| Title |
Stir-Frying of Chinese Cabbage and Pakchoi Retains Health-Promoting Glucosinolates
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Plant Foods for Human Nutrition, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11130-017-0646-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Probo Y. Nugrahedi, Teresa Oliviero, Jenneke K. Heising, Matthijs Dekker, Ruud Verkerk |
| Abstract |
Stir-frying is a cooking method, originating from Asia, in which food is fried in small amount of very hot oil. Nowadays in many other parts of the world stir-frying is a very popular method to prepare vegetables, because it is fast and fried vegetables are tasty. However, the retention of phytochemicals like the health-beneficial glucosinolates in Brassica vegetables is less explored for stir-frying in comparison to other cooking methods. This study investigates the retention of glucosinolates in Chinese cabbage (Brassica rapa ssp. pekinensis) and pakchoi (Brassica rapa ssp. chinensis) as affected by stir-frying at various cooking durations and temperatures. Stir-frying experiments were performed at set pan temperatures ranging from 160 to 250 °C for a duration of 1 to 8 min. Results showed that aliphatic glucobrassicanapin is the most abundant glucosinolate identified in fresh Chinese cabbage and pakchoi, contributing for 48 and 63% of the total glucosinolate content, respectively, followed by glucoiberin and gluconapin. Stir-frying retains the glucosinolates even at the highest temperature applied. Such retention is explained by the quick inactivation of the glucosinolate-hydrolytic enzyme myrosinase during the first minutes of frying, and by the thermal stability of the glucosinolates at those temperature/time conditions. Moreover, due to the absence of a separate water phase, leaching losses did not occur, in contrast to what is observed when boiling Brassica vegetables. These results show that stir-frying may be a suitable health-beneficial cooking option that prevents the loss of glucosinolates. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 15 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 22% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Engineering | 2 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 17 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 November 2017.
All research outputs
#20,451,991
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from Plant Foods for Human Nutrition
#598
of 704 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#284,104
of 326,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Plant Foods for Human Nutrition
#11
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 704 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,002 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.