4.7 Article

Kinetics of changes in glucosinolate concentrations during long-term cooking of white cabbage (Brassica oleracea L. ssp capitata f. alba)

期刊

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 56, 期 6, 页码 2068-2073

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jf0731999

关键词

glucosinolates; cabbage; Brassica oleracea L. ssp capitata; processing; rate constants; mathematical modeling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Brassica vegetables are the predominant dietary source of glucosinolates (GLS) that can be degraded in the intestinal tract into isothiocyanates, which have been shown to possess anticarcinogenic properties. The effects of pilot-scale long-term boiling on GLS in white cabbage (Brassica oleracea L. ssp. capitata f. alba cv. 'Bartolo') was experimentally determined and mathematically modeled. Cabbage was boiled, resulting in a dramatic decrease of 56% in the total GLS levels within the plant matrix during the first 2 min. After 8-12 min of boiling, the decrease progressed to over 70%. Progoitrin had an exceptionally higher decline rate in comparison to all other GLS. As boiling progressed the concentration of all GLS continued to decrease at a lower rate for the remaining cooking period. A mathematical model was used to describe the concentration profile of the GLS in the plant matrix, based on leaching of GLS to the water phase due to cell lysis and thermal degradation of the GLS both in the plant matrix and in the water phase. The model described the concentration profiles very well. Estimated lysis and degradation rate constants for white cabbage differed from those reported in the literature for red cabbage. The degradation rate constants found were significantly higher in the plant matrix when compared to those in the water phase for all GLS. Identification of the kinetics of decline of GLS during cooking can aid in designing processing and preparation methods and determining the conditions for the optimal effects of ingestion of Brassicaceae toward cancer prevention.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据