JFS E: Food Engineering and Physical Properties

Temperature Profiles within a Double-pipe

Heat Exchanger with Countercurrent Turbulent
Flow of Newtonian Fluids: Derivation,
Validation, and Application to Food Processing
M. UZZAN, K.M. LEINEN, AND T.P. LABUZA

ABSTRACT: Pasteurization or sterilization of food and bioproducts is mostly performed using heat exchangers
in countercurrent flow. The lack of appropriate analytic solutions for temperature profiles in the heating and
cooling sections of such processes is most likely the main reason for the traditional cautious approach of
disregarding the contribution of these stages in the total thermal history calculation. This approach leads to
excessive thermal abuse of the product. The current manuscript describes the derivation and validation of an
analytic solution for the temperature profiles within a double-pipe heat exchanger with countercurrent turbulent
flow of Newtonian fluids, at any possible flow rate and not necessarily assuming an isothermal heating medium
or coolant. The presented solution is based on application of the heat exchanger effectiveness concept in a
partial heat exchanger, and can be easily solved and plotted using a spreadsheet. An interactive ExcelTM workbook
was developed for fast prediction of temperature profiles and used in a simulated case study to demonstrate the

E: Food Engineering & Physical Properties

influence of operating conditions on the temperature profile and thermal history of a pasteurized liquid product.
Keywords: double-pipe heat exchanger, temperature profile, simulation, thermal history, pasteurization

Introduction because of the mathematical complexity, a solution to this case has

H eating of liquid-food and pharmaceutical products for

pasteurization or sterilization is done almost exclusively by
heat exchangers using countercurrent flow. For product safety con-
siderations related to death kinetics of pathogens, only the thermal
history of the product in the holding-tube is used for calculations,
while the come-up time and the cooling stage are considered as sur-
plus (for example, 7CFR 59 for liquid whole eggs, 21CFR 131.3 for
milk). This approach can lead to excessive thermal abuse to the
product and is partially due to the inability of measuring accurate
temperature profiles along the flow path through the heating and
cooling heat exchanger sections in the process.
The most applied methods for evaluation of heat exchanger
performance are the log mean temperature difference (LMTD) and
effectivenessnumber-of-transfer units (-NTU) methods. These
methods, which are found in almost every heat transfer textbook
(for example, Incropera and DeWitt 1985), enable the calculation of
outlet temperatures but cannot be used directly for the calculation
of the temperature profile along the flow axis. Analytic solutions for
countercurrent turbulent flow in a double-pipe heat exchanger are
found in the literature for 2 special cases (Hallstrom 1977): (1) when
using an isothermal heating medium such as condensing vapor,
and (2) when the mass flow rates and the heat capacities are equal
on both sides (this case can be fairly approximated in a regenera-
tor). As for the general countercurrent flow configuration (when the
2 latter conditions do not apply), somehow, surprisingly, an analytic
solution was not found in the literature. Actually, it was noted that
MS 20040406 Submitted 6/18/04, Revised 6/24/04, Accepted 6/29/04. Authors
are with Dept. of Food Science and Nutrition, Univ. of Minnesota, FScN,
1334 Eckles Ave., St. Paul, MN 55108, USA. Direct inquiries to author Uzzan
(E-mail: muzzan@umn.edu).
never been developed (Swartzel 1982; Deindoerfer and Humphrey
1959).
When the thermal effect of the come-up time or the cooling pe-
riod is important, it is sometimes evaluated by approximating the
temperature profile by a linear rise or fall between the inlet and
outlet temperatures. However, depending on the ratio between the
hot liquid flow rate and cold liquid flow rate, the temperature pro-
file of both of the streams can be convex, concave, or linear (Singh
and Heldman 1993). Thus, approximating the profile as linear can
create a safety hazard or product quality abuse, as will be discussed
subsequently.
Evaluations of temperature profiles for heat exchangers were
mostly achieved by numerical solutions of linear equation systems.
For example, Ribando and others (1997) presented a general nu-
merical scheme for heat exchanger thermal analysis, which they
applied to develop computer-based teaching modules to instruct
thermal aspects in shell-and-tube and cross-flow type heat ex-
changers. However, this type of solution requires advanced comput-
er programming (such as Fortran, Mathcad, or Maple). Computer
simulations using numerical solutions were frequently used by
food scientists to model thermal time distribution (TTD) in pro-
cessed foods. For example, Bhamidipati and Singh (1994) simulat-
ed TTD in a pseudoplastic liquid with variable thermophysical
properties heated in a tubular heat exchanger with constant wall
temperature. Datta (1991) applied a similar approach for a pro-
cessed fluid with constant thermophysical properties in a can, and
later on, Datta and Liu (1992) studied TTDs of microwave and con-
ventional heating of foods. Also, Liao and others (2000) numerically
simulated the thermo-rheological behavior of a starch containing
fluid in a continuous sterilization process and evaluated the effect

2004 Institute of Food Technologists Vol. 69, Nr. 8, 2004JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE E433
Further reproduction without permission is prohibited Published on Web 10/28/2004
 Temperature profiles within a counter . . .

of flow parameters on the thiamine retention. However, numerical
solutions are unlikely to be used by the food industry because of
the mathematical complexity and the substantial programming
skills required. Recently, Abdelghani and Idrissi (2002a) applied a
differential approach to determine an exponential factor that can
be used to relate temperatures to a flow-length variable in a
steady-state countercurrent double-pipe heat exchanger. This fac-
tor is strongly dependent on convective heat transfer coefficients
and requires previous knowledge of these values, rather than us-
ing the overall heat transfer coefficient. They further used this
method to investigate the transient response of a flow-rate step
change (Abdelghani and Idrissi 2002b). A differential approach was
also applied by Kiesner and Reuter (1984) to simulate temperature
profiles within heat exchangers during countercurrent flow to study
the effect of temperature profiles on the resulting F-values in ultra-
high temperature (UHT) plants. Simpson and Williams (1974) mod-
eled inactivation of microorganisms and nutrient retention in a tu-
bular sterilizer at laminar flow of Newtonian and non-Newtonian
foods. They have used their model to demonstrate the effect of
tube radius, wall temperature, and the pseudoplastic index of the
food on inactivation of Clostridium botulinum spores and retention
of thiamin. However, their model assumed constant wall tempera-
ture and heat transfer accounted for conduction only, which makes
it inapplicable for a general countercurrent turbulent flow.
In the current paper, we present an analytic solution for temper-
E: Food Engineering & Physical Properties
coefficient; and A is heat exchange area. In the case of a double-pipe
heat exchanger it is
A = D1L (3)
where L is flow distance. In the following derivation L was defined
as starting (L = 0) at the hot inlet. D1 is inside diameter of the inner
pipe (if the difference between the inside and outside diameters is
not negligible, then U should be calculated based on the inside di-
ameter using Eq. 24). For example, AT = D1LT, where AT is overall
heat transfer area and LT is the total pipe length.
The effectiveness is used to calculate the heat transfer rate (Q)
for the whole heat exchanger, according to (Incropera and DeWitt
1985):
(4)
Thi is hot stream inlet temperature and Tci is cold stream inlet
temperature.
Similarly, when considering a partial heat exchanger (Figure 1),
the latter equation should be written as:
(5)
Thi is hot stream inlet temperature and TcL is cold stream inlet

ature profiles within a double-pipe heat exchanger with counter- temperature at distance L. Q could be also calculated according to
current turbulent flow, at any possible flow rate. Note that the re-
quirement for turbulence limits the applicability of this solution to
(6)
low-viscosity Newtonian foods, such as water, milk, and juices with
viscosities of less than about 5 mPa/s. The presented solution is
or
based on application of the heat exchanger effectiveness concept
in a partial heat exchanger. An interactive Excel workbook was de-
veloped for fast prediction of temperature profiles and used in a (7)
simulated case study to demonstrate the influence of operating
conditions on the temperature profile and thermal history of a pas- where TcL and ThL are the cold stream temperature and the hot
teurized liquid product. stream temperature (correspondingly) at flow distance L.
From Eq. 2, 3, 5, and 7 we obtain
Solution derivation
The solution is divided into 2 general different cases: (1)
m ccpc m hcph and (2) m ccpc = mhcph.
Solution for m ccpc m
hcph. The Heat Exchanger Effectiveness
() is defined as the ratio between the heat transferred in the actu-
al exchanger and theoretical maximum heat transfer (that is, if the
same system were used but with an infinite length of heat ex-
changer).

(1)

For countercurrent flow, it can be shown that (Kays and London

1964):

(2)

Figure 1Temperature profile for a countercurrent flow

where: C min = ( m cp )h or ( m
cp )c, whichever is smaller; Cmax = heat exchanger when m ccpc m
hcph. ThL and TcL represent
cp )h or (m
(m cp )c, whichever is larger; U is overall heat transfer the hot stream and cold stream temperatures, respectively,
in position L.

E434 JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCEVol. 69, Nr. 9, 2004 URLs and E-mail addresses are active links at www.ift.org
Temperature profiles within a counter . . .
From Eq. 6 and 7 we obtain
Combining Eq. 8 and 9 gives the solution:
For a specific process, this can be written as
E, G, and H are constants for a specific heat exchange process.
Namely,
and
Finally, the value of TcL is calculated using Eq. 9.
If time-temperature data are required (for example, to calculate
thermal history values), the time scales should be calculated differ-
ently for each of the streams.
For the hot stream, the time is calculated by:
where velh is the hot stream velocity (assuming Plug-flow) and is
equal to the hot stream volumetric flow rate divided by the cross-
URLs and E-mail addresses are active links at www.ift.org
section area of the hot stream flow. The expression for the individ-
ual cross-section areas should correspond to the flow configuration.
For example, if the inner liquid is the cold one, the following will be
calculated:
(13)
(8)
(14)
where CSA is cross sectional area, D2 is inside diameter of the out-
(9)
er pipe, and D3 is outside diameter of the inner pipe.
Because L was defined from the hot stream inlet side, the time
for the cold stream is calculated by
(15)
where velc is the cold stream velocity (assuming Plug-flow) and is
equal to the cold stream volumetric flow rate divided by the cross
section area of the cold stream flow.
Solution for m ccpc = m
h cph. When using a spreadsheet, the
former solution is not applicable at this singular point. Therefore,
the Excel workbook should be able to identify this case and to ap-
E: Food Engineering & Physical Properties
ply different equations. The solution for this case can be found in
the literature (Hallstrom 1977). Nevertheless, its derivation is de-
tailed hereinafter for the sake of method description and discus-
sion.
When applying the condition, m ccpc = m
hcph, to Eq. 6 and 7, it is
concluded that
(10)
Thi Tco = ThL TcL = Tho Tci = Tconstant. (16)
That is, the temperature difference between the 2 sides of the
exchanger is constant along the whole exchanger length. In such
case, the value obtained using Eq. 16 should be used instead of
LMTD.
Therefore, at any point along the heat exchanger the following
equation could be written as:
(11)
(17)
which, after differentiating by L, leads to the conclusion that dTh/
dL = dTc/dL = constant. Thus, in this case the temperature profile
must be in a form of 2 straight parallel lines (Figure 2).
Thus, the hot stream temperature can be calculated using:
.
(18)
By applying the specific flow conditions to Eq. 9, the cold stream
temperature is calculated as
(19)
(12) because the L direction was defined from the hot stream inlet. The
time values for the hot and the cold streams are calculated using
Eq. 12 and 15, respectively.
Similar solutions for other configurations, such as cocurrent flow
or plate and frame heat exchangers, are possible by accounting for
Vol. 69, Nr. 9, 2004JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE E435
 Temperature profiles within a counter . . .
the appropriate expression for effectiveness, volumes, and areas.
The solution described above is not applicable if the heating medi-
um is condensing vapor. However, this case is much simpler to
solve, and a good approximation can be achieved by applying a
very high cph value (> 106 J/kgK).
The assumptions used in the described derivation are as follows:
(1) Turbulent flow in both streams. Thus we can assume perfect
mixing (that is, plug flow, and there are no temperature profiles in
the radial axis of each fluid cross section). (2) The whole system is
in steady state. (3) Physical properties remain constant throughout
the whole process. For example, if important viscosity changes were
taking place due to temperature change, it would affect the U value
along the flow. If the relation of U to temperature is known (a math-
ematical correlation), it could be applied in Eq. 10; then the param-
eter G in Eq. 11 is not to be considered constant.
Excel workbook general description
We used an Excel workbook as a framework to execute fast sim-
ulations of any double-pipe heat exchanger in countercurrent tur-
bulent flow. The Excel workbook can be obtained online at http://
fscn.che.umn.edu/Ted_Labuza/tpl-Research.html (Scroll down to
sub-category F).
Our workbook can be used in 2 modes: (1) Existing System: To
calculate and plot the temperature profiles of an existing configura-
tion, when the inlet temperatures and 1 outlet temperature are
E: Food Engineering & Physical Properties
known. (2) New System Design: To calculate and plot the tempera-
ture profiles of a new configuration, or when only inlet temperatures
are known. This feature is a very powerful utility for optimization of
the effectiveness and efficiency of the heat exchanger and optimiza-
tion of reaction kinetics of interest taking place in the exchanger.
The main reason for using 2 different calculation modes was that
in the 1st mode the actual U value is calculated from the inlet and
outlet temperatures, while in the 2nd one, an estimated U value
should be given (for example, using experimental correlations) to
calculate outlet temperatures.
The raw data for the equipment and fluids are inserted in the
1st worksheet, and the mode of calculation is chosen by clicking on
the corresponding button (Figure 3). In a different worksheet, in-
termediate parameters are calculated, and finally columns of tem-
perature versus flow distance and time from inlet are produced
Figure 2Temperature profile for the heat exchanger when
m ccpc = m
hcph. ThL and TcL represent the hot stream and cold
stream temperatures, respectively, in position L
E436 JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCEVol. 69, Nr. 9, 2004
automatically in a 3rd worksheet, dividing the range into 100 data
points.
Another useful feature in our workbook is reaction rate calcula-
tion. Inserting the rate constant at reference temperature (kTref) and
the energy of activation (Ea) allows the workbook to integrate the
thermal effect of the specific process on a specific reaction using
the following equation:
(20)
where N and N0 are the respective outlet and inlet concentrations
of the ingredient or microbe of interest. tj is the time difference of
2 consecutive data points at increment j. n is the number of incre-
ments (in our workbook n = 99). R is the universal gas constant. Tref
is the reference temperature and Tav,j is the average of 2 consecutive
temperature points at increment j (absolute temperatures).
The latter equation assumes that the reaction of interest obeys
the Arrhenius relation and follows apparent 1st-order kinetics.
Nevertheless, the obtained value could be used for different reac-
tion orders, by accounting for the appropriate units. For example,
the right side of Eq. 20 will be equal to N N0 for a zero-order reac-
tion or 1/N0 1/N for a 2nd-order reaction. The same calculation can
be used for a formation reaction by replacing N with N0.
Alternatively, the rate of a 1st-order reaction can be evaluated
using D and z kinetic values by applying the equation:
(21)
where DTref is the heating time at constant reference temperature
that is required to decrease the concentration by 1 order of magni-
tude, and z is the temperature increase required to decrease D by
1 order of magnitude, assuming a logarithmic relationship.
Materials and Methods
The experimental system for validation
Validation of temperature profile simulations using the derived
equation and our Excel workbook was realized using water flowing
Figure 3Scheme of the experimental system used to
validate simulation of temperature profiles
URLs and E-mail addresses are active links at www.ift.org
Temperature profiles within a counter . . .

Table 1Flow conditions applied for temperature profile simulations and validations
Run no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Inner pipe V (L/min) 11.4 3.8 20.1 20.1 11.4 20.1 3.8 20.1 3.8
Inlet temperature (C) 64.5 64.7 63.6 65.1 64.6 65.6 65.3 13.5 16.9
Outer pipe V (L/min) 11.4 11.4 11.4 3.8 3.8 11.4 20.1 3.8 20.1
Inlet temperature (C) 14.5 14.4 14.6 16.9 17.0 13.7 13.7 63.0 64.8

on both sides of the system, described in Figure 3. Type-T thermo-
couples were localized at inlet, outlet, 1/3 length, and 2/3 length of
each pipe, in the center of flow cross-section. Data acquisition was
performed using an OMB-DAQ-56 module (Omega, Stamford,
Conn., U.S.A.) connected to a computer with Personal DaqView 1.9
software (Omega). For every run, temperature data were acquired
during 2 min at 5-s intervals, and the average temperature was
used (maximum standard deviation was less than 0.1 C). Pipe di-
mensions and average physical property values that were used are
presented in Figure 4. The physical properties represent average
values for liquid saturated water (Incropera and De-Witt 1985)
within an approximated range of temperatures (285 to 310 K for the
cold stream and 310 to 335 K for the hot stream). Flow rates were
measured in triplicate by weighing the amount of water filling a
bucket during 60 s.
the measured temperatures were expected to be found on 2 paral-
lel linear curves.
Evaluating U values for simulation
Outlet temperatures were measured with equal flow rates on
both liquids, namely: 3.4, 6.4, 11.2, 15.5, and 18.9 L/min, with hot
liquid in the inner pipe entering at about 60 C and cold liquid in
the outer pipe at about 14 C. U in values were calculated by the
developed Excel workbook using the equation:
(22)
The individual convective heat transfer coefficient at the inner
surface (hin) of the heat exchanging pipe (the inner pipe) was cal-
culated by the experimental correlation known as Dittus-Boelter

E: Food Engineering & Physical Properties

Thermocouples calibration in-pipe
Water at 12, 47, or 81 C was pumped from the same tank to both
the inner and the outer pipes, and temperature data were recorded
after equilibration had been reached. Outlet temperatures were
measured using 4 calibrated alcohol thermometers (Fisherbrand,
Loughborough,U.K.; 0.5 C accuracy) and a calibration curve was
created. Each measurement was performed in triplicate.
Thermocouple calibration was also validated by measuring tem-
perature profiles with equal flow rates of both liquids, namely: 3.4,
6.4, 11.2, 15.5, and 18.9 L/min. In all cases, the cold liquid entering
the heat exchanger was tap water, and the hot liquid was water at
60 C. Because mCp values are practically equal on both sides,
correlation (Holman 1972):
(23)
where n = 0.3 because the stream flowing in the inner pipe is the
hot one. Eq. 23 is valid for fully developed turbulent flow of fluids
with 0.6 < (Cp/k) < 100.
The individual convective heat transfer coefficient at the outer
surface (hout) of the heat-exchanging pipe (the inner pipe) was cal-
culated from the relation:

(24)

where Ain is the internal heat transfer surface area, and Aout is the
external heat transfer surface area of the inner pipe.
The individual hout values were then used to derive a specific
correlation versus flow rate. This correlation and Eq. 23 were used
to approximate the expected h values in simulated temperature
profiles with the flow rates presented in Table 1 (only runs 1 to 7,
where the hot stream was in the inner pipe). Finally, Uin values
were calculated using Eq. 24.

Validation and temperature profile simulations

Figure 4The raw data insertion panel for the workbook
used to simulate temperature profiles.
Temperature profiles were measured at different flow configu-
rations with tap water as the cold liquid and water at about 65 C as
the hot liquid, flowing in countercurrent at 3.8, 11.4, or 20.1 L/min,
through the inner or outer pipe. The actual conditions are present-
ed in Table 1.
Temperature profiles plotted by the Excel workbook for runs 4, 7,
8, and 9 in the Existing System mode were compared with mea-
sured values. This mode requires the inlet temperatures and 1
outlet temperature. Thus, the validation is based on verification

URLs and E-mail addresses are active links at www.ift.org Vol. 69, Nr. 9, 2004JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE E437
 Temperature profiles within a counter . . .
that the intermediate temperature data points (that is, in 1/3 and
2/3 length) fall on the plotted lines. The experimental Uin value is
determined by the Excel workbook using the relation (Incropera
and De-Witt 1985):
(25)
from which the 2nd outlet temperature is calculated by comparing
the right and the middle parts of the equation, and then Uin is de-
rived from the comparison of the left part to 1 of the other 2.
In addition, temperature profiles for the conditions of runs 1 to
7 were simulated in the New System Design mode. In the latter,
only inlet temperatures were given and Uin was approximated as
described above. Thus, in this case the outlet temperatures are also
to be compared.
Simulation of a final heating stage for pasteurization
The programmed Excel workbook was used to evaluate the influ-
ence of the heating fluid flow-rate and temperature on the death of
Listeria monocytogenes at the final heating stage for pasteurization
E: Food Engineering & Physical Properties
of a beverage (from 64 C to 72 C), assuming physical properties
similar to those of water. The simulation was run for a 10-m long
double-pipe heat exchanger with identical diameters as the one
used in the validation. The heating fluid flow rate was in the range
of 3 to 20.5 L/min (the validated range) and the inlet temperature
was adjusted to obtain a product (cold liquid) outlet temperature
of 72 C. The Uin values were approximated using the same corre-
lations described previously. Thermal death of L. monocytogenes
was assumed to obey 1st-order kinetics and the Arrhenius relation.
The applied energy of activation (Ea = 386 kJ/mol) and rate constant
at 63.3 C (k63.3 = 0.12/s; average value) were reported in literature
for L. monocytogenes death in milk processing (ICMSF 1996).
Figure 5Convective heat transfer coefficient correlations
for the experimental system.
E438 JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCEVol. 69, Nr. 9, 2004
Results and Discussion
F igure 5 presents the internal and external convective heat trans-
fer coefficients that were calculated and correlated to flow rate
and used for temperature profile prediction in the New System De-
sign mode.
The temperature values measured by the experimental system
inside the heat exchanger pipes were very closely predicted by the
present solution using the Excel spreadsheet. This was true,
whether the heating medium flows in the inner or outer pipe and
whether its flow rate is higher or lower than that of the cold stream
(Figure 6).
Simulation of the temperature profile using the inlet tempera-
tures and approximated values of the overall heat transfer coef-
ficient also was very satisfactory (Figure 7), although a slight di-
gression from predicted values was found at the highest ratio of
cold to hot stream flow rate, where the largest temperature chang-
es took place. This minor discordance is most likely the conse-
quence of temperature dependence of physical properties, which
was neglected in the prediction of heat transfer coefficients. Of
major importance is the effect of temperature on the viscosity,
which changes up to 3 fold within the applied range of tempera-
tures.
Although the come-up time in the heat exchanger is usually
not considered when a pasteurization process is designed, it is dem-
onstrated in Figure 8 that the heating stage, prior to holding, can
cause a remarkable thermal effect, which is highly influenced by
the heating medium conditions.
In the simulated conditions, the concentration of L. monocyto-
genes within the heat exchanger decreased by 4 to 9 orders of mag-
nitude (Figure 8) by applying a hot liquid flow rate in the range of
3 to 20.5 L/min, correspondingly, although the inlet and outlet
product temperatures were kept constant by adjusting the hot
liquid inlet temperature. Approximating the temperature profile
of the product stream to a linear (straight) curve connecting the
inlet and outlet temperatures would have resulted in 2107 re-
Figure 6Validation of the derived solution for the extreme
conditions of the experimental system. (A) Cold (liquid) in at
3.8 L/min, hot out at 20.1 L/min; (B) cold in at 20.1 L/min,
hot out at 3.8 L/min; (c) hot in at 20.1 L/min, cold out at 3.8
L/min; (D) hot in at 3.8 L/min, cold out at 20.1 L/min.
URLs and E-mail addresses are active links at www.ift.org
Temperature profiles within a counter . . .
duction from initial concentration (Figure 8, dashed line). Thus,
the simulation of temperature profiles indicate that a remarkable
difference in product quality can be obtained by only changing
the heating medium conditions. However, if minimizing the ther-
mal effect in the heat exchanger is desired, doing that by reduc-
ing the hot liquid flow rate may require a much better control of
the operating conditions (flow rates and inlet temperatures), be-
cause the temperature profile close to the product outlet is much
steeper (Figure 8, [dTc/dL]LT). Therefore, in such conditions, the
cold outlet temperature (which determines the temperature in
the holding tube) is more influenced by changes in operating con-
ditions. Another concern is that reducing the hot liquid flow rate,
while aiming for the same outlet product temperature, requires
higher hot liquid inlet temperatures, thus creating higher surface
Figure 7Normalized simulated temperature profiles and
experimental values at different flow rates. Labels at right
of curves indicate hot:cold flow rates (L/min), respectively.
Figure 8Simulated effect of heating-medium flow rate and
inlet temperature on the death rate of L. monocytogenes
in the product (cold) stream, during the final heating stage
for pasteurization. The dashed line represents the calcu-
lated death rate in the product stream, assuming a linear
temperature gradient.
URLs and E-mail addresses are active links at www.ift.org
temperatures (Figure 8, T hi). In certain delicate products, it may
result in increased fouling formation or even sedimentation of
charred or denatured particles into the product. Moreover, Figure
8 implies that taking the heat stage contribution to thermal histo-
ry into consideration by assuming a linear profile can sometimes
be a safety hazard.
The thermal history of a heated product, within the heat ex-
changer, is becoming less negligible as we decrease the product flow
rate and increase the heating medium flow rate. For example, sim-
ulation with 3 L/min and 20 L/min for the cold and hot stream flow
rates, respectively, in the original length heat exchanger (3.78 m)
and the same cold inlet and outlet temperatures (64 C to 72 C),
reduced the concentration of L. monocytogenes by 21012. When
applying 20 L/min and 3 L/min for the cold and hot stream flow
rates, respectively, the bacteria concentration was reduced by only
101. This dramatic change in death rate is the result of the combi-
nation of a longer residence time and the curve form of the product
temperature profile (convex versus concave). Although a reduction
of the product flow rate requires a reduction of the holding tube
anyway (lower velocity in the holding tube), the latter comparison
implies that the holding tube length can be reduced much further,
when taking the temperature profile into consideration appropri-
ately.
Conclusions
E: Food Engineering & Physical Properties
n analytic solution for steady-state temperature profile within
a double-pipe (concentric cylinders) heat exchanger in coun-
tercurrent flow was derived, validated, and used to program an in-
teractive Excel workbook for fast temperature simulation. Experi-
mental data were in very good agreement with the temperature
profiles simulated using our workbook. In a simulated case study,
the programmed Excel workbook was very useful for evaluating the
influence of operating conditions on vegetative bacteria death rate
in a pasteurized liquid product. Simulation of temperature profiles
is also very useful for visual evaluation of the effectiveness (as de-
fined in Eq. 1) and efficiency (that is, how much of the heat ex-
changer area or heating energy is actually used to obtain a certain
effectiveness) of a designed process.
Nomenclature
Symbol Quantity represented (Units)
m Mass flow rate (kg/s)
cp Specific heat (J/kgK)
C m cp(J/s gK)
Heat exchanger effectiveness (dimensionless)
Q Heat transfer rate (J/s)
U Overall heat transfer coefficient (W/m2_K)
A Heat transfer surface area (m2)
L Flow distance from hot stream inlet (m)
D Pipe diameter (m)
D1 Internal pipe inner diameter (m)
D2 External pipe inner diameter (m)
D3 Internal pipe outer diameter (m)
vel Liquid flow velocity (m/s)
CSA Cross section area (m2)
T Temperature difference (K)
Liquid density (kg/m3)
Liquid viscosity (Pas)
E; G; H Constants (Eq.11) (K; m1; dimensionless)
t Time (s)
T Temperature (C)
V Volumetric flow rate (m3/s or L/min)
kTref Rate constant at reference temperature (s1)
Vol. 69, Nr. 9, 2004JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE E439
 Temperature profiles within a counter . . .

Tref Reference temperature (rate constant) (C) Acknowledgment

Ea Energy of activation (kJ/mol) This study was supported by a Dairy Management Incorporation
R Universal gas constant (kJ/mol gK) grant.
N Outlet concentration of degraded component (mol/m3
or kg/m3) References
N0 Inlet concentration of degraded component (mol/m3 or Abdelghani-Idrissi MA, Bagui F. 2002a. Countercurrent double-pipe heat exchang-
er subjected to flow-rate step change, part 1: New steady-state formulation.
kg/m3) Heat Trans Eng 23:411.
DTref Time to decrease concentration 10-fold (Eq. 21) (s) Abdelghani-Idrissi MA, Bagui F. 2002b. Countercurrent double-pipe heat exchang-
er subjected to flow-rate step change, Part 2: analytical and experimental tran-
z Temperature increase to decrease D kinetic value (Eq. sient response. Heat Trans Eng 23:1224.
21) 10-fold (K) Bhamidipati S, Singh RK. 1994. Thermal time distributions in tubular heat ex-
changers during asceptic processing of fluid foods. Biotechnol Prog 10:2306.
k Thermal conductivity (W/m_K) Datta AK. 1991. Mathematical modeling of biochemical changes during process-
h Convective heat transfer coefficient (W/m2_K) ing of liquid foods and solutions. Biotechnol Prog 7:397402.
Datta AK, Liu J. 1992. Thermal time distributions for microwave and conven-
tional heating of food. Trans Inst Chem Eng 70:8390.
Subscripts Deindoerfer FH, Humphrey AE. 1959. Microbiological process discussionAn-
Symbol Representing alytical methods for calculating heat sterilization times. Appl Microbiol 7:256
63.
c Cold liquid Hallstrom B. 1977. Heat preservation involving liquid food in continuous-flow
h Hot liquid pasteurisation and UHT. In: Hoyem T, Kvale O, editors. Physical chemical and
biological changes in food caused by thermal processing. London: Applied
min Minimal Science Publishers Ltd. p 3141.
max Maximal Holman JP. 1972. Heat transfer. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. p 1767.
[ICMSF] Intl. Committee for Microbiological Standards for Food. 1996. Microor-
T Total ganisms in foodsMicrobiological specifications of food pathogens (Book 5).
hi Hot liquid inlet London: Blackie Academic and Professional Publ. 513 p.
Incropera FP, DeWitt DP. 1985. Fundamentals of heat and mass transfer. 2nd ed.
ho Hot liquid outlet New York: John Wiley & Sons, p 5225.
ci Cold liquid inlet Kays WM, London AL. 1964. Compact heat exchangers. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Co. p 2646.
co Cold liquid outlet Kiesner C, Reuter H. 1984. The influence of the temperature course on the ster-
hL Hot liquid at position L ilization values in UHT plants. Kieler Milchwwirtschaft Forschungs 36:6779.
Ribando RJ, OLeary GW, Carlson-Skalak S. 1997. General numerical scheme for
E: Food Engineering & Physical Properties

cL Cold liquid at position L

heat exchanger thermal analysis and design. Comput Appl Eng Educ 5:23142.
av Average Simpson SG, Williams CW. 1974. An analysis of high temperature/short time
j Individual increment number sterilization during laminar flow. J Food Sci 39:104754.
Singh RP, Heldman DR. 1993. Introduction to food engineering. 2nd ed. London:
n Number of increments Academic Press Inc. p.10811.
in Inner (liquid/surface) Swartzel KR. 1982. Arrhenius kinetics as applied to product constituent losses in
ultra high temperature processing. J Food Sci 47:188691.
out Outer (liquid/surface)

E440 JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCEVol. 69, Nr. 9, 2004 URLs and E-mail addresses are active links at www.ift.org