4.7 Article

Cooking Methods for Preserving Isothiocyanates and Reducing Goitrin in Brassica Vegetables

期刊

FOODS
卷 12, 期 19, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/foods12193647

关键词

cooking; Brassica vegetables; goitrogen; goitrin; isothiocyanates; benzyl isothiocyanate; sulforaphane; LC-MS/MS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to optimize cooking conditions for reducing goitrin while preserving isothiocyanates in Brassica vegetables. The results show that steaming cabbage and stir-frying Chinese kale under specific temperature and time conditions can achieve the goal of reducing goitrin while preserving isothiocyanates.
Glucosinolates in Brassica vegetables can be hydrolyzed into various products, e.g., chemopreventive agents, isothiocyanates (ITCs) and anti-thyroid substance, goitrin. Cooking can reduce goitrin but destroy isothiocyanates. This study aimed to optimize cooking conditions for reducing goitrin while preserving isothiocyanates in Brassica vegetables. Cabbage and Chinese kale samples were divided evenly into raw, blanched, steamed, and water-based stir-fried samples. Cooking temperature and time were varied at 60, 80, or 100 degree celsius for 2, 4, or 6 min. The levels of goitrin, benzyl isothiocyanate (BITC), and sulforaphane (SFN) were measured using LC-MS/MS. Response surface model (RSM) was used to identify the optimal cooking conditions to reduce goitrin but preserve ITCs. Results showed that goitrin content in cabbage depended on the cooking methods, temperature, and time, while that of Chinese kale only depended on the methods. In contrast, the concentrations of SFN in cabbage and BITC in kale depended on the cooking temperature and time but not methods. Based on RSM analysis, the suggested household cooking methods for preserving isothiocyanates and reducing goitrin are steaming cabbage at 80-100 degree celsius for 4 min and stir-frying Chinese kale at 60-100 degree celsius for 2 min. Such methods may preserve the bioactive compounds while reducing food hazards.

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