Journal of Dairy Science
Volume 89, Issue 12 , Pages 4475-4489 , December 2006

Heat Treatment of Whole Milk by the Direct Joule Effect—Experimental and Numerical Approaches to Fouling Mechanisms

  • L. Fillaudeau

      Affiliations

    • Institut National des Sciences Appliquées (INSA), Laboratoire de Biotechnologie–Bioprocédés, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) Unité Mixte de Recherche (UMR) 5504, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) UMR 792-135, avenue de Rangueil, F-31077 Toulouse Cedex 4, France
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author.
    • ,
  • P. Winterton

      Affiliations

    • Institut National des Sciences Appliquées (INSA), Laboratoire de Biotechnologie–Bioprocédés, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) Unité Mixte de Recherche (UMR) 5504, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) UMR 792-135, avenue de Rangueil, F-31077 Toulouse Cedex 4, France
    • ,
  • J.C. Leuliet

      Affiliations

    • INRA–Laboratoire de Génie des Procédés et Technologie Alimentaires (LGPTA) 369, rue Jules Guesde, 59650 Villeneuve D’Ascq Cedex, France
    • ,
  • J.P. Tissier

      Affiliations

    • INRA–Laboratoire de Génie des Procédés et Technologie Alimentaires (LGPTA) 369, rue Jules Guesde, 59650 Villeneuve D’Ascq Cedex, France
    • ,
  • V. Maury

      Affiliations

    • INRA–Laboratoire de Génie des Procédés et Technologie Alimentaires (LGPTA) 369, rue Jules Guesde, 59650 Villeneuve D’Ascq Cedex, France
    • ,
  • F. Semet

      Affiliations

    • INRA–Laboratoire de Génie des Procédés et Technologie Alimentaires (LGPTA) 369, rue Jules Guesde, 59650 Villeneuve D’Ascq Cedex, France
    • ,
  • P. Debreyne

      Affiliations

    • INRA–Laboratoire de Génie des Procédés et Technologie Alimentaires (LGPTA) 369, rue Jules Guesde, 59650 Villeneuve D’Ascq Cedex, France
    • ,
  • M. Berthou

      Affiliations

    • EDF-R&D, Les Renardières, 77818 Moret Sur Loing Cedex, France
    • ,
  • F. Chopard

      Affiliations

    • Alfa-Laval Vicarb, rue du Rif Tronchard, 38120 Fontanil-Cornillon, France

Received 23 February 2006 ,Accepted 14 June 2006.

  • Image Result

    Thermocouple (ThC) location at the electrode surface vs. length and height (position = x, y; g = gravity) for experiments with model fluids (dimensions xmax = 738mm and ymax = 76mm; positions x = 186,

    Thermocouple (ThC) location at the electrode surface vs. length and height (position = x, y; g = gravity) for experiments with model fluids (dimensions xmax = 738mm and ymax = 76mm; positions x = 186, 306, 432, 552, and 678mm and y = 25, 37.5, and 50mm). Tbe = product inlet temperature (°C); U = electrical potential (V); Q = volume flow rate (m3/s); g = gravity (m/s2).

  • Image Result
    Temperature profiles for fluid [Tb(x)−Tbe, Tblin(x)−Tbe, and Tw(x)−Tbe] vs. length (x) and heat power [sucrose solution, 50% (wt/wt); electrical conductivity, G3; Q = 700 L/h; Tbe = 20°C]. Tb(x) = the

    Temperature profiles for fluid [Tb(x)−Tbe, Tblin(x)−Tbe, and Tw(x)−Tbe] vs. length (x) and heat power [sucrose solution, 50% (wt/wt); electrical conductivity, G3; Q = 700 L/h; Tbe = 20°C]. Tb(x) = thermal profile of the product; Tbe = product inlet temperature; Tw(x) = thermal profile of the wall; ThC = thermocouple; Tb = product temperature; Tblin = linear thermal profile; Tw = wall temperature; P1, P2, and P3 = heat power at 2.1, 3.9, and 8.3 kw.

  • Image Result
    Temperature difference (Tw−Tb) vs. heat power and flow regimen [water and sucrose solution, 50% (wt/wt); electrical conductivities, G1, G2, and G3; x = 432mm; Tw = ThC-7]; Tw = wall temperature; Tb =

    Temperature difference (Tw−Tb) vs. heat power and flow regimen [water and sucrose solution, 50% (wt/wt); electrical conductivities, G1, G2, and G3; x = 432mm; Tw = ThC-7]; Tw = wall temperature; Tb = product temperature.

  • Image Result
    Dry weight of deposit in heater I vs. bulk temperature (not quantified in configurations 4 and 5). Comparison of configurations 1 (Lalande et al., 1984; Tissier et al., 1984), 2, and 3, and temperatur

    Dry weight of deposit in heater I vs. bulk temperature (not quantified in configurations 4 and 5). Comparison of configurations 1 (Lalande et al., 1984; Tissier et al., 1984), 2, and 3, and temperature range included in the ohmic heater (OH).

  • Image Result
    Observation of fouling generated by whole milk in cell 3 of the ohmic heater after Experiments 2 (A), 3 (B), 4 (C), and 5 (D).

    Observation of fouling generated by whole milk in cell 3 of the ohmic heater after Experiments 2 (A), 3 (B), 4 (C), and 5 (D).

  • Image Result
    Heat dissipation coefficient vs. time in the ohmic heater (configurations 2 to 5). RhCO = heat dissipation coefficient; Q = volume flow rate (m3/s).

    Heat dissipation coefficient vs. time in the ohmic heater (configurations 2 to 5). RhCO = heat dissipation coefficient; Q = volume flow rate (m3/s).

  • Image Result
    Evolution of the mean temperature differences, Tw−Tb and Td−Tb, along the ohmic heater vs. the deposit thickness (fluid, whole milk; Q = 200 L/h; Tbe = 50°C; Tbs = 92°C). Software used was SPC, versio

    Evolution of the mean temperature differences, Tw−Tb and Td−Tb, along the ohmic heater vs. the deposit thickness (fluid, whole milk; Q = 200 L/h; Tbe = 50°C; Tbs = 92°C). Software used was SPC, version 1.0 (INRA). DT = Td−Tb; Td = deposit temperature; Tb = product temperature; Tw = wall temperature; DJE = direct Joule effect.

PII: S0022-0302(06)72496-1

doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72496-1

Journal of Dairy Science
Volume 89, Issue 12 , Pages 4475-4489 , December 2006

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution