Journal of Food Engineering 45 (2000) 5565

www.elsevier.com/locate/jfoodeng

Vacuum cooling technology for the food processing industry: a review

Karl McDonald, Da-Wen Sun *
FRCFT Group, Department of Agricultural and Food Engineering, University College Dublin, National University of Ireland, Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin
2, Ireland
Received 28 October 1999; accepted 31 January 2000

Abstract
Vacuum cooling is a rapid evaporative cooling technique, which can be applied to specic foods and in particular vegetables.
Increased competitiveness together with greater concerns about product safety and quality has encouraged some food manufac-
turers to use vacuum cooling technology. The advantages of vacuum cooling include shorter processing times, consequent energy
savings, improved product shelf life, quality and safety. However, the cooling technique has a limited range of application. Tra-
ditionally, products such as lettuce and mushrooms have been cooled under vacuum. Recent research has highlighted the possible
applications of vacuum cooling for cooling meat and bakery products, fruits and vegetables. This paper comprehensively reviews the
current state of the technology. It is concluded that while vacuum cooling remains a highly specialised cooling technique, with
continuing research its application may make its use in the food and vegetable processing industries more competitive and wide-
spread. 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Vacuum cooling; Rapid cooling; Chilling; Refrigeration; Foods; Vegetables; Meats; Ready meals

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

2. Applications of vacuum cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

2.1. Fruit and vegetables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
2.2. Meat and meat products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
2.3. Fish and sh products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
2.4. Sauces, soups and particulate foods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
2.5. Bakery products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
2.6. Ready meals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

3. Advantages and disadvantages of vacuum cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

4. Factors aecting vacuum cooling rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

1. Introduction tion of moisture under vacuum (Mellor, 1980). Prod-

Vacuum cooling is a batch process whereby moist
products containing free water are cooled by evapora-
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +353-1-706-7493; fax: +353-1-475-
2119.
E-mail address: dawen.sun@ucd.ie (D.-W. Sun).
0260-8774/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 2 6 0 - 8 7 7 4 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 4 1 - 8
ucts to be cooled are loaded into a vacuum chamber and
the system put into operation (Anon, 1994) as shown in
Fig. 1. The vacuum cooling process is as follows: As the
boiling point changes as a function of saturation pres-
sure as shown in Fig. 2, for a boiling temperature of
0C, the saturation pressure will be 6.09 mbar. As the
pressure in the vacuum chamber is reduced, the energy
56 K. McDonald, D.-W. Sun / Journal of Food Engineering 45 (2000) 5565
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of a laboratory scale vacuum cooler.
required to evaporate the water is furnished by the
product itself in the form of latent heat of evaporation.
A driving dierential due to the vapour pressure dier-
ence between water in the product and the surrounding
causes vapour to escape into the surrounding atmo-
sphere so that the sensible heat of the product is reduced
(Everington, 1993).
Prior to the saturation temperature having been
reached, vacuum pumps used to evacuate air from the
vacuum chamber were not achieving cooling of the
product but were solely evacuating air from the chamber
(Anon, 1986). Thus, it is necessary to reduce the pres-
sure in the vacuum chamber to the ash point as quickly
as possible for both quality and economical reasons.
The pressure in the vacuum chamber is allowed to de-
crease until the product has reached its desired tem-
perature or the temperature drop ceases at a point where
there is no free water available for evaporation (Mellor,
1980; Sun, 1999a).
The pumps used to evacuate vacuum chambers are of
two main designs, with one employing mechanical ro-
tary pumps and the other using steam jets and baro-
Fig. 2. Saturation pressure of water.
metric condensers (Decker, 1993; DiRisio, 1994). The
water vapour given of by a product in a vacuum
chamber during evaporation must be removed to pre-
vent saturation of the air, which would prevent further
evaporation and ecient cooling. In mechanical vacuum
cooling, water vapour is passed over refrigerated coils
where it condenses on the cold surface and passes to
drain. If the water vapour were not removed, very large
pumps would be required to remove the vapour, as each
kilogram of water expands to approximately 2000 m3 of
vapour at the low pressures used in vacuum cooling
(Barger, 1961). In steam jet vacuum coolers, some of the
water vapour is liqueed by using barometric condens-
ers and exhausting to the atmosphere (Decker, 1993;
DiRisio, 1994).
Vacuum cooling is a highly product specic process.
It has been traditionally used as a precooling treatment
for products such as leafy vegetables (Harvey, 1963;
Cheyney, Kasmire & Morris, 1979; Shewfelt, 1986;
Anon, 1981a; Turk & Celik, 1993; Tambunan, Mori-
shima & Kawagoe, 1994; Varszegi, 1994; Shewfelt &
Phillips, 1996; Sullivan, Davenport & Julian, 1996) and
mushrooms (Gormley & MacCanna, 1967; Gormley,
1975a; Noble, 1985; Burton, Frost & Atkey, 1987; Frost,
Burton & Atkey, 1989) to remove eld heat and thus
extend shelf life and quality. Vacuum cooling has been
applied to horticultural products in the US for over 50
years (Barger, 1961) with the rst commercial vacuum
cooling plant built in Salinas, California in 1948 to
cool lettuce (Thompson & Rumsey, 1984). The most
important characteristics for commercial application of
vacuum cooling are that products should have a large
surface to mass ratio, be able to lose a percentage of
their moisture content and have a structure not exces-
sively damaged by the removal of water thus avoiding
loss of quality (Noble, 1985).
The removal of water vapour from a product during
vacuum cooling results in the loss of heat, approxi-
 K. McDonald, D.-W. Sun / Journal of Food Engineering 45 (2000) 5565
mately equivalent to the latent heat of vaporisation of
water (Longmore, 1971; Anon, 1971). Products with
high water contents in excess of 90% such as mushrooms
and lettuce would experience a cooling eect of ap-
proximately 5.56C for every 1% loss in weight due to
water removal (Frost et al., 1989; Barger, 1963). It is
possible to actually freeze products using vacuum
cooling. However, in most cases this is not desirable as
freezing can cause cellular and structural damage due to
formation of ice crystals. An advantage of vacuum
cooling is that it is possible to stop the cooling process
at a predetermined pressure and temperature (Anon,
1971).
Current applications of vacuum cooling technology
are almost exclusively restricted to the horticultural in-
dustry and within this to only a limited number of
vegetables and fungi. However, research has indicated
that vacuum cooling may have wider applications
throughout the agriculture and food industry. Current
research indicates that vacuum cooling may have po-
tential for use with a wider variety of horticultural
produce (Hayakawa, Kawano, Iwamoto & Onodera,
1983; Ishii & Shinbori, 1988; Sun, 1998; Sun, 1999a,b),
and in the meat (Burfoot, Self, Hudson, Wilkins &
James, 1990; Morgan, Radewonuk & Scullen, 1996; Mc
Donald, 1999; Mc Donald & Sun, 1999a,b; Mc Donald,
Sun, Desmond & Kenny, 1999, Mc Donald, Sun &
Kenny, 2000; Sun, Kenny, Mc Donald & Desmond,
1999; Sun & Wang, 2000) and bakery industries
(Khromeenkov, Uteshev & Surashov, 1975; Bradshaw,
1976; Lehrke, 1976; Anon, 1978a,b; Dawson, 1982;
Kratochvil & Holas, 1984a,b). Research has also been
carried out to extend the application to the oricultural
industry (Sun & Brosnan, 1999). Recent trends in the
food industry and non-conventional processing tech-
niques have heightened interest in vacuum cooling in
applications such as the safety of cook chill meats
(Gaze, Shaw & Archer, 1998). This paper presents the
current position of vacuum cooling application in the
food and vegetable industries and examines the relative
advantages and disadvantages of the technique and
prospects with respect to further research and under-
standing of the eects on products.
2. Applications of vacuum cooling
2.1. Fruit and vegetables
Fresh items such as fruit and vegetables are respiring,
transpiring, senescing and dying all at the same time
(Shewfelt & Phillips, 1996). It is generally accepted that
the quality of fruits and vegetables begins to deteriorate
upon harvesting and continues to decline quickly
thereafter (Anon, 1981a). Field heat can cause rapid
deterioration of some horticultural crops such as lettuce
57
and it is necessary to remove this heat as quickly as
possible after harvesting (Gormley, 1975b). The eect of
temperature on shelf life and decay is dramatic. Re-
ducing temperature from 10C to 5C approximately
doubles shelf life (Cheyney et al., 1979). Vacuum cooling
can rapidly and conveniently reduce temperature due to
eld heat (Gormley, 1975b).
Lettuce stored at ambient temperatures will normally
have a shelf life of 35 days. However, storage at 1C
with 90% relative humidity can increase shelf life by up
to 14 days (Artes & Martinez, 1994, 1996). Using vac-
uum cooling vegetables such as lettuce can be cooled
from about 25C (eld temperature) to 1C in less than
30 min, after which they can be distributed by refriger-
ated vehicles into cold storage depots and retail outlets
(Everington, 1993). Vacuum cooling is the standard
commercial procedure used for lettuce in many Euro-
pean countries, as well as in the US. It is applied com-
monly to iceberg lettuce prior to wrapping in PVC lm
or after packaging in perforated polypropylene bags
(Artes & Martinez, 1994, 1996). The benecial eect of
vacuum cooling and packaging in prolonging shelf life
and reducing weight loss of lettuce has been extensively
reported (Barger, 1961; Aharoni & Yehosua, 1973;
Cheyney et al., 1979; Stanley, 1989; Wang, Hinsch &
Kindya, 1984; Artes & Martinez, 1994, 1996).
Research into vacuum cooling of other vegetables is
limited. However, indications are that the technique has
a practical application for a wide variety of fruit vege-
tables and some grains including strawberries (Gormley,
1975b; Eccher & Borinelli, 1974; Anon, 1981a), black-
currants (Anon, 1981a), melons (Chambroy & Flanzy,
1980), cabbage (Greidanus, 1971; Shiina, Kawano, Ya-
mashita & Iwamoto, 1994), spinach (Sun, 1998), broc-
coli (Sun, 1999a,b; Perrin, 1981), rice (Murata, 1974),
peppers (Sherman & Allen, 1983; Sun, 1998), turnips
(Ishii & Shinbori, 1988), aubergine (Hayakawa et al.,
1983), cucumber (Hayakawa et al., 1983), and carrot
(Hayakawa et al., 1983). Research has shown that for
fruits and vegetables with high water contents such as
those mentioned, the resulting weight loss in cooling
from an ambient temperature of 25C to 1C would be
approximately 4%. This weight loss is a signicant
problem in vacuum cooling of fresh vegetables. How-
ever, pre-wetting of produce with water prior to cooling
can reduce weight loss (Chen, 1988; Sun, 1999b). In
some cases the uptake of water can result in a net weight
gain after vacuum cooling (Everington, 1993). Some
research has indicated that the time of the pre-wetting
interval will aect weight losses (Sun, 1999b; Barger,
1961; Sun, 1998).
Another main application of vacuum cooling for
vegetables is the pre-cooling of mushrooms. Mushrooms
have a short shelf life of 34 days at ambient tempera-
tures, although this can be signicantly increased using
cold storage and refrigerated distribution techniques
58 K. McDonald, D.-W. Sun / Journal of Food Engineering 45 (2000) 5565
(Murr & Morris, 1975). However, it is not always ap-
preciated that the time taken to cool mushrooms is an
important factor (Frost et al., 1989). Mushrooms are
over 90% water and their porous structure allows water
to escape readily (Noble, 1985), which makes them
suitable for vacuum cooling. Manufacturers of vacuum
coolers claim that vacuum cooling can extend shelf life
of mushrooms (Barnard, 1974; Anon, 1977) but exper-
imental work still has to fully quantify this extension
(Noble, 1985). Burton et al. (1987) indicated that the
advantage of vacuum cooling over conventional cooling
is equivalent to approximately 24 h of extended shelf life
after 102 h storage. However, this could not be ex-
plained entirely by the faster cooling rates (Burton et al.,
1987). The technique has been adopted commercially in
the US, UK, Ireland and other parts of Europe (Lane,
1972), and has been found to cool mushrooms uni-
formly within a stack (Barger, 1963).
However, research has indicated that while vacuum
cooling is a rapid and ecient method of cooling it can
have adverse eects on mushroom quality. Barnard
(1974) found that weight losses increased with increasing
mushroom surface area. In these experiments open cup
mushrooms suered greater weight losses than closed
cup mushrooms. It was also pointed out that only high
quality mushrooms could be subjected to vacuum
cooling as discoloration of damaged or wet mushrooms
were accelerated during the process (Barnard, 1974).
These ndings are signicant because they indicate that
a proportion of any mushroom harvest will not be
suitable for vacuum cooling (Anon, 1986). In addition it
has been found that weight loss as water vapour during
storage at 5C is greater in vacuum cooled mushrooms
(Frost et al., 1989). Reasons for this are inconclusive,
but it is postulated that it may be due to increased
mushroom hyphal surface area (Frost et al., 1989).
However, scanning electron microscopy examinations
have indicated no apparent damage or change in hyphal
structure (Frost et al., 1989).
Enzymatic browning of mushroom caps caused by
the enzyme polyphenol oxidase is a major criterion of
mushroom quality (Gormley & MacCanna, 1967). Re-
search has indicated that while there is no signicant
dierence in whiteness between vacuum and conven-
tional cooled mushrooms kept at 5C for 102 h, there is
a signicant dierence if mushrooms are stored at 18C
after cooling. Vacuum cooled mushrooms were less
brown at the end of the experimental period than those
conventionally cooled (Frost et al., 1989). Gormely
(1975a) indicated that vacuum cooling of slightly dete-
riorated mushrooms accelerated browning compared to
non-vacuum cooled mushrooms held at 1C for 810
days, in comparison to no evidence to suggest that
vacuum cooling increases enzyme activity as reported by
Burton et al. (1987). However, pre- and post-packaging
of similar type mushrooms will reduce activity of the
polyphenol oxidase and lower the incidence of browning
(Gormley, 1975a).
2.2. Meat and meat products
The main objective of a cooked meat producer is to
produce an economically viable product that is micro-
biologically safe and consumer acceptable (Mc Donald
et al., 1999). However, industrial-cooking operations
cannot be relied upon to destroy all pathogenic micro-
organisms that may be present. If cooling rates follow-
ing cooking are suciently slow, microbial spores
surviving cooking can germinate, grow and form toxins
(Mc Donald, 1999; Mc Donald et al., 1999, 2000; James,
1990a; Blankenship, Craven, Leer & Custer, 1988;
Juneja, Snyder & Marmer, 1997). Therefore, for safety
reasons, a minimum temperature-time treatment should
be achieved during cooking followed by suciently
rapid cooling to minimise growth of any surviving
pathogens (Burfoot et al., 1990; Sun & Wang, 2000).
As the eectiveness of vacuum cooling is dependent
on surface to volume ratio its application to large meat
products such as hams would appear limited (Mc
Donald, 1999). However, some research has indicated
the possible use of vacuum cooling to rapidly cool
cooked meats and meat products. James (1990b) showed
that it was possible to cool large hams (6.87.3 kg) from
70C to 10C in only 30 min using vacuum cooling in
comparison to 624 min for more conventional air blast
cooling. Burfoot et al. (1990) also demonstrated the ef-
fectiveness of vacuum cooling in cooling large joints of
turkey, beef and ham (Mc Donald, 1999). Hofmans and
Veerkamp (1976) investigated the eect of vacuum
cooling on broiler carcasses and found cooling times
from 40C to 10C to be similar to air blast chilling at
2.5 m/s. The research showed that vacuum cooling was
not suitable for commercial use due to the slow cooling
eect (Veerkamp & Hofmans, 1977). Everington (1993)
investigated the eect of surface pasteurisation followed
by vacuum cooling on oal and found that the cooling
time was 3 min from 95C to 40C, after which time
cooling became progressively longer. The time taken to
reach 10C was approximately 20 min. However, despite
the rapid cooling, mass losses due to water evaporation
in vacuum cooled meats can be as high as 10% and this
is a major economic loss to producers. Some meat
products such as minced, diced or sliced meats can be
cooked in trays by steam injection and cooled under
vacuum. The accumulation of steam condensate in the
trays during cooking will oset most of the evaporative
losses in vacuum cooling. Losses were comparable to
those obtained in air blast chilling of 23% (Everington,
1993).
In addition, loss of water has signicant eects on
meat quality particularly texture. Beef products cooled
by vacuum cooling were found to be tougher
 K. McDonald, D.-W. Sun / Journal of Food Engineering 45 (2000) 5565
(Mc Donald et al., 2000). However, Self, Nute, Burfoot
& Moncrie (1990) indicated that pressure change rate
during vacuum cooling did not aect cooked chicken
breast tenderness. Vacuum cooling has been shown to
signicantly reduce microbial load (2.0 log10 CFU/g) in
cooked beef joints in comparison to other commonly
used cooling methods such as air blast cooling (Mc
Donald & Sun, 1999a). Burfoot et al. (1990) in contrast
found that bacterial condition of large meats was not
signicantly aected by cooling methods.
In the production of many processed meats such as
ham, the raw meat following brine injection is often
tumbled under vacuum to assist in increasing the rate of
myosin release from the meat which improves bind and
meat quality. However, this tumbling action creates
heat, which is detrimental to the eciency of the pro-
cess, and refrigeration must be provided to keep the
product cool during the tumbling. A patent has pro-
posed the use of the vacuum itself to both cool and in-
crease the rate of myosin extraction from the raw meat
without the use of external refrigeration. However, it
has a high initial cost as well as high running costs
(Franklin, Goembel & Hahn, 1990).
2.3. Fish and sh products
Vacuum cooling has had limited application in the
sheries industry. However, industrial processing of
tuna has made some use of the cooling technique.
Normally, when tuna are caught at sea they are imme-
diately frozen in brine until transported to canning
plants on the mainland. Here, they are rst thawed and
then steam cooked to 65C in cylindrical vessels. Fol-
lowing this the tuna is cooled to between 35C and 40C
using vacuum cooling, which typically results in a 34%
weight loss. Due to the high nal cooling temperature
(3540C), cooling times of greater than 20 min are re-
quired in order to prevent damage to the delicate esh of
the tuna (Everington, 1993). Other research has indi-
cated the possible application of vacuum cooling at sea
to cool small sh such as whiting or crustacean such as
shrimp with the energy to power equipment coming
from waste stack gases (Carver, 1975). Rolfe (1963)
demonstrated the use of vacuum cooling to freeze trays
of cooked haddock llets with tray loading of 12.75
kg/m2 . However, weight losses were as high as 21%.
2.4. Sauces, soups and particulate foods
Vacuum cooling of meat sauces, meat slurries or
meat-requiring texturisation is a common practice in
modern frozen and chilled ready meal production. Use
of vacuum cooling provides an opportunity to develop a
batch cooling process for liquid systems that eciently
and eectively reduces the temperature of the mass
(Shaevel, 1993). In this type of vacuum cooling system
59
the products are normally placed in a jacketed sealed
vessel cooked under pressure and then vacuum cooled
(Anon, 1981b). Scraper blades are sometimes used in the
vessels to ensure that viscous product does not adhere to
the vessel walls. Weight loss within these closed systems
are more readily controlled than with other vacuum
cooling systems by adjusting composition and water
content of the sauces (Everington, 1993).
Some companies have indicated diculties in cooling
meat slurries by conventional methods (James, 1990a).
Research has shown that large 1100 kg batches of meat
sauce can be cooled from 85C to 10C in less than 30
min using vacuum cooling in comparison to air blast
cooling which can take in excess of 6 h (James, 1997). Di
Risio (1990) reported that it was possible to cook 3785 l
of tomato sauce to 93C in 18 min and cool to 7C in 14
min using vacuum cooling. The process provides fast,
uniform cooling of these products. However, consider-
able problems are faced in designing systems that can be
cleaned easily and operated continuously (James, Bur-
foot & Bailey, 1987).
2.5. Bakery products
Cooling under vacuum can accelerate the cooling of
bakery products. For example, delicate products such as
panetonni (fermented Italian cake) can be cooled in 4
min under vacuum in comparison to 24 h in air. This has
led to many Italian producers of this product switching
over to vacuum cooling (Everington, 1993). However,
due to structural changes resulting from a build up of
vapour pressure in product areas of low vapour per-
meability such as the crust on bread, specialised vacuum
cooling techniques are required. Use of a modulated
vacuum cooler (MVC) allows rapid cooling of bakery
products without adverse eects on volume and texture
(Bradshaw, 1976). Rather than applying a continuous
vacuum to the product, the pressure is modulated dur-
ing cooling. The MVC system allows the speed at which
the vacuum is drawn to be controlled, bringing about a
reduction in cooling times and improved quality.
Vacuum cooling of bakery products typically takes
place in a temperature range 9830C which results in a
weight loss of about 1% for every 10C drop in tem-
perature or 6.8% from 98C to 30C. However, con-
ventional air blast cooling normally results in a 35%
weight loss depending on air velocity (Everington,
1993). Therefore, weight loss dierences between the two
methods of cooling are small with weight losses due to
vacuum cooling being further compensated by reducing
baking times to increase moisture retention in the
product (Acker & Ball, 1977). Products will then un-
dergo cooling at a higher weight thus compensating for
water loss during vacuum cooling (Bradshaw, 1976).
Wheaten breads (2 kg loaves), French bread sticks,
meat pies, sausage rolls, pastries and cakes cooled
60 K. McDonald, D.-W. Sun / Journal of Food Engineering 45 (2000) 5565
conventionally in 13 h can be cooled in times ranging
from 30 s to 5 min with MVC (Acker & Ball, 1977;
Anon, 1978a). MVC systems are operated either in
batch or continuous in-line systems. Choice of a par-
ticular system is dependent on production levels.
Research on the use of MVC systems has illustrated
notable advantages including extension of crust life in
breads, improved product shape and moisture distribu-
tion with less collapse and contraction, increased shelf
life due to absence of mould contamination during
cooling, increased productivity due to rapid cooling
times, elimination of the 24 h stabilisation period nec-
essary for bread loaves intended for toasted rusk pro-
duction, improvement of mechanical handling of soft
exterior products such as sponge cake due to develop-
ment of temporary external rmness, and reduction in
oor space required for cooling (Acker & Ball, 1977;
Shipman, 1978; Chriastel, 1978). However, other re-
search has indicated the eects of vacuum cooling on the
aroma of bread. Vacuum cooling is demonstrated as
reducing the aroma substance content of bread, espe-
cially more volatile substances as determined by head-
space concentration gas chromatography and sensory
analysis. However, signicant dierences were not
demonstrated between the taste of vacuum and con-
ventionally cooled breads (Kratochvil & Holas, 1984a,b;
Kratochvil, 1981).
2.6. Ready meals
Vacuum cooling systems are suitable for wide spread
integration with the cooking operations of many ready
meal manufacturers. In these cases the same unit can be
used for both cooking and cooling without the need or
delay in physical transfer of product between vessels.
Such an operation decreases processing times, increases
throughput, maintains high quality of heat sensitive
products and provides an ecient method of cooling
high particulate sauces and slurries (James et al., 1987).
However, the method and extend of vacuum cooling
needs careful consideration. Use of high vacuum can
draw cooked product into the vacuum pumping plant or
splatter sauce onto the roof of the processing vessel
(James et al., 1987). In these situations, extensive
cleaning operations will be required to remove the
product from the equipment and prevent microbial
proliferation. Use of a low vacuum will increase cooling
times (Carver, 1975). As with large cooked meat prod-
ucts the rate at which the vacuum is applied will aect
the textural qualities of a sauce or slurry. As vacuum is
applied, boiling will occur in the product causing ex-
pansion and rupturing within tissues. Development of
these systems is constrained by safety concerns in op-
erating over a range of positive and negative pressures
(James et al., 1987).
3. Advantages and disadvantages of vacuum cooling
Table 1 summarises the advantages and disadvan-
tages of vacuum cooling to dierent sectors of the food
processing industry. Most vacuum cooling apparatus
are operated in a batchwise process. That is, foodstus
are placed in a vacuum chamber, the chamber is evac-
uated to predetermined level, the food is cooled and then
removed. However, this production method is time-
consuming and inecient. In some incidences, it may be
necessary to hold products temporarily until they are
cooled using the vacuum cooler equipment. In this case
the holding time can be variable. For example, some
cooked product batches may have to be held at high
temperature for longer periods than other batches,
which can have negative eects on both product safety
and quality. However, a recent development aims to
make vacuum cooling a more continuous process.
Products to be cooled are placed in a plurality of con-
tainers designed to hold products for cooling. The
containers are inserted successively into a hollow cylin-
der from one end. The level of vacuum in the containers
is then increased through a plurality of through holes
formed in the cylinder in an axial direction, and through
holes formed in the containers, thereby cooling the food
in the containers. The containers are then removed from
the cylinder from the other end one after another after
being released from evacuation (Hokkaido, 1990).
The major advantage of vacuum cooling over other
techniques of cooling is the short time required to cool a
suitable product to a given temperature (Figs. 3 and 4).
Several studies have illustrated just how quick vacuum
cooling is in comparison to more conventional forms of
cooling such as air blast, water immersion and cold
storage shown in Fig. 5, due to the large latent heat
removed when moisture evaporates from the product
surface (Burfoot et al., 1990; Mc Donald et al., 2000).
Unlike other cooling methods such as air blast cooling,
the cooling eect of vacuum cooling is generated within
a product, which allows for uniform cooling of even
tightly wrapped products (Barger, 1961; Noble, 1985).
However, moisture must be allowed to evaporate from a
product to facilitate vacuum cooling, thus adequate
venting of containers or packaging is necessary (Barger,
1961). If a product is washed and if there is a need for a
drying stage, vacuum cooling may be used not only to
cool but also to remove the surplus moisture, which may
be present on the surface of the product (Longmore,
1971).
In normal circumstances, vegetables are cooled by air
blast cooling or in cold storage. However, this requires a
large storage surface area if vegetables are to be cooled
correctly. In addition, in many cold storage installations
vegetables are stacked in crates with a relatively small
quantity of product per crate. This will increase cost to
the producer. Vacuum cooling can help decrease this
 K. McDonald, D.-W. Sun / Journal of Food Engineering 45 (2000) 5565 61

Table 1
Advantages and disadvantages of vacuum cooling to dierent sectors of the food processing industry

Applications Advantages Disadvantages

Fruit and vegetables Increased shelf life Applicable mostly to large leafy produce
Rapid cooling times resulting in quicker distributiona Loss of moisture due to cooling technique resulting in
product weight lossb
Low running costs High capital investmenta
Accurate temperature controla
Mushrooms Increased shelf life by up to 24 h Normally a batch operationa
Uniform cooling within a stack Increasing moisture losses with increasing mushroom
surface area
No mechanical damage due to coolinga Discoloration of poor quality mushrooms
Meat products Increased hygiene and product safetya Narrow product range, applicable to those products which
can freely lose watera
Reduced microbial counts High loss of product yield due to moisture lossc
Very rapid cooling resulting in signicant nancial savings Some loss of product quality due to moisture loss
and compliance with current guidelines governing cooling
of cooked meats
Cooling units are compact and require little maintenancea,d

Sauces and soupse Allowing development of closed systems where sauces are Dicult to operate on a continuous basisa; b
both cooked and cooled in the same vesselb
Weight losses due to cooling more readily controlled than Sauces splattering on the roofs of processing vessels during
in other vacuum cooling systemsb vacuum cooling and dicult to cleanb
Ecient cooling system for products such as food slurries
which are dicult to coolb
Bakery products Very rapid cooling of delicate confectionery items Specialised modulated vacuum cooling (MVC) technology
required for satisfactory results
Smaller weight losses than in other vacuum cooled product Some loss of product aroma due to vacuum cooling
Use of MVC extending crust life of breads and improving
product shape
Increased shelf life of many products due to absence of
moulds during cooling
Increased productivity due to shorter cooling timesa
Ready meals Suitable for wide spread integration with many ready meal High vacuum can draw cooked product into the vacuum
cooking operationsb pumping plantb
No delay in physical transfer of product to separate Low vacuum increasing cooling timesa
cooling vessels with integrated systemsb
Good for cooling heat sensitive foods such as cream based Concerns about safety in systems which operate over a
productsb wide range of positive and negative pressuresb
a
Generally applicable to all food areas.
b
Losses can be controlled by pre-spraying of water onto the produce prior to cooling.
c
Losses can be controlled or reduced by using MVC and increased brine injection levels in some products.
d
Units will vary in size depending on the application.
e
Applicable to both sauces/soups and ready meal products.

cost (Greidanus, 1971). Furthermore, the type of pack-
aging used to hold a product in cold storage will have an
eect on the rate of cooling, unlike vacuum cooling
where the eect is negligible (Longmore, 1973). Re-
search has indicated that in contrast to vacuum cooling,
air blast cooling is quicker for non-leafy vegetables and
slower for leafy varieties. This is because in air blast
cooling, heat is transferred by convection on the outer
surface and by conduction from the surface to the cen-
tre. For leafy vegetables, the air between the leaves re-
stricts the heat conduction process due to its low
thermal conductivity and therefore cooling is slower
(Sun, 1998).
The structure and indigenous characteristics of many
products can present a number of problems in cooling.
Mushrooms, for example, are traditionally dicult to
cool properly due to their high moisture content and
delicate physical structure. However, vacuum cooling
has been shown to cool products such as mushrooms
quickly, uniformly and eectively providing appropriate
vacuum and processing times are applied (Longmore,
1971; Anon, 1971). As vacuum cooling is carried out in a
static state, there is no mechanical damage (bruising or
attrition of the product) as in some other cooling
methods such as uidised bed cooling (Longmore, 1971;
Anon, 1971).
62 K. McDonald, D.-W. Sun / Journal of Food Engineering 45 (2000) 5565
Fig. 3. Temperature distribution of various products during vaccum
cooling process.
Fig. 4. Temperature distribution of large (45 kg) cooked meat joints
during a typical vaccum cooling process.
Fig. 5. Typical cooling curves for large meat products (45 kg) cooled
by dierent methods.
It is recognised in the vegetable industry that pre-
cooling and cold storage of products helps to maintain
product quality and increase shelf life. However, the
practice of pre-cooling in cold storage areas has limita-
tions that can be overcome by using vacuum cooling.
Cooling rates in cold storage can be slow depending on
the type of product container, and location of product in
a crate or pallet. Faster cooling rates could be obtained
in cold storage by increasing air velocity and refrigera-
tion. However, this may result in surface freezing of the
product, irregular cooling of the inside of the product
and subsequent damage (Longmore, 1971). In contrast,
vacuum cooling rates can be as high as 0.5C/min
without causing freezing. The quicker cooling time al-
lows for an increased shelf life due to decreased time in
cold storage (Longmore, 1973). Precise temperature
control is possible with vacuum cooling where product
temperature can be brought within 13C of freezing
point by simply controlling the absolute pressure (Anon,
1971).
The major disadvantage of vacuum cooling is the loss
of weight due to moisture removal. Weight loss is an
inevitable consequence of the vacuum cooling related to
temperature reduction (Barger, 1961). Weight losses
depend on a number of factors in particular, available
surface area. Increasing surface area will facilitate an
increased weight loss during vacuum cooling (Noble,
1985). Procedures are available which add water during
cooling to prevent weight loss, but the equipment in-
volved can be expensive and water tolerate packaging is
needed (Chen, 1988; Sun, 1998). The vacuum cooling
process and subsequent loss of moisture can also have
detrimental eects on product quality such as texture,
colour and sensory properties (Gormley, 1975a; Krat-
ochvil & Holas, 1984a; Mc Donald et al., 2000).
The equipment cost in vacuum cooling is high and the
process is not applicable to all products with an addi-
tional cold store perhaps being required to keep produce
cool (Longmore, 1973). However, the cost of vacuum
cooling is comparable to the cost of other cooling pro-
cesses even though the initial capital investment is high.
The higher the capacity of a vacuum cooler the lower the
initial cost per unit of throughput (Longmore, 1973).
The energy consumption of vacuum cooling installa-
tions has been found to be much lower than other
methods of cooling with high energy use coecients
(sensible heat/electrical energy) of 2.65 in comparison to
0.52 and 1.2 for air-blast and hydrocooling (Chen,
1986).
4. Factors aecting vacuum cooling rate
As previously mentioned, the high speed at which
vacuum cooling cools products is its major advantage
over other cooling methods. Aspects of vacuum cooling
equipment and the product itself will aect the vacuum
cooling rate. The capacity of the vacuum pumps used in
a vacuum cooler (Fig. 1) will aect the time required to
reduce the pressure in the vacuum chamber from at-
mospheric to the ash point of the product (Haas &
Gur, 1987). In addition, it has been shown that regula-
tion of pumping speed at specic times during cooling
will increase or decrease cooling rates (Barger, 1961).
The minimum pressure attained in a vacuum chamber
will also aect the cooling rate of a product. Use of
lower pressures in commercial vacuum coolers oers a
 K. McDonald, D.-W. Sun / Journal of Food Engineering 45 (2000) 5565
means of reducing nal product temperature within a
shorter time than at a higher nal pressure (Harvey,
1963). Regulation of the condenser temperatures can
also be used to increase or decrease cooling rates for
products. However, careful control of both the nal
pressure and the condenser temperature is needed to
avoid damage to the product due to surface freezing, for
example.
The initial temperature of a product will have an in-
signicant eect on nal temperature when products of
dierent initial temperatures are cooled. However,
products with higher initial temperatures such as a
cooked meat joint will require longer to cool than let-
tuce, for example, due to their relative structure, po-
rosity and geometry (Burfoot et al., 1990; Mc Donald et
al., 2000). Furthermore, the package of a product will
also aect the cooling rate in a vacuum cooler since the
temperature reduction depends on the freedom of
evaporation of moisture from the product (Barger,
1961). Some packaging can retard the movement of
moisture from the product. Exposed heads of lettuce, or
those wrapped in perforated packaging cool quicker
than those packed in cartons or impermeable packaging
(Harvey, 1963).
Research has indicated the possible application of
pre-wetting fruit and vegetables with water prior to
vacuum cooling to reduce weight loss and increase
cooling rates (Sun, 1998; Sun, 1999b). Pre-wetting is
useful in some products such as sweetcorn, celery or
iceberg lettuce which do not have a large surface area
and do not give up moisture readily (Harvey, 1963; Sun,
1998). In addition, longer pre-wetting times will decrease
weight loss in various products such as mushrooms. It
has been shown that a pre-wetting time of 5 min with
mushrooms will eliminate vacuum cooling weight loss
and result in a mass gain of up to 0.6% (Sun, 1999b).
Pre-wetting of products such as cooked meats with high
initial temperature may also be useful, since less mois-
ture has to be removed from the tissue to obtain the
desired nal cooling temperature. However, dangers of
cross contamination of product with the water used in
pre-wetting are of serious concern.
Analysis of the above factors which aect cooling rate
and quality of product cooled by vacuum cooling has
led to interest in mathematically modeling the process,
so that predictions can be made about its eects on
particular products (Burfoot, Hayden & Badran, 1989;
Fejes, 1994; Houska, Zitny, Sestak, Jeschke & Burfoot,
1994; Houska et al., 1996; Varszegi, 1994). This may
lead to better design of vacuum cooling equipment, and
a greater understanding of the eects of the process on
physical, chemical and sensory properties of food
products cooled by the technique. However, modeling of
the vacuum cooling process is still largely unexplored
and requires further research. The Flair Flow initiative
in Europe aims to make the prediction of the thermal
63
behavior in foods more accurate by collecting, measur-
ing and validating data on processing techniques in-
cluding vacuum cooling (Anon, 1995).
5. Conclusions
The review has shown that vacuum cooling is an es-
tablished cooling technique in the cooling of leafy veg-
etables such as lettuce and may have wider applications
in cooling a variety of other foods and vegetable prod-
ucts in many parts of the world. The method has rela-
tively predictable cooling rates and weight losses for
particular products and associated temperature drops.
The advantage of cooling under vacuum is that cooling
times are reduced and temperature can be controlled to
preserve or enhance product quality. The benets to be
gained in terms of increased shelf life for fruits and
vegetables have been conrmed by research. However,
vacuum cooling remains a highly specialised cooling
technique applicable only to products with a large sur-
face to volume ratio and to products, which can lose a
proportion of moisture without adverse eects on
quality. It is apparent that vacuum cooling is only
worthwhile in situations where it is included as part of
an overall cold chain. As research continues on in-
creasing the practical applications of vacuum cooling
and improving the quality of vacuum cooled produce,
the attractiveness of vacuum cooling in terms of lower
capital and running costs than conventional cooling
systems will make its use in the food and vegetable
processing industries more competitive and widespread.
References
Acker, R., & Ball, K. M. J. (1977). Modulated vacuum cooling and
vacuum treatment of bakery products. Getreide Mehl und Brot, 31,
134138.
Aharoni, N., & Yehosua, B. (1973). Delaying deterioration of romaine
lettuce by vacuum cooling and modied atmosphere produced in
polyethylene packages. Journal of American Society of Horticul-
tural Science, 98, 464468.
Anon, (1971). Vacuum cooling handling dicult products. Canadian
Food Industries, 42, 1718.
Anon (1977). Vacuum cooling its application advantages and
disadvantages. Report No. 4152. Camberley, Surrey, UK: Penwalt
Stokes.
Anon, (1978a). Bakery products cooled in minutes instead of hours.
Modulated vacuum cooling is the key. Food Engineering Interna-
tional, 3, 3334.
Anon, (1978b). Modern methods for manufacture of marzipan,
persipan and similar products. Kakao und Zucker, 30, 204205.
Anon, (1981a). Vacuum cooling for fruits and vegetables. Food
Processing Industry, 12, 24.
Anon, (1981b). Rapid vacuum cooling. Food Processing Industry, 9,
49.
Anon (1986). Vacuum cooling. In C. W. Hall, A. W. Farrall, & A. C.
Rippen, Encyclopaedia of Food Engineering (p. 817). Westport,
Connecticut, USA: AVI Publishing Company.
64 K. McDonald, D.-W. Sun / Journal of Food Engineering 45 (2000) 5565
Anon (1994). Vacuum cooling. Methods of cooling fruits, vegetables,
and cut owers. In ASHRAE Handbook Refrigeration (10.710.9).
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning
Engineers.
Anon (1995). Thermophysical properties and behaviour of foods. Flair
Flow Europe Reports. F-FE 173/95.
Artes, F., & Martinez, J. A. (1994). Eects of vacuum cooling and
packaging lms on the shelf life of salinas lettuce. I.I.F./I.I.R.
Commissions C2, D2/D3. Brest, France.
Artes, F., & Martinez, J. A. (1996). Inuence of packaging treatments
on the keeping quality of salinas lettuce. Lebensmittel Wissens-
chaft und Technologie, 29, 664668.
Barger, W. R. (1961). Factors aecting temperature reduction and
weight-loss in vacuum cooled lettuce. Marketing Research Report
No. 469, United States Department of Agriculture (pp. 520).
Barger, W. R. (1963). Vacuum precooling. A comparison of cooling of
dierent vegetables. Marketing Research Report No. 600. United
States Department of Agriculture.
Barnard, N. (1974). Some experiments in vacuum cooling. Mushroom
Journal, 14, 4851.
Blankenship, L. C., Craven, S. E., Leer, R. G., & Custer, C. (1988).
Growth of Clostridium perfringens in cooked chili during cooling.
Applied Environmental Microbiology, 54, 11041108.
Bradshaw, W. (1976). Modulated vacuum cooling for bakery products.
Bakers Digest, 50, 2631.
Burfoot, D., Hayden, R., & Badran, R. (1989). Simulation of a
pressure cook/water and vacuum cooled processing system. In R.
W. Field, & J. A. Howell, Process Engineering in the Food Industry
Developments and Opportunities (pp. 2741). London: Elsevier
Applied Science.
Burfoot, D., Self, K. P., Hudson, W. R., Wilkins, T. J., & James, S. J.
(1990). Eect of cooking and cooling method on the processing
times, mass losses and bacterial condition of large meat joints.
International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 25, 657667.
Burton, K. S., Frost, C. E., & Atkey, P. T. (1987). Eect of vacuum
cooling on mushroom browning. International Journal of Food
Science and Technology, 22, 599606.
Carver, C. H. (1975). Vacuum cooling and thawing shery products.
Marine Fisheries Review, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Washington, USA, 37, 1521.
Chambroy, Y., & Flanzy, C. (1980). Vacuum precooling, ethylene and
storage of cantaloup melons. Comptes Rendus des Seances de I
Academie d Agriculture de France, 66, 813822.
Chen, Y. I. (1988). Vacuum, hydro, and forced-air cooling of farm
produce and their energy consumption. FFTC Book Series,
Taiwan, 37, 104111.
Chen, Y. L. (1986). Vacuum cooling and its energy use analysis.
Journal of Chinese Agricultural Engineering, 32, 4350.
Cheyney, C. C., Kasmire, R. F., & Morris, L. L. (1979). Vacuum
cooling wrapped lettuce. California Agriculture, 10, 1819.
Chriastel, L. (1978). Acceleration of bread cooling. Prumysl Potravin,
29, 398401.
Dawson, P. (1982). Improvements relating to vacuum cooling. British
Patent No. 1 605 159 (1605159).
Decker, L. O. (1993). Consider the cold facts about steam-jet vacuum
cooling. Chemical Engineering Progress, 1, 7477.
Di Risio, T. (1990). Vacuum cooling in food processing. Prepared
Foods, 159, 195197.
Di Risio, T. (1994). Steam ejector vacuum systems keep food
processors cool. Food Processing, 1, 7374.
Eccher, P., & Borinelli, M. G. (1974). Eect of air and vacuum
precooling on marketing of strawberries. Revue Generale du Froid,
65, 913918.
Everington, D. W. (1993). Vacuum technology for food processing.
Food Technology International Europe, 7174.
Fejes, T. (1994). Energetic modelling of batch vacuum coolers.
Hungarian Agricultural Engineering, 7, 2628.
Franklin, D. L., Goembel, A. J., & Hahn, D. D. (1990). Vacuum
chilling for processed meat. United States Patent Number 4942053.
Frost, C. E., Burton, K. S., & Atkey, P. T. (1989). A fresh look at
cooling mushrooms. Mushroom Journal, 193, 2329.
Gaze, J. E., Shaw, R., & Archer, J. (1998). Review of microbio-
logical hazards, industry practices, and UK legislation, guide-
lines and codes of practice. In Identication and Prevention of
Hazards Associated with Slow Cooling of Hams and Other Large
Cooked Meats and Meat Products Review No. 8 (pp. 112).
Campden & Chorleywood Food Research Association, Glouces-
tershire, UK.
Gormley, T. R. (1975a). A laboratory vacuum cooler. Irish Journal of
Agricultural Research, 14, 211213.
Gormley, T. R. (1975b). Vacuum cooling and mushroom whiteness.
Mushroom Journal, 27, 84, 86.
Gormley, T. R., & MacCanna, C. (1967). Prepackaging and shelf
life of mushrooms. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research, 6,
255265.
Greidanus, P. (1971). Economic aspects of vacuum cooling. Annual
Report of Springier Institute, Wageningen, Netherlands. Project
No. 644, 4750.
Haas, E., & Gur, G. (1987). Factors aecting the cooling rate of lettuce
in vacuum cooling installations. International Journal of Refriger-
ation, 10, 8286.
Harvey, J. M. (1963). Improving techniques for vacuum cooling
vegetables. ASHRAE Journal, 5, 4144.
Hayakawa, A., Kawano, S., Iwamoto, M., & Onodera, T. (1983).
Vacuum cooling characteristics of fruit vegetables and root
vegetables. Report of the National Food Research Institute
(Shokuryo Kenkyusho Kenkyu Hokku). No. 43, 109115.
Hofmans, G. J. P., & Veerkamp, C. H. (1976). Vacuum cooling of
broiler carcasses. In B. Erdtsieck, Proceedings of the Second
European Symposium on Poultry Meat Quality. European Feder-
ation Branch of the World Poultry Science Association.
Hokkaido, S. I. (1990). Vacuum cooling method and apparatus.
United States Patent Number 5088293.
Houska, M., Podloucky, S., Zitny, R., Gree, R., Sestak, J., Dostal, M.,
& Burfoot, D. (1996). Mathematical model of the vacuum cooling
of liquids. Journal of Food Engineering, 29, 339348.
Houska, M., Zitny, R., Sestak, J., Jeschke, J., & Burfoot, D. (1994).
Vacuum cooling process modelling. Potravinarske Vedy, 12, 115.
Ishii, K., & Shinbori, F. (1988). Eects of outer leaf trimming,
precooling methods and delay in precooling on changes in quality
of turnips. Journal of Japanese Society of Horticultural Science, 57,
544548.
James, S. J. (1990a). The cooling of cooked meat products. In
Proceedings of the Future Meat Manufacturing Processes (pp. 19).
London, UK: Institute of Mechanical Engineering.
James, S. J. (1990b). Cooling systems for ready meals and cooked
products. In R. W. Field, & J. A. Howell, Process Engineering in
the Food Industry 2: Convenience Foods and Quality Assurance
(pp.8897). London: Elsevier.
James, S. J. (1997). Secondary chilling of meat and meat products. In
Meat Refrigeration Why and How? (pp. 14). UK: University of
Bristol.
James, S. J., Burfoot, D., & Bailey, C. (1987). The engineering aspects
of ready meal production. In R. W. Field, & J. A. Howell, Process
Engineering in the Food Industry: Developments and Opportunities
(pp. 4358). London: Elsevier.
Juneja, V. K., Snyder, O. P., & Marmer, B. S. (1997). Potential for
growth from spores of Bacillus cereus and Clostridium botulinum
and vegetative cells of Staphylococcus aureus, Listeria monocyto-
gens, and Salmonella serotypes in cooked ground beef during
cooling. Journal of Food Protection, 4, 272275.
Khromeenkov, V. M., Uteshev, A. R., & Surashov, A. A. (1975).
Vacuum cooling during biscuit production. Izvestiya Vysshikh
Uchebnykh Zavedenii, Pishchevaya Tekhnologiya, 6, 144145.
 K. McDonald, D.-W. Sun / Journal of Food Engineering 45 (2000) 5565
Kratochvil, J. (1981). Eect of vacuum cooling on bread aroma. In
Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Aroma Substances in Foods
(pp. 143149), Prague, Czech Republic.
Kratochvil, J., & Holas, J. (1984a). Eect of vacuum cooling on the
content of aroma substances and sensory properties of bread.
Sobornik-UVTIZ-Potravinarske-Vedy, 2, 241251.
Kratochvil, J., & Holas, J. (1984b). Eect of vacuum cooling on aroma
of bread. Getreide-Mehl-und-Brot, 38, 173177.
Lane, W. C. (1972). Pre-packaging and marketing of fresh mushrooms.
Mushroom Science, 8, 763775.
Lehrke, G. (1976). Use of the Stephan high-speed cooker in marzipan
manufacture. International Review of Sugar Confectionery, 29, 403
404.
Longmore, A. P. (1971). Vacuum cooling of food products. Chemical
Processing, 2, 1718.
Longmore, A. P. (1973). The pros and cons of vacuum cooling. Food
Industries of South Africa, 26, 67, 9, 11.
Mc Donald, K. (1999). Safety in the cooling of large cooked meats.
The Food Science Times, 2, 312.
Mc Donald, K., & Sun, D. W. (1999a). Eects of dierent cooling
methods on microbiological quality of large cooked beef joints.
Paper Presented at 20th International Congress of Refrigeration IIR/
IIF, Sydney, Australia.
Mc Donald, K., & Sun, D. W. (1999b). Eect of cooling rate on the
quality of cooked beef. Paper No. P06/10, Paper Presented at the
10th World Congress of Food Science and Technology, Sydney,
Australia.
Mc Donald, K., Sun, D. W., Desmond, E., & Kenny, T. (1999).
Application of vacuum cooling to enhance the safety and quality of
cooked meats. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 38,
150.
Mc Donald, K., Sun, D. W., & Kenny, T. (2000). Comparison of the
quality of cooked beef products cooled by vacuum cooling and by
conventional cooling. Lebensmittel Wissenschaft und Technol-
ogie (in Press).
Mellor, J. D. (1980). Vacuum techniques in the food industry. Food
Technology Australia, 32, 397398, 400401.
Morgan, A. I., Radewonuk, R. I., & Scullen, J. O. (1996). Ultra high
temperature, ultra short time surface pasteurization of meat.
Journal of Food Science, 61, 12161218.
Murata, S. (1974). Vacuum cooling and drying and storage of unhulled
rice. Refrigeration Reito, 49, 945952.
Murr, D. P., & Morris, L. L. (1975). Eect of storage temperature on
post-harvest changes in mushrooms. Journal of American Society of
Horticultural Science, 100, 1619.
Noble, R. (1985). A review of vacuum cooling of mushrooms.
Mushroom Journal, 149, 168170.
Perrin, P. W. (1981). Method of cooling and storing broccoli aects
shelf life. Research Review, Research Station, Agassiz BC, 1213
November.
Rolfe, E. J. (1963). The freeze-drying of sh and meat. In S. Cotson, &
D. B. Smith, Freeze-Drying of Foodstus (pp. 119131). Manches-
ter, UK: Columbine Press.
Self, K. P., Nute, G. R., Burfoot, D., & Moncrie, C. B. (1990). Eect
of pressure cooking and pressure rate change during cooling in
vacuum on chicken breast quality and yield. Journal of Food
Science, 55, 15311535, 1551.
Shaevel, M. L. (1993). Manufacture of frozen prepared meals. In C. P.
Mallett, Frozen Food Technology (p. 281). Glasgow, UK: Blackie
Academic and Professional.
65
Sherman, M., & Allen, J. J. (1983). Impact of postharvest handling
procedures on soft rot decay of bell peppers. Proceedings of the
Florida State Horticultural Society, 96, 320322.
Shewfelt, R. L. (1986). Postharvest treatment for extending the shelf
life of fruits and vegetables. Food Technology, 5, 7078, 80.
Shewfelt, R. L., & Phillips, R. D. (1996). Seven principles for better
quality of refrigerated fruits and vegetables. Refrigeration Science
and Technology Proceedings. New Developments in Refrigeration for
Food Safety and Quality (pp. 231236). Lexington, Kentucky.
Shiina, T., Kawano, S., Yamashita, A., & Iwamoto, M. (1994).
Keeping quality and low temperature control of shredded cabbage.
Journal of Japanese Society of Food Science and Technology, 41,
94101.
Shipman, F. P. (1978). Cake technology: interaction between product
development and marketing. Cereal Foods World, 23, 130133.
Stanley, R. (1989). The inuence of temperature and packaging
material on the postharvest quality of iceberg lettuce. Acta
Horticulturae, 244, 171180.
Sullivan, G. H., Davenport, L. R., & Julian, J. W. (1996). Precooling:
key factor for assuring quality in new fresh market vegetable crops.
In J. Janick, Progress in New Crops (pp. 521524). Arlington, USA:
ASHS Press.
Sun, D. W. (1998). Experimental research on vacuum rapid cooling of
vegetables. Paper Presented at the International Conference on
Advances in the Refrigeration Systems, Food Technologies and Cold
Chain, 2326 September, Soa, Bulgaria.
Sun, D. W. (1999a). Comparison of rapid vacuum cooling of leafy and
non-leafy vegetables. ASAE Paper No. 996117, ASAE, 2950 Niles
Road, St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659, USA.
Sun, D. W. (1999b). Eect of pre-wetting on weight loss and cooling
times of vegetables during vacuum cooling. ASAE Paper No.
996119, ASAE, 2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659,
USA.
Sun, D. W., & Brosnan, T. (1999). Extension of the vase life of cut
daodil owers by rapid vacuum cooling. International Journal of
Refrigeration, 22, 472478.
Sun, D. W., & Wang, L. (2000). Heat transfer characteristics of cooked
meats using dierent cooling methods. International Journal of
Refrigeration. (in Press).
Sun, D. W., Kenny, T., Mc Donald, K., & Desmond, E. (1999).
Vacuum cooling of cooked hams. Irish Journal of Agricultural and
Food Research, 38, 149150.
Tambunan, A. H., Morishima, H., & Kawagoe, Y. (1994). Measure-
ment of evaporation coecient of water during vacuum cooling of
lettuce. In Yano & Nakamura, Developments in Food Engineering
(pp. 328330). UK: Chapman and Hall.
Thompson, J. T., & Rumsey, T. R. (1984). Determining product
temperature in a vacuum cooler. Paper No. 84-6543, ASAE, New
Orleans, USA. 1114 December.
Turk, R., & Celik, E. (1993). The eect of vacuum precooling on the
half cooling period and quality characteristics of iceberg lettuce.
Acta Horticulturae Postharvest, 343, 321324.
Varszegi, T. (1994). Vacuum cooling of vegetables. Hungarian Agri-
cultural Engineering, 7, 6768.
Veerkamp, C. H., & Hofmans, G. J. P. (1977). Cooling processes for
poultry. Koeltechniek-Klimaatregeling, 70, 7679.
Wang, C. Y., Hinsch, R. T., & Kindya, W. G. (1984). Eect of
dierent perforations in polyethylene lms on quality of head
lettuce after transcontinental shipment. Horticultural Science, 19,
584586.