Advertisement

Plant Foods for Human Nutrition

, Volume 69, Issue 3, pp 228–234 | Cite as

Evaluation of Different Cooking Conditions on Broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. italica) to Improve the Nutritional Value and Consumer Acceptance

  • Radhika Bongoni
  • Ruud Verkerk
  • Bea Steenbekkers
  • Matthijs Dekker
  • Markus Stieger
Original Paper

Abstract

The objective of this study was to gain insights into the effect of the cooking method on the liking as well as the retention of glucosinolates in broccoli. With this knowledge it can be concluded whether the health aspects of broccoli be improved by the cooking method without deteriorating sensory perception. For this, broccoli was cooked by methods commonly applied by consumers: boiling with a cold (water) start; boiling with a hot (water) start; and steaming. Firmness, greenness and amount of total glucosinolates in cooked broccoli were instrumentally determined. Sensory evaluation by untrained consumers (n = 99) for liking and sensory attributes intensity rating were performed on broccoli cooked by steaming and boiling-cold start at three time points, which resulted in ‘high’, ‘medium’, ‘low’ firm broccoli samples. At the end of cooking, steaming showed an increase in the amount of total glucosinolates (+17 %). Boiling-hot start (−41 %) and boiling-cold start (−50 %) showed a decrease in amount of total glucosinolates. Sensory evaluation did not show statistically significant differences between steaming and boiling-cold start in liking at ‘high’ and ‘medium’ firmness; and in the attribute intensity ratings (except for juiciness at ‘medium’ firmness, and flavour at ‘medium’ and ‘low’ firmness). This study demonstrates that medium firm broccoli showed optimum liking and that steaming compared to boiled-cold start showed higher amount of glucosinolates. It is concluded that the health aspects of broccoli can be improved without reducing the sensory aspects by optimising the cooking method.

Keywords

Glucosinolates Firmness Greenness Sensory evaluation Consumers 

Abbreviations

GLS

Glucosinolates

W:V

Water-vegetable ratio

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Tjachy Hu for the contribution towards data collection.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11130_2014_420_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (18 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 17 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Akhlaghi M, Bandy B (2010) Dietary broccoli sprouts protect against myocardial oxidative damage and cell death during ischemia-reperfusion. Plant Foods Hum Nutr 65:193–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Verkerk R, Schreiner M, Krumbein A, Ciska E, Holst B, Rowland I, De Schrijver R, Hansen M, Gerhäuser C, Mithen R, Dekker M (2009) Glucosinolates in brassica vegetables: the influence of the food supply chain on intake, bioavailability and human health. Mol Nutr Food Res 53:S219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yadav S, Sehgal S (2003) Effect of domestic processing and cooking on selected antinutrient contents of some green leafy vegetables. Plant Foods Hum Nutr 58:1–11Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Miglio C, Chiavaro E, Visconti A, Fogliano V, Pellegrini N (2007) Effects of different cooking methods on nutritional and physicochemical characteristics of selected vegetables. J Agric Food Chem 56:139–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ryan L, O’Connell O, O’Sullivan L, Aherne SA, O’Brien NM (2008) Micellarisation of carotenoids from raw and cooked vegetables. Plant Foods Hum Nutr 63:127–133Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yuan GF, Sun B, Yuan J, Wang QM (2009) Effects of different cooking methods on health-promoting compounds of broccoli. J Zhejiang Univ 10:580–588. doi: 10.1631/jzus.B0920051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jones RB, Frisina CL, Winkler S, Imsic M, Tomkins RB (2010) Cooking method significantly effects glucosinolate content and sulforaphane production in broccoli florets. Food Chem 123:237–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pellegrini N, Miglio C, Del Rio D, Salvatore S, Serafini M, Brighenti F (2009) Effect of domestic cooking methods on the total antioxidant capacity of vegetables. Int J Food Sci Nutr 60:12–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gonçalves EM, Pinheiro J, Alegria C, Abreu M, Brandão TRS, Silva CLM (2009) Degradation kinetics of peroxidase enzyme, phenolic content, and physical and sensorial characteristics in broccoli (Brassica oleracea L. ssp. Italica) during blanching. J Agric Food Chem 57:5370–5375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaack K (1994) Blanching of green bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Plant Foods Hum Nutr 46:353–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Poelman AAM, Delahunty CM, de Graaf C (2013) Cooking time but not cooking method affects children’s acceptance of brassica vegetables. Food Qual Prefer 28:441–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bongoni R, Verkerk R, Dekker M, Steenbekkers LPA (2014) Consumer behaviour towards vegetables: a study on domestic processing of broccoli and carrot by Dutch households (accepted). J Hum Nutr Diet. doi: 10.1111/jhn.12245
  13. 13.
    Dekker M, Dekkers E, Jasper A, Baár C, Verkerk R (2013) Predictive modelling of vegetable firmness after thermal pre-treatments and steaming. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol. doi: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ifset.2013.10.015
  14. 14.
    Jaiswal AK, Abu-Ghannam N (2013) Degradation kinetic modelling of color, texture, polyphenols and antioxidant capacity of york cabbage after microwave processing. Food Res Int 53:125–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Verkerk R, Dekker M, Jongen WMF (2002) Post-harvest increase of indolyl glucosinolates in response to chopping and storage of brassica vegetables. J Sci Food Agric 81:953–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cox DN, Melo L, Zabaras D, Delahunty CM (2012) Acceptance of health-promoting brassica vegetables: the influence of taste perception, information and attitudes. Public Health Nutr 15:1474–1482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rennie C, Wise A (2010) Preferences for steaming of vegetables. J Hum Nutr Diet 23:108–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Worch T, Lê S, Punter P (2010) How reliable are the consumers? Comparison of sensory profiles from consumers and experts. Food Qual Prefer 21:309–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ares G, Bruzzone F, Gimenez ANA (2011) Is a consumer panel able to reliably evaluate the texture of dairy desserts using unstructured intensity scales? Evaluation of global and individual performance. J Sens Stud 26:363–370Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mnkeni AP, Gierschner K, Maeda EE (1999) Effect of blanching time and salt concentration on pectolytic enzymes, texture and acceptability of fermented green beans. Plant Foods Hum Nutr 53:285–296Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vicas S, Teusdea A, Carbunar M, Socaci S, Socaciu C (2013) Glucosinolates profile and antioxidant capacity of romanian brassica vegetables obtained by organic and conventional agricultural practices. Plant Foods Hum Nutr 68:313–321Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ciska E, Kozłowska H (2001) The effect of cooking on the glucosinolates content in white cabbage. Eur Food Res Technol 212:582–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schonhof I, Krumbein A, Brückner B (2004) Genotypic effects on glucosinolates and sensory properties of broccoli and cauliflower. Nahrung 48:25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Radhika Bongoni
    • 1
  • Ruud Verkerk
    • 1
  • Bea Steenbekkers
    • 1
  • Matthijs Dekker
    • 1
  • Markus Stieger
    • 1
  1. 1.Food Quality and DesignWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations