as a basis for
comparison, include the following. First, the majority
of the methods were conservative in nature (with basic
exception of the group D methods, and most of the
other exceptions being for the ‘challenging’ conduction,
off-centre position, data) and produced satisfactory
results. The results should be viewed in relation to the
uncertainties associated with the Fproccss and the
, value estimations [l&30% for the former
enz
Zqulnd and Lund, 1977~; Robertson and Miller, 1984)
and at least 20% for the latter (Pflug, 1987)], and the
statistical variations in physical, reaction kinetics and
operational parameters (Hicks, 1961; Powers et al.,
1962; Herndon, 1971, Lenz and Lund, 1977a; Lund,
1978; Patino and Heil, 1985; Larkin and Steffe, 1987;
Hayakawa et al., 1988; Wang et al., 1991). Second, as
was expected, methods relying on more parameters to
describe the time-temperature data (e.g. fc # f,, versus
fc = fh methods) gave more accurate results. Finally,
methods that do not take into account any temperature
rise (for conduction heating products) after steam-off
(groups B, F and G) can be improved by considering T,
as the maximum product temperature instead of the
product temperature at steam-off (Board et al., 1960;
Flambert and Deltour, 1973). Actually, Ball (1923,
1928) defined Tg as the maximum product (centre)
temperature; also, with reference to the graphs and
tables of time-temperature data in his publications, it is
clear that he extends the heating phase up to the point
of maximum product centre temperature. Neverthe-
less, by the definition that Ball gives of process (heat-
ing) time, it is evident that he considered steam-off
time when the product centre temperature had reached
its maximum value. Considering that Ball developed
his method from experimental time-temperature
curves, his definitions are understandable, although not
always in accordance with each other. We believe that
users of Ball’s formula method are taking Tg at steam-
off time in order to introduce an additional safety factor
in establishing thermal processes. A new, more soph-
isticated, method should take this point into account.
Although it is not our intention to present particular
cases, it seems appropriate, ending this section, to
briefly refer to broken-heating curves. That is, cases
where the heat transfer mechanism changes at some
point during the product heating or cooling phase. This
results in change in the slope of the straight line heating
or cooling curve, when the logarithm of temperature
differences (medium minus product) is plotted as a
function of time. In calculating process Fvalues, almost
any formula method accounts for this change in slope
(for example, by changing f,, or an apparent thermal
diffusivity value). Nevertheless, there is no method that
provides a way of determining the time and/or the
temperature at which the brake point occurs. It is
therefore considered unrealistic to extrapolate ex-
perimental heat penetration data, for products with
broken-heating curve characteristics, to different pro-
cess conditions. In relation to Ball’s formula method,
Berry and Bush (1987) presented guidelines for safe
extrapolation (which however might give rise to quality
concerns) of heat penetration data to different retort
and initial product temperatures.
QUALITY RETENTION CALCULATIONS
From the analysis made up to this point, it can be

Food Control 1995 Volume 6 Number 2 89

Thermal process design: N.G. Stoforos
inferred that, for a specific processing temperature, the
processing time required (in order for the target Fvalue
to be achieved) is unique. There is, however, an infinite
number of processing temperature and processing time
combinations resulting in the same microbial destruc-
tion. Each of these time-temperature combinations
might have different implementation requirements and
might result in final product of different characteristics.
For example, processing temperature, amongst other
factors, affects steam consumption as shown by Bhow-
mik and Hayakawa (1983) during thermal processing of
canned foods in still retorts, as well as nutrient reten-
tion during thermal processing of conduction-heating
foods (Teixeira et al., 1969b). Provided that the rela-
tionship between processing temperature (and there-
fore processing time) and a specific temperature-
dependent parameter is known, the processing condi-
tions (time-temperature combination) that will opti-
mize a thermal process in terms of the parameter of
interest can be selected. In the following discussion,
thermal process optimization in terms of quality reten-
tion only will be considered.
In fact, assuming that the degradation of a heat-labile
quality factor follows the kinetics of a first-order reac-
tion, the equations (and part of the methodologies)
presented above for microbial destruction can also be
used to describe quality degradation. Further reference
on this matter is not considered necessary for the
purposes of this article. The main difference between
quality and microbial destruction, which actually en-
ables process optimization and quality retention, is in
the arithmetic values of the parameters z (or E,) and
DT (or kT), respectively (Lund, 1977; Thijssen and
Kerkhof, 1977). Moreover, while calculation of point F
values is considered satisfactory from a safety point of
view, surface (for colour) or volume-integrated (e.g.
for a vitamin) F values must be considered for quality
retention calculations. Several researchers have dealt
with calculation of quality retention during thermal
processes (Hayakawa, 1969; Teixeira et al., 1969b;
Manson et al., 1970; Jen et al., 1971; Teixeira et al.,
1975; Downes and Hayakawa, 1977; Lenz and Lund,
1977b; Thijssen et al., 1978; Ohlsson, 1980; Swartzel,
1982; Barreiro et al., 1984; Nadkarni and Hatton, 1985;
Sawada and Merson, 1986; Bhowmik and Tandon,
1987; Anstriim et al., 1988; Chandarana and Gavin,
1989; Datta, 1991; Datta and Hu, 1992; Silva et al.,
1992).
The references cited above present results mainly
from theoretical investigations. Experimental location
of optimum processing conditions (Chai et al., 1991)
involves extensive and lengthy experiments. Providing
that kinetic data for quality thermal degradation are
available, the accuracy of the theoretical approaches
for quality retention calculations is the same as for the
microbial destruction calculations.
One point of interest is related to the variability of
the experimentally obtained heat penetration para-
meters. Traditionally, thermal processes are based on
data for the slowest heating sample (e.g. can or food
90 Food Control 1995 Volume 6 Number 2
particle) as opposed to a statistical evaluation of the
data (Hicks, 1961; Lund, 1978). Can-to-can variation
(Hicks, 1961) together with the procedures used for
heat penetration data analysis (Cowell and Evans,
1961; Hayakawa and Ball, 1968) can be affected by the
processing temperature. It will be interesting to see
how the theoretically suggested optimum processing
conditions might be altered when the effect of proces-
sing temperature on the extent of the experimentally
observed variability of heat penetration parameters will
be considered. Recently published guidelines (as far as
food safety is concerned) for extrapolating heat
penetration data to different retort temperatures (Ber-
ry and Bush, 1987, 1989) can be viewed as a result of a
similar thought.
Figure 3 shows a hypothetical optimum process for a
conduction heating, canned, product and how it can be
affected (shifted towards higher heating times and
therefore lower processing temperatures, for the case
shown) when the effects of processing temperature on
can-to-can variation is considered. Variation in
thiamine retention at different process times, shown in
Figure 3, is a composite effect of an assumed lower
variability of heat penetration parameters for lower g
values (and therefore lower processing temperatures)
and the fact that the effect of higher temperatures on
thiamine destruction is less pronounced, compared to
microbial destruction (due to differences in the z values
of the two reactions).
It is conceivable that optimum processing conditions
do not always guarantee satisfaction. Processing in thin
profile containers, as discussed by Teixeira et al.
(1975), or design of unique systems to deliver a thermal
process [e.g. separate processing of the particles in a
liquid/particulate food system (Hersom, 1985)] might
be necessary in order to meet high standards of quality.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In this article, an attempt is made to underline the basic
principles involved in designing thermal processes. It is
believed that, due to the high diversity of the topic and
the large amount of work that has been presented in the
area of thermal processing, a thorough discussion on
the subject will require the length of a book rather than
a chapter. The references cited are undoubtedly li-
mited. In addition to the standard references on ther-
mal processing, the author has also attempted to indi-
cate the various research teams that are working in this
area. A more complete reference list has been pre-
sented in a series of publications, the first by Overing-
ton and Holdsworth (1974) and the last by Holdsworth
(1990). A recent handbook chapter by Teixeira (1992)
includes additional references on thermal processing.
Despite the volume of available literature, there is
still room for further work on all of the topics presented
here. Kinetic data for microbial and quality factor
destruction are still needed. Extension of theoretical
research in order to account for industrial needs and
 Thermal process design: N.G. Stoforos

55
1I

15,“..‘,““‘1”“‘,“.“,““‘1”“.““‘.,’.”.’.”..,
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

HeatingTime(min)

Figure 3 Hypothetical optimum processing conditions based on thiamine retention. Error bars refer to uncertainties from experimental
(can-to-can) variation

procedures should be considered. A new, more accu- where Ta,, is an extrapolated initial product
rate and more versatile method for thermal process temperature obtained by assuming an
calculations will always be welcomed, especially if it exponential function (similar to Equation 12
can be implemented for on-line control of process presented here) for an entire phase (heating or
deviation, as it will reduce production cost and improve cooling) of a thermal process; j is defined on the
product safety and quality. This will probably dictate a time axis where T,, is defined, dimensionless
need for more accurate heat penetration data with all kT (first-order) reaction rate constant, s-l
the consequences in experimentation and modelling. L total length of system, m
Finally, a new method, as mentioned earlier, will m mass of product in the system, kg
require re-evaluation of the target F values used to date Fl total number of classes of particles with equal
for thermally processed foods. residence times, dimensionless
P tabulated functions (see Ball and Olson, 1957)
dimensionless
NOMENCLATURE R universal gas constant, 8.314 J/(mol K)
T temperature, “C (unless otherwise explicitly
stated)
Latin letters
TP product temperature at steam-off time (some-
A system wall heat transfer surface area, m2 times taken as the maximum temperature
C concentration of a heat labile substance, attained by the product), “C (unless otherwise
number of microorganisms/ml, g/ml, or any explicitly stated)
other appropriate unit. t time, s
CP specific heat of product, J/(kg K) uc, overall heat transfer coefficient, heating
DT (noted also as D) time at a constant temperature medium/system wall/internal liquid, W/(m2 K)
required to achieve a decimal reduction of the x longitudinal distance measured from system
initial concentration of a heat labile substance, s entrance, m
(unless otherwise explicitly stated) z temperature interval required to achieve a
activation energy, J/mol decimal reduction of the DT value, “C (unless
a reference F value for z = 18” F and Tref = otherwise explicitly stated)
250” F
(or simply F) time at a constant temperature, T,
Greek letters
required to destroy a given percentage of micro-
organisms whose thermal resistance is character- a thermal diffusivity, m2/s
ized by z, s (unless otherwise explicitly stated)
f time required for the difference between 0 time, 8 = (~/clL)t,, s
medium and product temperatures to be T residence time, s
changed by a factor of 10, s (unless otherwise
explicitly stated)
Subscripts
fraction of solid particles exiting the system with
equal residence times, dimensionless initial condition
temperature difference defined as T,,T,,, “C : final condition
(unless otherwise explicitly stated) CW cooling (water) medium
coefficient defined as j = (T,,,-?1,,)I(T,,,-TIT), C associated with the cooling cycle of a thermal

Food Control 1995 Volume 6 Number 2 91

Thermal process design: N.G. Stoforos
process, except when used in Fvalue where it in-
dicates point value
f liquid product component
h associated with the heating cycle of a thermal
process
IT initial condition (for product temperature only)
i index indicating a class of particles with the same
residence time
m heating medium
solid product component
P Sci. 54, 198-204
RT retort
ref reference value
s integrated value
Symbols
- Cowell, N.D. and Evans, H.L. (1961) Studies in canning processes.
appropriately averaged value (bar over)
REFERENCES
Anonymous (1952) Calculation of Processes for Canned Foods Amer-
ican Can Co., Research and Technical Dept, Maywood, IL
Anonymous (1989) NumericCALm. The ultimate process calculation
software. CAL Notes Autumn, TechniCAL, Inc, Metairie, LA
Arabshahi, A. and Lund, D.B. (1985) C onsiderations in calculating
kinetic parameters from experimental data. J. Food Proc. Eng. 7,
239-25 1
distriim, A., Ohtsson, T., Skjaldebrand, C. and Falk, C. (1988)
Prediction of food quality during continuous heat treatment of
particulate products. Proc. Int. Symp. Prog. Food Pres. Proc.
Vol. 2, CERIA, Brussels, Belgium
Ball, C.O. (1923) Thermal process time for canned food. Bull. 37,
Vol. 7, Part 1, National Research Council, Washington, DC
Ball, C.O. (1928) Mathematical Solution of Problems on Thermal
Processing of Canned Food University of California Publications
in Public Health, Vol. 1, No 2, University of California Press,
Berkeley, CA (with supplement in 1936)
Ball, C.O. (1949) Process evaluation. Food Technol. 3, 116-118
Ball, C.O. and Olson, F.C.W. (1955) Foundation of food process
calculation methods. Food Res. 20, 666-686
Ball, C.O. and Olson, F.C.W. (1957) Sterilization in Food Technolo-
gy. Theory, Practice and Calculations McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
New York
Barreiro, J.A., Guariguata, C. and Salas, G.R. (1984) A manual
method for predicting nutrient retention during thermal proces-
sing of conduction-heating foods in rectangular containers. J.
Food. Sci. 49, 478-481, 492
Berry, M.R., Jr. and Bush, R.C. (1987) Establishing thermal proces-
ses for products with broken-heating curves from data taken at
other retort and initial temperatures. J. Food Sci. 52, 958-961
Berry, M.R., Jr. and Bush, R.C. (1989) Establishing thermal proces-
ses for products with straight-line heating curves from data taken
at other retort and initial temperatures. J. Food Sci. 54, 1040-
1042, 1046
Bhowmik, S.R. and Hayakawa, K. (1983) Influence of selected
thermal processing conditions on steam consumption and on mass
average sterilizing values. J. Food Sci. 48, 212-216, 225
Bbowmik, S.R. and Tandon, S. (1987) A method for thermal process
evaluation of conduction heated foods in retortable pouches. J.
Food Sci. 52,202-209
Bigelow, W.D. (1921) The logarithmic nature of thermal death time
curves. J. Infect. Dis. 29, 528-536
Bigelow, W.D., Bohart, G.S., Richardson, A.C. and Ball, C.O.
(1920) Heat Penetration in Processing Canned Foods Bulletin
16-L. National Canners Association, Research Laboratory,
Washington, DC.
92 Food Control 1995 Volume 6 Number 2
Board, P.W., Cowell, N.D. and Hicks, E.W. (1960) Studies in
canning processes. III. The cooling phase of processes for pro-
ducts heating by conduction. Food Res. 25, 44%459
Cass, G.V. (1947) A note on use of Schultz and Olson lethal-rate
paper for calculation of thermal processes for food products in tin
containers. Food Res. 12, 24-26
Chai, T., Liang, K.T., Pace, J. and Schlimme, D.V. (1991) Effect of
heat processing on quality of pasteurized oysters. J. Food Sci. 56,
1292-1294
Chandarana, D.I. and Gavin, A., III (1989) Establishing thermal
processes for heterogeneous foods to be processed aseptically: a
theoretical comparison of process development methods. J. Food
Chang, S.Y. and Toledo, R.T. (1989) Heat transfer and simulated
sterilization of particulate solids in a continuously flowing system.
J. Food Sci. 54, 1017-1023, 1030
Cohen, E. and Saguy, I. (1985) Statistical evaluation of Arrhenius
model and its applicability in prediction of food quality losses. J.
Food Proc. Pres. 9, 273-290
IV. Lag factors and slopes of tangents to heat penetration curves
for canned foods heating by conduction. Food Technol. 15,
407-409
Dail, R. (1985) Calculation of required hold time of aseptically
processed low acid foods containing particulates utilizing the Ball
method. J. Food Sci. 50, 1703-1706
Datta, A.K. (1991) Mathematical modeling of biochemical changes
during processing of liquid foods and solutions. Biotechnol. Prog.
7, 397-402
Datta, A.K. and Hu, W. (1992) Optimization of quality in microwave
heating. Food Technol. 46 (12), 53-56.
Datta, A.K., Teixeira, A.A. and Manson, J.E. (1986) Computer-
based retort control logic for on-line correction of process devia-
tions. J. Food Sci. 51, 480-483, 507
David, J.R.D. and Merson, R.L. (1990) Kinetic parameters for
inactivation of Bacillus stearothermophilus at high temperatures.
.I. Food Sci. 55, 488-493, 515
Deindoerfer, F.H. (1957) Calculation of heat sterilization times for
fermentation media. Appl. Microbial. 5, 221-228
Downes, T.W. and Hayakawa, K. (1977) A procedure for estimating
the retention of components of thermally conductive processed
foods. Lebensm.-Wiss. Technol. 10, 256259
Esty, J.R. and Meyer, K.F. (1922) The heat resistance of the spores
of B. botulinus and allied anaerobes. J. Infect. Dis. 34, 65&663
Flambert, C.M.F. and Deltour, J. (1971) Calcul des temperatures
dans les aliments en boites cylindriques transmettant la chaleur
par conduction. Ind. Aliment. Agric. 88, 127%1287
FIambert, F. and De&our, J. (1972a) Localization of the critical area
in thermally processed conduction heated canned food.
Lebensm.-Wiss. Technol. 5,7-13
Flambert, F. and Deltour, J. (1972b) Exact lethality calculation for
sterilizing process. I. Principles of the method. Lebensm.-Wiss.
Technol. 5, 72-73
Flambert, C.M.F. and Deltour, J. (1973) Calcul de la ICtalitCdes
traitements thermiques de conduction appliquCs aux conserves
cylindriques. Ind. Aliment. Agric. 90, 5-10
Flambert, C.M.F., Deltour, J., Dickerson, R.W. and Hayakawa, K.
(1977) Lethal effect of food temperature on linear portion of a
heating or cooling curve. J. Food Sci. 42, 545-546
Ghazala, S., Ramaswamy, H.S., Smith, J. and Simpson, B. (1991)
Thermal process time calculations for thin profile packages:
comparison of formula methods. J. Food Proc. Eng. 13,269-282
Gillespy, T.G. (1951) Estimation of sterilizing values of processes as
applied to canned foods. I. Packs heating by conduction. J. Sci.
Food Agric. 2, 107-125
Gillespy, T.G. (1953) Estimation of sterilizing values of processes as
applied to canned foods. II. Packs heating by conduction: com-
plex processing conditions and value of coming-up time of retort.
1. Sci. Food Agric. 4, 553-565
GrifBn, R.C. Jr., Herndon, D.H. and Ball, C.O. (1969) Use of
computer-derived tables to calculate sterilizing processes for
packaged foods. 2. Application to broken-line heating curves.
Food Technol. 23, 51%523
 Thermal process design: N.G. Stoforos

Griffin, R.C. Jr., Herndon, D.H. and Ball, C.O. (1971) Use of Ball formula method of thermal process evaluations. Paper No.
computer-derived tables to calculate sterilizing processes for 170, 50th Annual Meeting of Institute of Food Technologists,
packaged foods. 3. Application to cooling curves. Food Technol. Anaheim, CA, June 1620
25, 136138, 140, 143 Larkin, J.W. and Berry, M.R. (1991) Estimating cooling process
Haralampu, S.G., Saguy, 1. and Karel, M. (1985) Estimation of lethality for different cooling j values. J. Food Sci. 56, 106%1067
Arrhenius model parameters using three least squares methods. /. Larkin, J.W. and Steffe, J.F. (1987) Experimental errors associated
Food Proc. Pres. 9, 129-143 with the estimation of thermal diffusivity from thermal process
Hayakawa, K. (1968) A procedure for calculating the sterilizing value data. J. Food Sci. 52, 419-424, 428
of a thermal process. Food Technol. 22, 905-907 Lee, J.H., Singh, R.K. and Larkin, J.W. (1990) Determination of
Hayakawa, K. (1969) New parameters for calculating mass average lethality and processing time in a continuous sterilization system
sterilizing value to estimate nutrients in thermally conductive containing particulates. J. Food Eng. 11, 67-92
food. Can. Inst. Food Technol. J. 2, 165-172 Lenz, M.K. and Lund, D.B. (1977a) The lethality-Fourier number
Hayakawa, K. (1970) Experimental formulas for accurate estimation method: experimental verification of a model for calculating
of transient temperature of food and their application to thermal temperature profiles and lethality in conduction-heating canned
process evaluation. Food Technol. 24, 1407-1418 foods. J. Food Sci. 42, 989-996. 1001
Hayakawa, K. (1971) Mass average value for a physical. chemical, or Lenz, M.K. and Lund, D.B. (1977b) The lethality-Fourier number
biological factor in food. Can. Inst. Food Technol. J. 4, 133-134 method: experimental verification of a model for calculating
average quality factor retention in conduction-heating canned
Hayakawa, K. (1973) Modified lethal rate paper technique for
foods. J. Food Sci. 42, 997-1001
thermal process evaluation. Can. Inst. Food Technol. J. 6.
295-297 Lenz, M.K. and Lund, D.B. (1977~) The lethality-Fourier number
method: confidence intervals for calculated lethality and mass-
Hayakawa, K. (1977) Mathematical methods for estimating proper
average retention of conduction-heating, canned foods. J. Food
thermal processes and their computer implementation. Adv.
Sci. 42, 1002-1007
Food Res. 23, 75-141
Leonhardt, G.F. (1978) A general lethal-rate paper for the graphical
Hayakawa, K. (1978) A critical review of mathematical procedures
calculation of processing times. J. Food Sci. 43, 660
for determining proper heat sterilization processes. Food Tech-
nol. 32 (3), 5!+6S Levine, S. (1956) Determination of the thermal death rate of
bacteria. Food Res. 21, 295-301
Hayakawa, K. and Ball, CO. (1968) A note on theoretical heating
curve of a cylindrical can of thermally conductive food. Can. Inst. Lund, D.B. (1975) Heat processing. In Principles of Food Science
Food Technol. J. 1, 54-60 (Ed. Fennema, O.R.) Part II. Physical Principles of Food Pre-
.servafion (Eds Karel, M.. Fennema, O.R. and Lund, D.B.)
Hayakawa, K., de Massaguer, P. and Trout, R.J. (1988) Statistical
Marcel Dekker. Inc., New York, pp. 31-92
variability of thermal process lethality in conduction heating food.
Computer simulation. J. Food Sci. 53, 1887-1893 Lund, D.B. (1977) Design of thermal processes for maximizing
nutrient retention. Food Technol. 31 (2). 71-78
Heppell, N.J. (1985) Measurements of the liquid-solid heat transfer
coefficient during continuous sterilization of liquids containing Lund, D.B. (1978) Statistical analysis of thermal process calculations.
particles. 4th International Congress on Engineering and Food, Food Technol. 32 (3), 76-78, 83
Edmonton, Alberta. Canada, July 7-10 Maesmans, G.L., Hendrickx, M.E., De Gordt, S.V. and Tobback, P.
Herndon, D.H. (1971) Population distribution of heat rise curves as a (1994) Feasibility of the use of a time-temperature integrator and
significant variable in heat sterilization process calculations. J. a mathematical model to determine fluid-to-particle heat transfer
Food Sci. 36, 299-305 coefficients. Food Res. Int. 27. 39-51

Herndon, D.H., Griffm, R.C., Jr. and Ball, C.O. (1968) Use of Manji, B. and van der Voort, F.R. (1985) Comparison of two models
computer-derived tables to calculate sterilizing processes for for process holding time calculations: convection system. J. Food
packaged foods. Food Technol. 22, 473478, 480, 482. 484 Pro/. 48. 359-363
Hersom, A.C. (1985) Aseptic processing and packaging of food. Food Manson, J.E. and Cullen, J.F. (1974) Thermal process simulation for
Rev. Inr. 1, 215-270 aseptic processing of foods containing discrete particulate matter.
J. Food Sci. 39, 1084-1089
Hicks, E.W. (1951) On the evaluation of canning processes. Food
Technol. 5, 134-142 Manson, J.E., Zahradnik, J.W. and Stumho, C.R. (1970) Evaluation
of lethality and nutrient retentions of conduction-heating foods in
Hicks, E.W. (1958) A revised table of Ph function of Ball and Olson.
rectangular containers. Food Tech&. 24, 1297-1301
Food Res. 23. 396400
Merson, R.L., Singh, R.P. and Carroad, P.A. (1978) An evaluation
Hicks, E.W. (1961) Uncertainties in canning process calculations. J.
of Ball’s formula method of thermal process calculations. Food
Food Sci. 26, 21%226
Technol. 32. 66-72, 75
Holdsworth, S.D. (1990) A Bibliographical Guide to Thermal Process
Nadkarni, M.M. and Hatton, T.A. (1985) Optimal nutrient retention
Calculations: Parl 6. Technical Bulletin No. 77, Campden Food
during the thermal processing of conduction-heated canned
and Drink Research Association, Chipping Campden
foods: application of the distributed minimum principle. J. Food
Hunter, G.M. (1972) Continuous sterilization of liquid media con- Sci. 50. 1312-1321
taining suspended particles. Food Techno/. Aust. 4, 158-165
NCA (1968) Laboratory Manual for Food Canners and Processors
Jakobsen, F. (1954) Notes on process evaluation. Food Res. 19, Vol. I. Microbiology and Processing National Canners Associa-
66-79 tion Research Laboratories, Avi Pub. Co. Inc., Westport. CT
Jen, Y., Manson, J.E., Stumbo, C.R. and Zahradnik, J.W. (1971) A Ohlsson, T. (1980) Optimal sterilization temperatures for sensory
procedure for estimating sterilization of and quality factor de- quality in cylindrical containers. J. Food Sci. 45, 1517-1521
gradation in thermally processed foods. J. Food Sci. 36, 692-698
Olson, F.C.W. and Stevens, H.P. (1939) Thermal processing of
Jonsson, U., Snygg, B.G., HPrnulv, B.G. and Zachrisson, T. (1977) canned foods in tin containers. II. Nomograms for graphic
Testing two models for the temperature dependence of the heat calculation of thermal processes for non-acid canned foods ex-
inactivation rate of Bacillus stearothermophitus spores. J. Food hibiting straight-line semi-logarithmic heating curves. Food Res.
Sci. 42 (3), 1251-1252, 1263 4, l-20
Kao, J., Naveh, D., Kopelman, I.J. and Pflug, I.J. (1981) Thermal Overington, W.I.G. and Holdsworth, S.D. (1974) A Bibliographical
process calculations for different z and j< values using a hand-held Guide to Thermal Process Calcularions Technical Memorandum
calculator. J. Food Sci. 46, 19>197 No. 130, Campden Food and Drink Research Association, Chip-
Larkin, J.W. (1989) Use of a modified Ball’s formula method to ping Campden
evaluate aseptic processing of foods containing particulates. Food Patashnik, M. (1953) A simplified procedure for thermal process
Technol. 43, 124-131 evaluation. Food Technol. 7. l-6
Larkin, J.W. (1990) Revision of the hyperbolic equation used by the Patino, H. and Heil, J.R. (1985) A statistical approach to error

Food Control 1995 Volume 6 Number 2 93

Thermal process design: N.G. Stoforos
analysis in thermal process calculations. J. Food Sci. 50, lllO-
1114
Ptlug, I.J. (1968) Evaluating the lethality of heat processes using a
method employing Hick’s table. Food Technol. 22, 1153-l I56
Ptlug, I.J. (1987) Factors important in determining the heat process
value, Fr, for low-acid canned foods. J. Food Prot. 50, 528-533
Ptlug, LJ., Smith, G., Holcomh, R. and Blanchett, R. (1980)
Measuring sterilizing values in containers of food using thermo-
couples and biological indicator units. /. Food Prof. 43, 119-123,
104
Pham, Q.T. (1987) Calculation of thermal process lethality for
conduction-heated canned foods. J. Food Sci. 52, 967-974
Pham, Q.T. (1990) Lethality calculation for thermal processes with
different heating and cooling rates. ht. J. Food Sci. Technol. 25,
148-156
Powers, J.J., Pratts, D.E., Carmon, J.L., Somaatmadja, D. and
Forston, J.C. (1962) Application of extreme-value methods and
other statistical procedures to heat-penetration data. Food Tech-
nol. 16 (3) 80-84, 87-89
Purohit, K.S. and Stumbo, C.R. (1973) Refinement and extension of
f,,/ll:gparameters for process calculation. J. Food Sci. 38, 726
728
Ramaswamy, H.S., van de Voort, F.R. and Ghazala, S. (1989) An
analysis of TDT and Arrhenius methods for handling process and
kinetic data. J. Food Sci. 54, 1322-1326
Robertson, G.L. and Miller, S.L. (1984) Uncertainties associated
with the estimation of F, values in cans which heat by conduction.
J. Food Technol. 19, 623-630
Sapru, V., Teixeira, A.A., Smerage, G.H. and Lindsay, J.A. (1992)
Predicting thermophilic spore population dynamics for UHT
sterilization processes. J. Food Sci. 57, 1248-1252, 1257
Sapru, V., Smerage, G.H., Teixeira, A.A. and Lindsay, J.A. (1993)
Comparison of predictive models for bacterial spore population
resources to sterilization temperatures. J. Food Sci. 58, 223-228
!&seen, D.M. (1969) Computer Program for Process Calculation by
the Simplified Ball Formula Method National Canners Associa-
tion West Research Laboratory, Berkeley, CA
Sastry, S.K. (1986) Mathematical evaluation of process schedules for
aseptic processing of low-acid foods containing discrete particu-
lates. J. Food Sci. 51, 1323-1328, 1332
Sawada, H. and Merson, R.L. (1986) Estimation of process condi-
tions for bulk sterilization of particulate foods in water-fluidized
beds. In Food Engineering and Process Applications (Eds LeMa-
guer, M. and Jelen, P.) Vol. 1, Elsevier Science, New York,
pp. 569-581
Schultz, O.T. and Olson, F.C.W. (1938) Thermal processing of
canned foods in tin containers. I. Variation of heating rate with
can size for products heating by convection. Food Res. 3,647-651
Schultz, O.T. and Olson, F.C.W. (1940) Thermal processing of
canned foods in tin containers. III. Recent improvements in the
general method of thermal process calculations. A special coor-
dinate paper and methods of converting initial and retort temper-
atures. Food Res. 5, 399-407
Silva, C., Hendrickx, M., Oliveira, F. and Tobback, P. (1992)
Optimal sterilization temperatures for conduction heating foods
considering finite surface heat transfer coefficients. J. Food Sci.
57, 743-748
Simpson, S.G. and Williams, M.C. (1974) An analysis of high
temperature/short time sterilization during laminar flow. J. Food
Sci. 39, 1047-1054
Simpson, R., Aris, I. and Torres, J.A. (1989) Sterilization of
conduction-heated foods in oval-shaped containers. J. Food Sci.
54, 1327-1331, 1363
Smith, T. and Tung, M.A. (1982) Comparison of formula methods
for calculating thermal process lethality. J. Food Sci. 47, 626630
Steele, R.J. and Board, P.W. (1979a) Thermal process calculations
using sterilizing ratios. J. Food Technol. 14, 227-235
Steele, R.J. and Board, P.W. (1979b) Amendments to Ball’s formula
method for calculating the lethal value of thermal processes. J.
Food Sci. 44. 292-293
94 Food Control 1995 Volume 6 Number 2
Stoforos, N.G. (1991) On Ball’s formula method for thermal process
calculations. J. Food Proc. Eng. 13, 255-268
Stoforos, N.G. (1994) Recent studies on aseptic processing of particu-
late foods. In Developments in Food Engineering (Eds Yano, T.,
Matsumo. R. and Nakamura. K.) Part 2. Blackie Academic &
Professional, London, pp. 745-747
Stoforos, N.G. and Merson, R.L. (1991) Measurement of heat
transfer coefficients in rotating liquid/particulate systems.
Biotechol. Prog. 7, 267-271
Stumbo, C.R. (1948) Bacteriological considerations relating to pro-
cess evaluation. Food Technol. 2, 115-132
Stumbo, C.R. (1949a) Further consideration relating to evaluation of
thermal processes for foods. Food Technol. 3, 126-131
Stumbo, C.R. (1949b) Thermobacteriology as applied to food proces-
sing. Adv. Food Res. 2, 47-115
Stumbo, C.R. (1953) New procedures for evaluating thermal proces-
ses for foods in cylindrical containers. Food Technol. 7, 309-315
Stumbo, C.R. (1973) Thermobacteriology in Food Processing, 2nd
edn, Academic Press, Inc., New York
Stumbo, C.R. and Longley, R.E. (1966) New parameters for process
calculation. Food Technol. 20, 341-345
Stumbo, C.R., Purohit, K.S. and Ramakrishnan, T.V. (1975) Ther-
mal process lethality guide for low-acid foods in metal containers.
J. Food Sci. 40, 13161323
Stumbo, C.R., Purohit, K.S., Ramakrishnan, T.V., Edans, D.A. and
Francis, F.J. (1983) CRC Handbook of Lethality Guides for
Low-Acid Canned Fooa!s CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL
Swartzel, K.R. (1982) Arrhenius kinetics as applied to product
constituent losses in ultra high temperature processing. J. Food
Sci. 47, 1886-1891
Taggart, R. and Farrow, F.D. (1941) Heat Penetration into Canned
Foods. Technical communication No. 2, The Metal Box Co. Ltd,
Research Division (reprinted from Food 10, 325, 1941 and Food
11, 13, 1942)
Teixeira, A.A. (1992) Thermal process calculations. In Food En-
gineering Handbook (Eds Heldman, D.R. and Lund, D.B.)
Marcel Dekker, New York, pp. 563-619
Teixeira, A.A. and Manson, J.E. (1982) Computer control of batch
retort operations with on-line correction of process deviations.
Food Technol. 36, 85-90
Teixeira, A.A., Dixon, J.R., Zahradnik, J.W. and Zinsmeister, G.E.
(1969a) Computer determination of spore survival distributions in
thermally-processed conduction-heated foods. Food Technol. 23,
352-354
Teixeira, A.A., Dixon, J.R., Zahradnik, J. W. and Zinsmeister, G.E.
(1969b) Computer optimization of nutrient retention in the
thermal processing of conduction-heated foods. Food Technol.
23, 845-850
Teixeira, A.A., Zinsmeister, G.E. and Zahradnik, J.W. (1975)
Computer simulation of variable retort control and container
geometry as a possible means of improving thiamine retention in
thermally processed foods. 1. Food Sci. 40, 656-659
Tbijssen, H.A.C. and Kerkbof, J.A.M. (1977) Effect of temperature
and water concentration during processing on food quality. J.
Food Proc. Eng. 1, 129-147
Th@se.n, H.A.C., Kerkhof, P.J.A.M. and Leitkens, A.A.A. (1978)
Short-cut method for the calculation of sterilization conditions
yielding optimum quality retention for conduction-type heating of
packaged foods. J. Food Sci. 43, 1096-1101
Vinters, J.E., Patel, R.H. and Halaby, G.A. (1975) Thermal process
evaluation by programmable computer calculator. Food Technol.
29 (3), 42, 44, 46, 48
Wang, J., Wolfe, R.R. and Hayakawa, K. (1991) Thermal process
lethality variability in conduction-heated foods. J. Food Sci. 56,
1424-1428
Zecbman, L.G. and Ptlug, I.J. (1989) Location of the slowest heating
zone for natural-convection-heating fluids in metal containers. J.
Food Sci. 54,205-209,226