4.6 Article

Retention of mineral constituents in frozen leafy vegetables prepared for consumption

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD COMPOSITION AND ANALYSIS
卷 22, 期 3, 页码 218-223

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfca.2008.11.015

关键词

Leafy vegetables; Spinach; Kale New Zealand spinach; Mineral composition; Pre-treatment; Freezing; Preparing for consumption; Nutrient retention after processing; Food quality; Food analysis; Food composition

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The content of ash, P, K, Ca, Mg, Na, Fe, Zn, Mn, Cu, Cr and Ni was compared in kale, spinach and New Zealand spinach: fresh, frozen and prepared for consumption. The investigation covered composition of the raw vegetables; the vegetables blanched in water before freezing (the traditional method of freezing); the vegetables cooked in brine (the modified method of freezing): and frozen products after 12 months of refrigerated storage. These products were prepared for consumption: either by cooking the products obtained by the traditional method in brine; or by defrosting and heating frozen vegetables obtained by modified method to consumption temperature in a microwave oven. The smallest losses caused by blanching were usually found in spinach and the highest in kale. Changes caused by cooking did not always exceed those noted after blanching. When compared with the raw vegetables, frozen products prepared for consumption contained significantly less potassium, magnesium and - with the exception of New Zealand spinach - phosphorus and copper. There was also a decrease in calcium, but only in kale; and in chromium and nickel, but only in New Zealand spinach. With regard to the remaining elements there was no consistent pattern. In products obtained by the modified method, the content of analysed constituents was greater in almost every case compared with that obtained using the traditional method: however, riot all the differences were statistically significant. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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