Food Analytical Methods

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 400–408 | Cite as

Comparison of Vacuum Treatments and Traditional Cooking Using Instrumental and Sensory Analysis

  • C. Iborra-Bernad
  • A. Tárrega
  • P. García-Segovia
  • J. Martínez-MonzóEmail author


The purpose of this work was to compare carrots with similar firmness cooked by traditional cooking and two vacuum treatments: sous-vide (SV) and cook-vide (CV). As a first step, consumers determined the preferred level of firmness for carrots cooked by traditional cooking (boiling). This level corresponded to instrumental firmness of 2.8 N in phloem tissue and 4.1 N in xylem tissue. Response surface methodology (RSM) established the pairing conditions of time (22 to 78 min) and temperature (78 to 92 °C) to study the effect of both factors on the firmness of carrots with sous-vide and cook-vide treatments. In both treatments, the instrumental firmness of phloem and xylem samples was measured and modeled. No significant differences were found in firmness values between phloem and xylem tissue of samples cooked by vacuum treatments (CV and SV). For CV treatment, firmness decreased linearly with time and temperature, while for SV treatment it followed a second-order model. Based on the model, conditions of time and temperature to achieve the preferred firmness (2.8 N) were selected for both treatments. Finally, consumers compared the sensory properties of carrots cooked by traditional cooking, sous-vide, and cook-vide with paired comparison tests evaluating three pairs of samples. Carrots cooked by cook-vide were considered less tasty than sous-vide and traditional cooking carrots. Carrots using traditional cooking were firmer than those obtained with SV and CV treatments. Carrots cooked by traditional and sous-vide treatments were preferred to cook-vide ones for the taste.


Cooking treatments Sous-vide Cook-vide Response surface methodology Sensorial analyses Carrots 







Traditional cooking


Response surface methodology


Conflict of Interest

Consuelo Iborra-Bernad has received research grant from the Generalitat Valenciana. Amparo Tárrega was financially supported by the Juan de la Cierva program. Purificación García-Segovia declares that she has no conflict of interest. Javier Martínez-Monzó declares that he has no conflict of interest. This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects.


  1. Alasalvar C, Grigor J, Quantick P (1999) Method for the static headspace analysis of carrot volatiles. Food Chem 65:391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arcia P, Costell E, Tárrega A (2010) Thickness suitability of prebiotic dairy desserts: Relationship with rheological properties. Food Res Int 43:2409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldwin DE (2012) Sous vide cooking: A review. Int J Gastronomy Food Sci 1:15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourne MC (2002) Food texture and viscosity: concept and measurement. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  5. Dauchet L, Amouyel P, Hercberg S, Dallongeville J (2006) Fruit and vegetable consumption and risk of coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. J Nutr 136:2588Google Scholar
  6. Fan L, Zhang M, Xiao G, Sun J, Tao Q (2005) The optimization of vacuum frying to dehydrate carrot chips. Int J Food Sci Tech 40:911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Furfaro M, Marigheto N, Moates G, Cross K, Parker M, Waldron K, Hills B (2009) Multidimensional NMR cross-correlation relaxation study of carrot phloem and xylem. Part II: Thermal and high-pressure processing. Appl Magn Reson 35:537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gacula JRM, Rutenbeck S, Pollack L, Resurreccion AVA, Moskowitz HR (2007) The Just‐About‐Right intensity scale: functional analyses and relation to hedonics. J Sens Stud 22:194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gan HE, Karim R, Muhammad SKS, Bakar JA, Hashim DM, Rahman RA (2007) Optimization of the basic formulation of a traditional baked cassava cake using response surface methodology. LWT- Food Sci Technol 40:611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. García-Segovia P, Andrés-Bello A, Martínez-Monzó J (2008) Textural properties of potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L., cv. Monalisa) as affected by different cooking processes. J Food Eng 88:28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. García-Segovia P, Barreto-Palacios V, Iborra-Bernad C, Andrés-Bello A, González-Carrascosa R, Bretón J, Martínez-Monzó J (2012) Improvement of a culinary recipe by applying sensory analysis: Design of the New Tarte Tatin. Int J Gastronomy Food Sci 1:54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Greve LC, Mcardle RN, Gohlke JR, Labavitch JM (1994a) Impact of heating on carrot firmness: changes in cell wall components. J Agric Food Chem 42:2900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Greve LC, Shackel KA, Ahmadi H, Mcardle RN, Gohlke JR, Labavitch JM (1994b) Impact of heating on carrot firmness: contribution of cellular turgor. J Agric Food Chem 42:2896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hudson BT (1993) Industrial cuisine. Cornell Hotel Restaur Adm Q 34:73Google Scholar
  15. Hui YH, Chen F, Nollet LML et al (2010) Handbook of fruit and vegetable flavors. Wiley, HonokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Iborra-Bernad C, Philippon D, García-Segovia P, Martinez-Monzo J (2013) Optimizing the texture and color of sous-vide and cook-vide green bean pods. LWT- Food Sci Technol 51:507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ISO (2005) Sensory analysis. Methodology. Paired comparison test. Standard No. 5495. International Organization for Standardization. Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  18. Kjeldsen F, Christensen LP, Edelenbos M (2001) Quantitative analysis of aroma compounds in carrot (Daucus carota L.) cultivars by capillary gas chromatography using large-volume injection technique. J Agric Food Chem 49:4342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kuehl RO (2000) Design of experiments: statistical principles of research design and analysis. Duxbury, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Leskova E (2006) Vitamin losses: retention during heat treatment and continual changes expressed by mathematical models. J Food Compos Anal 19:252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Martínez-Hernández GB, Artés-Hernández F, Colares-Souza F, Gómez PA, García-Gómez P, Artés F (2013) Innovative cooking techniques for improving the overall quality of a Kailan-hybrid broccoli. Food Bioprocess Tech 1:1. doi: 10.1007/S11947-012-0871-0 Google Scholar
  22. Mckenna BM, Kilcast D (2004) Texture in food: solid foods. WoodheadGoogle Scholar
  23. Mente A, De Koning L, Shannon HS, Anand SS (2009) A systematic review of the evidence supporting a causal link between dietary factors and coronary heart disease. Arch Intern Med 169(659)Google Scholar
  24. Montgomery DC, Runger GC (2010) Applied statistics and probability for engineers. Wiley, United States of AmericaGoogle Scholar
  25. Myers RH, Montgomery DC (2002) Response surface methodology: process and product optimization using designed experiments. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Riboli E, Norat T (2003) Epidemiologic evidence of the protective effect of fruit and vegetables on cancer risk. Am J Clin Nutr 78:559sGoogle Scholar
  27. Rinaldi M, Dall'asta C, Meli F, Morini E, Pellegrini N, Gatti M, Chiavaro E (2012) Physicochemical and Microbiological Quality of Sous-Vide-Processed Carrots and Brussels Sprouts. Food Bioprocess Tech 1Google Scholar
  28. Sanchez H, Osella C, De La Torre M (2004) Use of response surface methodology to optimize glutenfree bread fortified with soy flour and dry milk. Food Sci Technol Int 10:5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schellekens M (1996) New research issues in sous-vide cooking. Trends Food Sci Technol 7:256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Van Buggenhout S, Sila DN, Duvetter T, Van Loey A, Hendrickx M (2009) Pectins 58 in processed fruits. Compr Rev Food Sci F 8:105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Villegas B, Tárrega A, Carbonell I, Costell E (2010) Optimising acceptability o 39 f new prebiotic low-fat milk beverages. Food Qual Prefer 21:234CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Iborra-Bernad
    • 1
  • A. Tárrega
    • 2
  • P. García-Segovia
    • 1
  • J. Martínez-Monzó
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Food Technology DepartmentUniversitat Politècnica de ValènciaValenciaSpain
  2. 2.Instituto de Agroquímica y Tecnología de AlimentosCSICPaternaSpain

Personalised recommendations