| Literature DB >> 35423474 |
Fen Zhang1, Pei-Xing Lin1, Ping-Xin Xia1, Hong-Mei Di1, Jia-Qi Zhang1, Zi-Han Wang1, Zhi-Qing Li1, Shu-Ya Huang1, Huan-Xiu Li2, Bo Sun1.
Abstract
The effects of five domestic thawing methods, including air thawing (AIR), water thawing with bags (W + B), water thawing without bags (W - B), refrigerator thawing (REF), and microwave thawing (MIC), on the main health-promoting compounds and antioxidant capacity in both unblanched and blanched baby mustard were investigated in this study. The results showed that different thawing methods markedly affected the health-promoting compounds and antioxidant capacity of baby mustard. MIC better retained the overall nutritional quality of frozen baby mustard compared with the four other treatments. AIR led to significant decreases in the glucosinolate contents in unblanched and blanched baby mustard. W + B led to significant decreases in the total phenols contents and antioxidant capacity levels in unblanched and blanched baby mustard, as well as the ascorbic acid content in unblanched baby mustard. W + B led to a significant decrease in the FRAP level in unblanched baby mustard, as well as the glucosinolate and ascorbic acid contents and ABTS level in blanched baby mustard. REF led to significant decreases in glucosinolates and proanthocyanidins contents in unblanched baby mustard, as well as the ascorbic acid content in blanched baby mustard. Furthermore, the thawing time was greatly shortened by MIC (only approximately 1 min). Thus, MIC was the optimal thawing method for frozen baby mustard regardless of whether it was blanched, as MIC best preserved nutritional quality and reduced the thawing time. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35423474 PMCID: PMC8695503 DOI: 10.1039/d1ra00610j
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 3.361
Thawing time of baby mustard with different thawing methods
| Thawing methods | Thawing time/min | |
|---|---|---|
| Unblanched | Blanched | |
| AIR | 60 ± 2b | 60 ± 3b |
| WB | 5.5 ± 0.4c | 5.5 ± 0.2c |
| WNB | 4.0 ± 0.4c | 3.5 ± 0.1c |
| REF | 361 ± 1a | 362 ± 6a |
| MIC | 1.0 ± 0.1c | 1.0 ± 0.1c |
Fig. 1Effect of different thawing methods on the contents of individual and total glucosinolates in frozen baby mustard. Each value is the mean ± standard error of four replicates (n = 4). The values were compared through the least significant difference (LSD) test within the unblanched and blanched groups, respectively. Values in each group not sharing a common letter are significantly different at p < 0.05. DW: dry weight.
Fig. 2Effect of different thawing methods on the contents of total chlorophylls (A) and total carotenoids (B) in frozen baby mustard. Each value is the mean ± standard error of four replicates (n = 4). The values were compared through the least significant difference (LSD) test within the unblanched and blanched groups, respectively. Values in each group not sharing a common letter are significantly different at p < 0.05. DW: dry weight.
Fig. 3Effect of different thawing methods on the contents of ascorbic acid (A), proanthocyanidins (B), and total phenolics (C) in frozen baby mustard. Each value is the mean ± standard error of four replicates (n = 4). The values were compared through the least significant difference (LSD) test within the unblanched and blanched groups, respectively. Values in each group not sharing a common letter are significantly different at p < 0.05. DW: dry weight.
Fig. 4Effect of different thawing methods on the levels of FRAP (A) and ABTS+ (B) in frozen baby mustard. Each value is the mean ± standard error of four replicates (n = 4). The values were compared through the least significant difference (LSD) test within the unblanched and blanched groups, respectively. Values in each group not sharing a common letter are significantly different at p < 0.05. DW: dry weight.
Fig. 5PCA analysis of the responses of nutritional qualities in baby mustard under different thawing methods. (A) Score plot; (B) loading plot.