Food Eng Rev (2012) 4:107113

DOI 10.1007/s12393-012-9049-9

SHORT COMMUNICATION

Is There a Need for the Come-Up Time Correction Factor

in Balls Formula Method? A Critical Analysis
Ricardo Simpson Sergio Almonacid
Helena Nunez Alejandra Urtubia
Arthur A. Teixeira

Received: 3 November 2011 / Accepted: 15 January 2012 / Published online: 15 February 2012
 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Abstract A critical analysis of the correction factor for

the come-up time (CUT) introduced by Dr. C. Olin Ball in
his Formula Method for thermal process calculations is
described in this manuscript. In the General Method, the
effect of the CUT is included in the calculated lethality
value as long as numerical integration is carried out over
the entire cold spot temperaturetime profile from the point
when the steam is turned on. The hypothesis of this communication is that Balls Formula Method, just like the
General Method, includes the effect of the CUT in its
calculations. Balls Formula Method utilizes a curve fitting of the experimental timetemperature data regardless
of where the time zero is placed within the come-up time.
Therefore, the effect of the CUT is automatically included,
because, as in the General Method, Balls Formula Method
is fitting and managing experimental data. In addition, the
regressed timetemperature data used for lethality calculations are exactly the same independent of the time zero
location. To evaluate the rationale of the CUT correction
factor, computer-simulated timetemperature data and
experimental runs were evaluated with time zero shifted to

R. Simpson (&)  S. Almonacid  H. Nunez  A. Urtubia

Departamento de Ingeniera Qumica y Ambiental, Universidad
Tecnica Federico Santa Mara, P.O. Box 110-V, Valparaso,
Chile
e-mail: ricardo.simpson@usm.cl
R. Simpson  S. Almonacid  A. Urtubia
Centro Regional de Estudios en Alimentos Saludables (CREAS).
CONICYT-REGIONAL. R06I1004, Blanco 1623, Room 1402,
Valparaso, Chile
A. A. Teixeira
Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering,
University of Florida, Frazier Rogers Hall, P. O. Box 110570,
Gainesville, FL 32611-0570, USA

different locations (100, 70, 42, 20 and 0% of the CUT). In

addition, the effect of the CUT (shape and length) was
studied in terms of FHeating and Tg accuracy compared to
the General Method. Independent of the time shift (the
location of time zero), the calculations according to the
Formula Method for total heating time (Pt ? CUT) were
always the same. This work states that it is not necessary to
shift the location of time zero in Balls Formula Method
because the calculations over the curve fitting timetemperature data will always include the effect of the CUT
regardless of where time zero is placed.
Keywords Balls Formula Method  Correction factor 
Come-up time effectiveness  Thermal processing  Process
calculation techniques
List of Symbols
B
Balls effective processing time
CUT
Come-up time
Fo
Sterilizing value at 121.1 C
Fp
Process sterilizing value
FHeating
Process sterilizing value at the heating stage
f
Rate factor (related to slope of semi-log heat
penetration curve)
fh and fc
Heating and cooling rate factors (related to
slope of semi-log heat penetration curve)


A
j
Dimensionless lag factor j TRTT
TRTIT
jh and jc
Heating and cooling lag factors
Pt
Operators process time (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

123

108

Tg
T
IT
TRT
Tref
t
Time zero

tg
z

Food Eng Rev (2012) 4:107113

Temperature at the coldest point when cooling

phase begins
Temperature
Initial temperature
Retort temperature
Reference temperature, 121.1 C
Time
In Balls procedure, the location of time zero
has been shifted and starts when the time
corresponds to 0.58 * CUT (e.g., if the
CUT = 10 min, then time zero is located at
5.8 minute of the regular time)
Time in a thermal process corresponding to
heat cut off and initiation of cooling phase
Temperature change necessary to alter the
TDT by one log-cycle

Introduction
Thermal processing is an important method of food
preservation used in the manufacture of shelf-stable
sterilized foods. The basic function of a thermal process is
to inactivate microorganisms to produce microbiologically
safe products in sealed containers by applying heat
treatment at temperatures well above the ambient boiling
point of water in pressurized steam retorts (autoclaves).
Excessive heat treatment should be avoided because it is
detrimental to food quality and underutilizes the capacity
of the plant.
The first procedure to calculate thermal processes was
developed by Bigelow [5] in the early part of the 20th
century and is usually known as the General Method. The
General Method makes direct use of the timetemperature
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 timeconsuming, tedious and impractical for most routine
applications, and it soon gave way to methods offering
shortcuts. In response to this need, a semi-analytic method
for thermal processing calculations was developed and
proposed to the scientific community by Ball [2]. This
method is the well-known Balls Formula Method, and it
works in a different way from the General Method. Balls
Method makes use of the difference between retort and
cold spot temperatures, which decays exponentially over
process time, after an initial lag period. Therefore, a semilogarithmic plot of the temperature difference over time
(after the initial lag) appears as a straight line that can be

123

described mathematically by a simple formula that is

related to lethality requirements by a set of tables that must
be used in conjunction with the formula [2]. With the
advent of computers and personal computers, several
software programs were developed to facilitate the use of
Balls Formula Method.
In the decades since Balls Formula Method was
developed, several questions have arisen regarding its
accuracy and universality. One possible problem relates to
the assumption in the method that the semi-logarithmic plot
of the temperature difference over time (after the initial
lag) gives a straight line. The question that arises is whether the formula, which was derived for a cylindrical
container, is still relevant today, when sterilized foods are
packaged in a wide variety of containers in various shapes
(retortable pouches, trays, etc.). An answer to this doubt
was found by Carslaw and Jaeger [6], who showed that the
semi-logarithmic plot is applicable to different geometries
(rectangular, oval shape, spheres, cones, etc). Another
potential drawback in Balls Formula Method is that the
semi-logarithmic plot of the temperature has been derived
for two extreme cases: (a) the perfect mixing of a liquid
(forced convection) and (b) homogeneous solids (pure
conduction), when in fact most foods are intermediate to
these extremes [15]. However, several empirical and theoretical studies [11, 19] have shown that the accuracy of
the semi-logarithmic plot fits experimental timetemperature data independent of the heterogeneity of the food
preparation and also independent of the fact that the retort
temperature is not instantly raised; this latter phenomenon
is known as come-up time (CUT).
The problem with Balls Formula Method arises not in
its application, which has proven to be sound, but in a
conceptual error: the addition of the 42% correction factor.
When Dr. Olin Ball derived his Formula Method, he
hypothesized that the effect of the CUT was not considered
in the calculations, based on the assumption that the formula did not take into account the time required to bring
retort to actual processing temperature. Consequently, a
correction factor was added [3]. According to [3], this
period must have some time value as a part of the process.
This value may be expressed in per cent of the actual
length of time consumed Thus, the correction factor of
42% of the CUT was added to the procedure.
The hypothesis of this communication is that Balls
Formula Method, like the General Method, includes the
effect of the CUT in its calculations, regardless of where
the time zero is placed within the CUT. Therefore, there is
no need for a correction factor, and the time zero should
not be shifted.
The objectives are to offer a critical analysis of the
correction factor for the CUT introduced by Dr. C. Olin

Food Eng Rev (2012) 4:107113

109

Ball in his Formula Method and to show that operators

process time (Pt) is always the same, regardless of how
much come-up time is taken into account.

mentioned, Eq. 3 has proven to be practically useful when

the heating rate (fh) and the heating lag (jh) parameters are
obtained experimentally.

Fundamentals and Methodology

Correction Factor for Come-Up Time According

to the Scientific Literature

The F-value of a given thermal process (lethality) is the

sum of the lethality achieved during heating and the
lethality delivered during cooling; it can be expressed as
follows:
FProcess FHeating FCooling
FProcess

Ztg
10

TTref
z

dt

Zt
10

TTref
z

dt

tg

As shown in Eq. 1, FProcess has been separated as the

sum of the F-value for the heating stage and the F-value for
the cooling stage. This analysis will evaluate the accuracy
of Balls Formula Method in calculating lethality during
heating (FHeating) and evaluate the accuracy of its
prediction of the final cold spot temperature reached at
the end of heating (Tg).
Balls Formula Method for calculating the process time
at a given retort temperature is based on a mathematical
equation for the straight-line portion of the temperature
time profile at the can cold spot when plotted on inverted
semi-log graph paper (assuming finite cylindrical cans) [2].
This method of data transformation is a straightforward
mathematical technique and allows Balls Formula Method
to take on a simple expression that obeys standard heat
conduction and convection theory within certain constraints [7, 8, 13]. There are abundant data in the literature
showing the accuracy of the Balls procedure for heat
transfer in a mixed mode for heterogeneous foods (conductionconvection) and for packaged foods other than
standard cylindrical cans.
The equation that Ball derived for the straight-line
heating curve can be expressed as follows [2, 13]:


TRT  IT
t f  log j
3
TRT  T

Given that Eq. 3 theoretically considers that TRT (retort

temperature) is instantly reached, the Ball procedure
introduced the correction factor (42% of the CUT)
assuming that the contribution of the CUT in the F-value
calculation was not taken into account. Ball [2] experimentally determined a value of 42% for the contribution of
the CUT period to the total effect of cumulated lethality [8,
13]. This value is generally considered conservative [8].
Figure 1 depicts graphically the classical way that Dr. Olin
Ball incorporated this CUT correction factor in his calculation of the effective process time (B).
The operators process time at retort temperature (Pt) for
a commercial operation is measured from the time when
the retort reaches processing temperature (TRT), to the
time when the steam is turned off and the cooling water is
supplied. In Balls Formula Method, the effective process
time (B) is the sum of the operators process time and 42%
of come-up time, as follows:
B Pt 0:42  CUT

Over the years, researchers have attempted to reveal the

real impact or effect of the CUT in the total cumulated
lethality. The factor of 42% is generally regarded as a
conservative estimate and is applicable only to batch retorts
with a linear heating profile. Although the lethal effects of
the CUT at the product center of a container are small for
most canned food products, thin-profile plastic packages
processed under steamair or water spray could experience
a more significant lethal effect from the CUT. Merson et al.
[13] mention that it is incorrect to assume that the heating

Where: j TRTTA
TRTIT
Equation 3 has been critically analyzed by Merson et al.
[13]. As was shown by Datta [7], the latter expression is
valid not only for finite cylinders but also for arbitrary
shapes (rectangular, oval shape, infinite slab, etc.). The
main limitation is that for food heated by conduction, the
expression is only valid for heating times beyond the initial
lag period (when the Fourier number [ 0.6). Although in
the majority of sterilized food products, the heat transfer
process is not strictly conduction or forced convection, as

Fig. 1 Graphical representation of the correction factor in Balls

procedure

123

110

medium surrounding the can is suddenly raised to

processing temperature. Spinak and Wiley [16] found
that the CUT effectiveness varied from 3577%.
Ramaswamy [14], using thin-profile retort packages and
two retort temperature profiles, one linear and the other
logarithmic, showed that the traditional 42% CUT was
appropriate for the former, but that for the latter the values
were twice as large. Except for package thickness, other
factors had only a small influence on the CUT. For other
types of retorts, initial conditions and venting procedures,
abundant literature is available [1, 4, 9, 10, 17, 20]. As
shown, although the scientific literature has addressed
Balls inclusion of the CUT correction factor, none has
addressed the central conceptual flaw analyzed in this
manuscript, which states that the correction factor is not
necessary to perform the correct calculations when using
Balls Formula Method.
Correction Factor for Come-Up Time Under Critical
Scrutiny
As stated by Dr. Olin Ball in his original work and later
confirmed by several authors, there is no doubt that the
CUT length and shape effectively contribute to the lethal
effect. In addition, as reported by different authors, their
contributions will vary with package geometry, size, etc.
[14, 16]. However, the real question is to understand
whether or not this effect is considered in Balls Formula
Method.
The hypothesis of this communication is that Balls
Formula Method, like the General Method, takes into
account the effect of the CUT in its calculations, regardless
of where the zero time line is placed within the come-up
time (see Fig. 1).
Supporting this argument is the fact that Balls Formula
Method requires the experimental data to be fit to a curve.
Because of this, the linear regression of the heat penetration data always fits the same experimental data independent of the location of time zero. Thus, when calculating
the heating lethality (FHeating), the CUT effect is always
considered. Possibly, a real concern should be the quality of the accuracy of Eq. 3 in terms of goodness of fit
during the heating stage, depending on the CUT shape and
length and the value of fh. Although substantial empirical
evidence has shown a high correlation when fitting the
straight-line portion of the temperaturetime profile to
experimental data, this evidence is tested here using several
computer-based experiments.
In order to evaluate the effect of time shift on the prediction of operators process time (Pt), several experiments
were conducted. The implications of the time zero location
(time shift) were investigated for a cylindrical container
with an inner diameter of 83 mm and a height of 106 mm.

123

Food Eng Rev (2012) 4:107113

Computer simulations were executed for an FP of 6 min

under the following operating conditions: (a) retort temperature of 120 C; (b) initial temperature of the product at
20 C; (c) CUT of 10 min; and (d) thermal diffusivity of
1.7E - 7 m2/s. Three different shapes of CUT were analyzed: (a) linear, (b) convex and (c) concave.
Next, the time zero location was analyzed for an
experimental run of a tuna fish product in a cylindrical
container with an inner diameter of 83 mm and a height of
41 mm under the following operating conditions: (a) retort
temperature of 117 C, (b) initial temperature of the
product at 31 C and (c) CUT of 29 min. This analysis was
conducted to test and validate the hypothesis. The chosen
product was a classical practical example of a heat conduction food.
In addition, the time zero location was analyzed for a
simulated and an experimental run of a retortable pouch
(rectangular shape). In the case of the simulated run, the
dimensions of the pouch were 25 mm width and 300 mm
length under the following operating conditions: (a) retort
temperature of 125 C, (b) initial temperature of the
product at 20 C and (c) CUT of 10 min. In the case of the
experimental run, the dimensions of the pouch were 10 mm
width and 80 mm length under the following operating
conditions: (a) retort temperature of 120 C, (b) initial
temperature of the product at 11 C and (c) CUT of 6 min.
To further test and validate the hypothesis, these experiments were devised also to consider products packaged in
new container formats such as retortable pouches.
Comparisons Among Lethality Calculations at the End
of the Heating Stage (FHeating and Tg)
Calculations of the lethality reached at the end of heating
(FHeating), and Tg for different products and retort processes
were carried out using Balls Formula Method and compared with those calculated by the General Method. To
examine a wide variety of food products and CUT lengths,
fh times ranging from *20 to *160 min [18] were
selected and CUT times from 5 to 30 min were chosen
[12].
Data Generation and Computer Search
Heat penetration data were generated by computer software
(C??) that executed an explicit finite difference solution to
the general heat conduction equation for a finite cylinder.
The calculations for F-value, according to the General
Method, were performed at the geometric center (cold spot)
using Simpsons numerical integration rule with a time
interval of 30 s. In the case of Balls Formula Method
calculations (B, FHeating and Tg), timetemperature data up
to the end of heating that were generated by the

Food Eng Rev (2012) 4:107113

111

aforementioned software were fitted with Eq. 3 to obtain

the heat penetration parameters fh and jh (for different
locations of time zero).

the contribution of the CUT is strictly taken into account in the

FHeating calculation by Balls Formula Method. In addition,
experiments for different container sizes and geometries were
performed and showed the same results.
Table 2 shows the results for operators process time
(Pt) for different CUT contributions for an experimental
run of a tuna fish product. Again, independent of the
contribution of the CUT, the operators process time was
the same. In this experimental run, the shape of the CUT is
not only arbitrary but also unusually long, as depicted in
Fig. 2. As was anticipated, the Pt was always the same,
regardless of the different CUT contributions.
Table 3 shows the results for operators process time
(Pt) for different CUT contributions for both a simulated
run and an experimental run of a retortable pouch. As was
observed in Tables 1 and 2, the operators process time was
the same, independent of the contribution of the CUT.

Results and Discussion

Simulated and experimental runs consistently demonstrated
that independent of the time zero location, the obtained
results for operators process time (Pt) were always the
same (Tables 1, 2, and 3). In addition, computer experiments carried out for a wide range of fh values
(20160 min) also proved the accuracy of Balls Formula
Method in relation to FHeating and Tg.
Time Shift
Table 1 shows the results for operators process time (Pt) for
different CUT contributions, from 0 to 100%, where 100%
contribution means that the time zero was not shifted. In every
case, independent of the contribution or CUT shape (linear,
concave or convex), the operators process time was exactly
the same, meaning that independent of the time zero location,
Table 1 Prediction of
operators process time (Pt)
using different time zero
locations for a linear, concave
and convex CUT

Linear CUT (min)

Convex CUT (min)

Standard contribution of
come-up time (42%) introduced
in Balls Formula Method

Standard contribution of
come-up time (42%) introduced
in Balls Formula Method

Table 4 shows the calculations for FHeating and Tg by the

General Method and by Balls Formula Method. Experiments were selected to represent most, if not all, of the

% of CUT

Concave CUT (min)

Table 2 Prediction of
operators process time (Pt)
using different zero time
locations for an experimental
run of tuna fish product

Accuracy of the Formula Method on FHeating and Tg

jh

fh

B (min)

Pt (min)

100

55.5

2.33

92.0

82.0

70

55.5

2.06

89.0

82.0

42a
20

55.5
55.5

1.84
1.67

86.2
84.0

82.0
82.0

55.5

1.51

82.0

82.0

100

55.4

2.14

97.6

87.6

70

55.4

1.89

94.6

87.6

42a

55.4

1.68

91.8

87.6

20

55.4

1.53

89.6

87.6

55.4

1.41

87.6

87.6

100

55.4

2.41

100.6

90.6

70

55.4

2.13

97.6

90.6

42a

55.4

1.90

94.8

90.6

20

55.4

1.73

92.6

90.6

55.4

1.59

90.6

90.6

CUT (min)

% of CUT

fh

jh

B (min)

Pt (min)

29

100
70

30.9
30.9

4.43
2.32

81.0
72.3

52.0
52.0

42a

30.9

1.26

64.2

52.0

20

30.9

0.79

57.8

52.0

30.9

0.51

52.0

52.0

123

112

Food Eng Rev (2012) 4:107113

Table 3 Prediction of
operators process time (Pt)
using different time zero
locations for both a simulated
run and an experimental run of a
retortable pouch

% of CUT
Simulated CUT 10 (min)

Experimental CUT 6 (min)

Standard contribution of
come-up time (42%) introduced
in Balls Formula Method

Fig. 2 Experimental run for a tuna fish product packaged in a

cylindrical can with a diameter of 83 mm and a height of 41 mm

processes that occur in industrial practice [18]. Independent

of product and can dimensions, characterized by a wide
range of fh, and CUT length, the estimation of FHeating and
Tg by the General Method and the Formula Method is
practically the same. The results confirm that there is a high
correlation when fitting the straight-line portion of the
temperaturetime profile to experimental data.

fh

jh

B (min)

Pt (min)

100

12.4

3.73

25.0

15.0

70

12.4

2.14

22.0

15.0

42a

12.4

1.27

19.2

15.0

20

12.4

0.85

17.0

15.0

12.4

0.58

15.0

15.0

100

6.6

2.47

24.0

18.0

70

6.6

1.32

22.2

18.0

42a

6.6

0.74

20.5

18.0

20

6.6

0.47

19.2

18.0

6.6

0.31

18.0

18.0

This work has shown that Balls Formula Method can be

as accurate as the General Method at the heating stage and
that it always takes the come-up time into account. Thus,
there is no need for correction factors or shifting time zero
because the parameters in Eq. 3 have been estimated from
a regression analysis of the experimental data through the
straight-line segment of the heat penetration curve. The
graphical location of the experimental timetemperature
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 generates an adequate goodness of fit
(implicitly confirmed by the results of Table 4), the
F-value calculations by the Formula Method will be as
accurate as the General Method. The accuracy over the
heating curve has been shown repeatedly with both
experimental temperaturetime data as well as data generated by computer models. However, prudence dictates
further testing of the goodness of fit of Eq. 3 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.
As was hypothesized, operators process time, FHeating
and Tg are independent of the time zero location. The

Table 4 Calculations of heating lethality (FHeating) and Tg through Balls Formula Method and General Method for a wide variety of processes
with fh ranging from *20 to *160 min and CUT length from 5 to 30 min
fh (min)

CUT (min)
5

21.6
55
93
159.6

10

20

30

4.2a

117.7b

3.8

117.6

4.2

117.6

3.7

117.5

4.2

117.7d

3.8

117.5

4.2

117.7

3.7

117.5

3.1

114.7

3.2

114.8

3.1

114.7

3.1

114.7

3.1

114.7

3.2

114.8

3.1

114.7

3.1

114.7

3.0

113.2

3.1

113.5

3.1

113.6

3.1

113.5

3.0

113.4

3.1

113.5

3.1

113.6

3.1

113.5

2.1

110.3

2.0

110.3

2.0

110.2

2.1

110.3

2.1

110.3

2.0

110.3

2.0

110.3

2.1

110.3

a and b are the FHeating and Tg calculated by the Balls Formula Method and c and d the respective values calculated by the General Method. The
results in each cell follow the same left-to-right a, b, c, d sequence shown in upper left for CUT 5 and fh 21.6

123

Food Eng Rev (2012) 4:107113

experimental data considered for their calculations are

always the same. In support of these results, it is essential
to note that the required temperature data for FHeating calculations are always beyond the CUT, because in order to
have an impact in the cumulative lethality, the temperature
of the coldest point should be above 100 C.

Final Remarks
The prediction of operators process time (Pt) by Balls
Formula Method was the same regardless of where time
zero was placed within the come-up time (or the CUT
contribution). This result is due to the linear regression of
heat penetration data along the straight-line portion of the
semi-log heat penetration curve, which produces a mathematical expression (Balls Formula Method) that predicts
the same timetemperature history independent of the time
zero location. In addition, given that high correlations were
obtained in all cases, the calculation of the F-value from
the regressed data (Balls procedure) was essentially
identical to the F-value calculated by the General Method,
which is based directly on the experimental data points. It
has also been shown that temperaturetime histories predicted by Eq. 3 always have a high correlation (implicitly
confirmed by the results of Table 4) with experimental data
points, independent of the CUT shape and length, meaning
that the F-value at the end of heating is well estimated.
Finally, it was concluded that inaccuracies in Balls
Formula Method could be attributed in almost 100% of
cases to the cooling calculations.
Acknowledgments We kindly appreciate the contribution made by
Dr. Alik Abakarov (Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Spain).
Authors Ricardo Simpson and Sergio Almonacid are grateful for the
financial support provided by CONICYT through FONDECYT project number 1090689.

References

113
2. Ball CO (1923) Thermal processing time for canned foods.
Bulletin 71, vol 37. National Research Council, Washington
3. Ball CO, Olson FCW (1957) Sterilization in food technology
theory, practice and calculations. McGraw-Hill, New York
4. Berry MR 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(3):12931299
5. Bigelow WD, Bohart GS, Richardson AC, Ball CO (1920) Heat
penetration in processing canned foods. Bulletin no. 16-L.
Research Laboratory, National Canners Association, Washington
6. Carslaw HS, Jaeger JC (1959) Conduction of heat in solids.
Oxford University Press, London
7. Datta AK (1990) On the theoretical basis of the asymptotic semi
logarithmic heat penetration curves used in food processing.
J Food Eng 12(3):177190
8. Holdsworth SD, Simpson R (2007) Thermal processing of
packaged foods, 2nd edn. Springer, New York
9. Ikegami Y (1974a) Effect of various factors in the come-up time
on processing of canned foods with steam. Report Tokyo Institute
of Food Technology, serial no. 11, pp 9298 (in Japanese)
10. Ikegami Y (1974b) Effect of come-up on processing canned
food with steam. Canners J 53(1):7984 (in Japanese)
11. Ikegami Y (1977) Heat penetration in canned foods containing
solids and liquid. Canners J 56(7):548552
12. Kelder JC (2010) Personal communication. Unilever, Vlaardingen
13. Merson RL, Singh RP, Carroad PA (1978) An evaluation of
Balls Formula Method of thermal process calculations. Food
Technol 32(3):6676
14. Ramaswamy HS (1993) Come-up time effectiveness for process
calculations involving thin-packages. J Food Eng 19(2):109117
15. Simpson R, Almonacid S, Teixeira A (2003) Bigelows general
method revisited: development of a new calculation technique.
J Food Sci 68(4):13241333
16. Spinak SH, Wiley RC (1982) Comparisons of the general and
Ball Formula Methods for retort pouch process calculations.
J Food Sci 47(3):880888
17. Succar J, Hayakawa K (1982) Prediction of time correction factor
for come-up heating of packaged liquid food. J Food Sci
47(3):614618
18. Stumbo CR, Purohit KS, Ramakrishnan TV, Evans DA, Francis
FJ (1983) Handbook of lethality guides for low-acid canned
foods. CRC Press, Boca Raton
19. Uno J, Hayakawa K (1980) Correction factor of come-up heating
based on critical point in a cylindrical can of heat conduction
food. J Food Sci 45(4):853859
20. 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(5):14841487

1. Alstrand DV, Benjamin HA (1949) Thermal processing of canned

foods in tin containers. V. Effect of retorting procedures on
sterilization values for canned foods. Food Res 14(3):253257

123