Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Ricardo J. Simpson1,2, Sergio F. Almonacid1,2, Marisol M. Sanchez1, Helena Nuñez1, and Arthur A. Teixeira3
1
Departamento de Ingeniería Química y Ambiental; Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María;
Valparaíso, Chile, ricardo.simpson@usm.cl
2
Centro Regional de Estudios en Alimentos Saludables, Blanco 1623, Room 1402, Valparaíso, Chile.
3
Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering; Frazier Rogers Hall, P. O. Box 110570;
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611-0570, USA.
ABSTRACT
This manuscript describes a review and analysis of the correction factor for come-up time (CUT),
introduced by Dr. C. Olin Ball in his famous Formula Method for thermal process calculations. This
correction factor has commonly been considered applicable only to the Ball Formula method. In the
alternative General Method, the effect of CUT is automatically included in the calculated lethality value as
long as numerical integration is carried out over the entire cold spot temperature-time profile from the point
when steam is turned on.
The hypothesis of this communication is that Ball’s formula method, just like the General Method,
also includes the effect of CUT in its calculations, regardless of where the zero time line is placed within the
come-up time.
Several computer simulation studies were carried out with the zero time shifted to different locations
within the come-up time, resulting in the calculated heating lethality determined by Ball’s method being
almost the same as that generated by the General Method. This work confirmed that it is not necessary to
shift the zero time in Ball’s formula method because the calculations will always reflect the effect of CUT
regardless of where the zero time is chosen.
Key words: Ball’s Formula Method, correction factor, come-up time effectiveness, thermal processing,
process calculations techniques.
INTRODUCTION
Thermal processing is an important method of food preservation in the manufacture of shelf stable
canned food. The basic function of a thermal process is to inactivate food spoilage microorganisms in sealed
containers of food using heat treatments at temperatures well above the ambient boiling point of water in
pressurized steam retorts (autoclaves).
The first procedure to calculate thermal processes was developed by W.D. Bigelow in the early part of
the 20th century, and is usually known as the General Method [1]. The General Method makes direct use of the
time-temperature history at the coldest point within a sealed food container to obtain the lethality value of a
thermal process. The lack of programmable calculators or personal computers until the latter part of the 20th
century made this method very time-consuming, tedious and impractical for most routine applications; and it
soon gave way to formula methods offering shortcuts. In response to this need, a semi-analytic method for
thermal process calculation was developed and proposed to the scientific community by [2]. This is the well-
known Ball Formula Method, and works in a different way from the General Method. It makes use of the fact
that the difference between retort and cold spot temperature decays exponentially over process time after an
initial lag period. Therefore, a semi-logarithmic plot of this temperature difference over time (beyond the initial
lag) appears as a straight line that can be described mathematically by a simple formula, and is related to lethality
requirements by a set of tables that must be used in conjunction with the formula.
However, several assumptions are made that cause the method to become less accurate in many
situations. According to [3], most Formula Methods have been applied to metallic cans or glass jars that can be
processed in pure steam or water-cook retorts with rapid come-up-times. The recent development of retortable
flexible pouches and semi-rigid bowls and trays has made it necessary to re-examine process calculation
methods. These packages are often processed with steam-air mixtures, and often require relatively slow come-up
times, which can introduce additional error with use of formula methods.
The hypothesis of this communication is that Ball’s Formula Method, just like the General Method,
also includes the effect of CUT in its calculations, regardless of where the zero time line is placed within the
come-up time. Then, there is no need for a correction factor.
The objectives are to offer a critical analysis of the correction factor for come-up time (CUT)
introduced by Dr. C. Olin Ball in his famous Formula Method, and show that operator’s process time (Pt) is
always the same, regardless of how much come-up-time is taken into account.
METHODOLOGY
Focus of the analysis
The F-value of a given thermal process (lethality) is the sum of lethality achieved during heating and
additional lethality delivered during cooling; it can be expressed as follows:
The focus of the analysis will be to evaluate the accuracy of Ball’s method in calculating only the
lethality during heating (FHeating) and its subsequent prediction of final cold spot temperature reached at end
of heating (Tg).
tg T Tref t T Tref
FPr ocess 10 z
dt 10 z
dt (1)
0 tg
Table 1. Predictions of heating time by the Ball and General Methods for different CUT-shapes and CUT
times.
CUT effectiveness
This work has shown that Ball’s formula method can be as accurate as the General Method, and will
always take the come-up time completely into account. Thus, there should be no need for correction factors
or shifting of zero time. This is because the parameters in Ball's expression have been estimated from a
regression analysis (fitting a curve) of the experimental data through the straight line segment of the heat
penetration curve. The graphical location of those experimental data points is a direct result of the length and
shape of the temperature time profile during the come-up time. Thus, if the regression produces an adequate
goodness of fit, the F-value calculations will be as accurate as the General Method. This has been shown
repeatedly with both experimental temperature-time data as well as those generated by computer models.
None-the-less, prudence would dictate further testing of the goodness of fit of Ball's expression in new or
unusual cases, such as new packages (retort pouches, shallow trays) and/or new autoclaves with different
forms of heat exchange media and venting procedures.
Table 2. Prediction of total heating time (Pt + tc) using different correction factors for a linear CUT.
Linear CUT
CUT [min] % of CUT fh jh B [min] Pt + tc [min]
100 55,404 2,250 98,85 98,85
70 55,404 1,986 95,85 98,85
10 42 55,404 1,768 93,05 98,85
20 55,404 1,613 90,84 98,84
0 55,404 1,484 88,84 98,84
Table 3. Prediction of total heating time (Pt + tc) using different correction factors for a concave CUT.
Concave CUT
CUT [min] % de CUT fh jh B [min] Pt + tc [min]
100 55,398 2,137 97,6 97,6
70 55,398 1,887 94,6 97,6
10 42 55,398 1,680 91,8 97,6
20 55,398 1,533 89,6 97,6
0 55,398 1,411 87,6 97,6
Table 4. Prediction of total heating time (Pt + tc) using different correction factors for a convex CUT.
Convex CUT
CUT [min] % de CUT fh jh B [min] Pt + tc [min]
100 55,410 2,414 100,55 100,55
70 55,410 2,131 97,55 100,55
10 42 55,410 1,897 94,75 100,55
20 55,410 1,731 92,55 100,55
0 55,410 1,593 90,55 100,55
CONCLUSIONS
Prediction of total heating time (Pt + tc) by the Ball Formula method was always the same regardless
of where time zero was chosen within the come-up time (or CUT contribution). The reason for this is that
linear regression of heat penetration data along the straight-line portion of the semi-log heat penetration curve
produces a mathematical expression (Ball formula) that predicts the same time-temperature history
independent of the zero time location. In addition, given that high correlations were obtained in all cases, the
calculation of the F-value from the regressed data (Ball procedure) was essentially identical to the F-value
calculated by the General Method, which is based directly on the experimental data points. Second, we
showed that temperature-time histories predicted by Ball's expression always has a high correlation (R2 over
0.99) with experimental data points that was independent of CUT shape and length, meaning that the F-value
at end of heating is well estimated. Thirdly, we also concluded that inaccuracies in the Ball method can be
attributed in almost 100% of cases to the cooling calculations. For example, the larger the containers size in a
slow conduction-heating food product the larger the error in F-value calculation. This is because the cooling
phase in large slow-heating food containers is more important in terms of F-value contribution.
Corollary
Independent of the correction factor established by Dr. C. Olin Ball, calculations carried out by the
Ball Formula method always take into account 100% of come-up time. Its accuracy on the heating stage,
normally high, depends on the accuracy of Ball's expression to fit experimental data.
REFERENCES
[1] Bigelow, W.D., Bohart, G.S., Richardson, A.C. and Ball, C.O. 1920. Heat penetration in processing canned foods.
Bull. No. 16-L Res. Lab. Natl. Canners Assn., Washington, D.C.
[2] Ball, C.O. 1923. Thermal processing time for canned foods. Bull. 7-1 (37), Natl. Res. council, Washington, D. C.
[3] Holdsworth, S.D. 1997. Thermal processing of packaged foods. Blackie Academic & Professional. London.
[4] Datta, A.K. 1990. On the theoretical basis of the asymptotic semi logarithmic heat penetration curves used in food
processing. J. Food Eng. 12: 177-190.
[5] Alstrand, D. V., & Benjamin, H. A. (1949). Thermal processing of canned foods in tin containers: Effect of retorting
procedures on sterilization values for canned foods. Food Res., 14, 253–257.
[6] Berry, M. R. Jr (1983). Prediction of come-up time correction factors for batch-type agitating and still retorts and the
influence on thermal process calculations. J. Food Sci., 48: 1293–1299.
[7] Ikegami, Y. (1974a). Effect of various factors in the come-up time on processing of canned foods with steam. Report
Tokyo Inst. Food Technol. Serial No. 11, 92–98 [in Japanese].
[8] Ikegami, Y. (1974b). Effect of `come-up' on processing canned food with steam. Canner's J., 53(1) : 79–84 [in
Japanese].
[9] Succar, J., & Hayakawa, K. (1982). Prediction of time correction factor for come-up heating of packaged liquid food.
J. Food Sci., 47(3), 614-618.
[10] Uno, J., & Hayakawa, K. (1981). Correction factor of come-up heating based on mass average survivor
concentration in a cylindrical can of heat conduction food. J. Food Sci., 46: 1484–1487.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We kindly appreciate the contribution made by Dr. Alik Abakarov. Authors Ricardo Simpson and Sergio
Almonacid are grateful for the financial support provided by CONICYT through the FONDECYT project number
1090689.
NOMENCLATURE
B: Ball’s effective processing time
CUT: come-up time
Fo : sterilizing value at 121.1 °C
Fp : process sterilizing value
f: rate factor (related to slope of semi-log heat penetration curve)
f and f : heating and cooling rate factors (related to slope of semi-log heat penetration curve)
h c
j : dimensionless lag factor
j and j : heating and cooling lag factors
h c
Pt: operator process time (time that is measured from the time when the retort reaches processing temperature (TRT), until
the time when the steam is turned off).
TA: extrapolated initial can temperature obtained by linearizing entire heating curve of a can
Tg: temperature at the coldest point when cooling phase begins.
T: temperature
IT: initial temperature
TRT: retort temperature
Tref: reference temperature, 121.1 [ºC].
t: time
tc: come up time
tg: time in a thermal process corresponding to heat cutoff and initiation of cooling phase