Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 42 (2017) 109–119

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ifset

Effects of different cooking methods on the chemical and physical properties MARK
of carrots and green peas
Mehmet Koça, Ulaş Baysanb, Esra Devserenb, Dilara Okutb, Zeynep Atakb, Haluk Karataşc,
Figen Kaymak-Ertekinb,⁎
a
Adnan Menderes University, Faculty of Engineering, Food Engineering Department, 09010 Aydın, Turkey
b
Ege University, Faculty of Engineering, Food Engineering Department, 35100 Bornova, Izmir, Turkey
c
Arçelik A. Ş., R & D Center, 34940 Istanbul, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The study was aimed to evaluate the physicochemical effects of three cooking methods i.e. sous-vide (SV), cook-
Sous-vide vide (CV) and traditional cooking (TC) on carrots and green peas. SV and CV were performed at 60–90 °C for
Cook-vide various time periods (SV: green peas 50–100 min, carrots 90–150 min; CV: green peas 30–70 min, carrots
Traditional cooking 20–60 min) with respect to peroxidase test. These vegetables were also cooked at atmospheric pressure for 15,
Heat transfer
30, 45 and 60 min and the results were compared with those obtained from SV and CV. Antioxidant activity,
Softening
Antioxidant degradation
total phenolic and vitamin C analyses reflected less harm to the green peas in CV as compared to SV and TC.
However, carrots were approximately half degraded during SV than in CV and TC as shown by the antioxidant
activity. Moreover, total phenolic content of carrots was highly protected when cooked in SV method. The color
change values (ΔE) of green peas were slightly lower in TC when compared to CV and SV, while in carrots, they
were very close to each other's in all three methods. CV-cooked green peas and carrots provided the highest
general acceptance for the sensorial properties. As a conclusion, TC had more adverse effects on the quality
characteristics on green peas and carrots.

1. Introduction
In recent years, the awareness to consume more healthy food is on
the rise. As a rich source of proteins and vitamins, more vegetables are
grown and eaten. Green peas and carrots are most popular vegetables in
the world (Martín Cerdeño, 2009). Green peas are rich in proteins,
complex carbohydrates, dietary fibers, minerals, vitamins and anti-
oxidants (Urbano et al., 2005). Carrots are also rich in cellulose, sugars,
proteins and other bioactive compounds (Gong, Deng, Han, & Ning,
2015). Although carrots can be consumed uncooked, they are, as well as
green peas, generally cooked before the consumption.
Cooking process leads to change in the chemical composition and
physical structure of foods (Zhang & Hamauzu, 2004). These changes
depend on cooking temperature, pressure and time. Cooking method is
generally selected according to the nutritional value, sensorial char-
acteristics of the final product, energy and time consumption etc.
(Baysal, 1986; Sağun, Testereci, Yörük, & Ekici, 1997). Cooking may
lead to minerals and vitamins loss and changes in fatty acid composi-
tion depending on the lipid oxidation (Rodriguez-Estrada, Penazzi,
Caboni, Bertacco, & Lercker, 1997). In the traditional cooking (TC),
vegetables are mostly immersed in boiling water (~ 100 °C) at atmo-
spheric conditions for several minutes (Araya et al., 2009), however, it
results in loss of flavor, color and vitamins (Somsub, Kongkachuichai,
Sungpuag, & Charoensiri, 2008) due to the high boiling temperature.
Thus, alternative methods have been tried to develop to cook foods at
lower temperatures and shorter times (Iborra-Bernad, Philippon,
García-Segovia, & Martínez-Monzó, 2013) e.g. microwave, radio-waves,
ohmic, vacuum treatments, and high-pressure (Cheng & Sun, 2008).
The vacuum cooking method has become popular over the last
decades. Sous-vide (SV) and cook-vide (CV) are popular vacuum
treatments in food technology. Vacuum cooking is superior to TC due to
the lack of oxygen in cooking environment and working at low tem-
perature. Low temperature cooking results higher flavor retention,
lower acrylamide formation and higher capacity of pigment retention
(Iborra-Bernad, Tárrega, García-Segovia, & Martínez-Monzó, 2014).
SV cooking is characterized as: “raw materials or raw materials with
intermediate foods that are cooked under the controlled conditions of
temperature and time inside the heat-stable vacuumed pouches or
container” (Baldwin, 2012). This method provides unique textural
characteristics, lower moisture loss, less lipid oxidation resulted from

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: figen.ertekin@ege.edu.tr (F. Kaymak-Ertekin).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2017.06.010
Received 18 January 2017; Received in revised form 29 May 2017; Accepted 17 June 2017
Available online 19 June 2017
1466-8564/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Koç et al.
the absence of oxygen in pouch, modifications of profile of volatile
flavor compounds and different color characteristics (Oz & Seyyar,
2016). Besides, food in pouch can be consumed directly after short
heating step. Thus, SV helps the catering sector as well
(Dogruyol & Mol, 2016). Food material in pouch could be stored for a
long time without losing freshness of food and delivered to the con-
sumer with high quality (Creed & Reeve, 1998). SV also improves the
microbial quality and the shelf-life of the food products
(Armstrong & McIlveen, 2000).
The other alternative method for cooking of foods under vacuum
conditions is CV which is known as a remarkable cooking method due
to its low-temperature application, short processing time, oxygen-re-
duced cooking environment and the better protection of nutritional
value and the physical structure of foods (Andrés-Bello, García-
Segovia, & Martínez-Monzó, 2009). CV provides minimum losses of
nutritional value of foods and minimum formation of carcinogenic
compounds (HMF, acrylamide) (Martínez-Hernández et al., 2013),
achieves better texture, color and flavor (García-Segovia, Andrés-
Bello, & Martínez-Monzó, 2008) and also better sensory quality
(Martínez-Hernández et al., 2013). Heat is transferred by conduction
and convection in CV and in SV (De Baerdemaeker & Nicolaï, 1995). In
CV, water boils at low temperature to less vapor pressure (Mir-Bel,
Oria, & Salvador, 2012). However in SV, water in cooking chamber does
not boil because of low temperature at atmospheric condition. While
food samples are contact with water at boiling temperature in CV, food
samples do not contact water directly in SV due to the wrapping a
packing material. Moreover, at the same temperature, the surface heat
transfer coefficient is higher in boiling water (CV) than in liquid water
(SV) (Iborra-Bernad et al., 2013). Thus, heat transfer in SV is slower
than in CV.
Iborra-Bernad et al. (2014) investigated the effect of different
cooking methods on textural and sensory properties of carrots. They
found that the traditional cooked carrots got higher firmness value as
compared to the vacuum cooked ones. Iborra-Bernad et al. (2013) also
compared SV and CV methods for green bean pods. Green beans cooked
with CV had higher greenness value compared to SV, while flavor and
overall preference of green beans cooked with SV had higher scores.
This study was aimed to investigate the physical and chemical ef-
fects of three different cooking methods i.e. sous-vide (SV), cook-vide
(CV) and traditional cooking (TC) on carrots and green peas. These
three cooking methods were also compared in terms of cooking time of
the selected two vegetables after cooking processes.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
Commercially frozen packed green peas (Pisum sativum) were pur-
chased from a local market in Izmir. Frozen green peas were used as
they are available in this form in the local markets in Turkey. Carrots
(Daucus carota sativus) are preferred as fresh. Carrots and green peas
were stored at 4 °C and at − 18 °C, respectively. No pretreatment was
applied to the frozen green peas, however, carrots were washed, peeled
and cubed (1 × 1 × 1 cm) before cooking. Hence each carrot cube had
nearly equal ratio of xylem and phloem parts. For sous-vide treatments,
carrot cubes and frozen green peas were sealed under the vacuum in
heat resistant laminated pouches (25% polyamide, 75% polypropylene,
thickness: 95 μm) where the vacuum level was 93% (atm).
2.2. Cooking methods
Green peas and carrots were cooked using three different methods
i.e. cook-vide (CV), sous-vide (SV), and traditional cooking (TC).
Temperature and time were selected as independent process variables
in central composite rotatable design (CCRD). The ranges of cooking
time in SV and CV methods were determined with respect to peroxidase
110
Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 42 (2017) 109–119
Fig. 1. Vacuum cooking equipment prototype.
test at 75 °C per each 5 min. This test was used to determine the degree
of blanching process, because it is known as the most heat stable en-
zyme in vegetables (Préstamo, Palomares, & Sanz, 2004). Peroxidase
was inactivated at 75 °C as follows: green peas; 75 min in SV and
50 min in CV, carrots: 120 min in SV and 40 min in CV. The centre
points of experimental design were selected by considering of these
peroxidase inactivation points in SV and CV. The minimum applied
temperature was 60 °C to reduce cooking time, while the maximum
temperature was 90 °C that is very near to the temperature of tradi-
tional cooking. Cooking times were selected considering the effect of SV
and CV processes on physical and chemical properties of green peas and
carrot.
A 6-liter prototype vacuum cooker was designed that was capable to
work at various precise vacuum and temperatures. The vacuum cooker
consists of an electrical heater (1.5 kW), an oil-based vacuum pump
(0.55 hp) and a condenser (1 kW) worked with R-404a refrigerant
(Fig. 1). A temperature probe (PT 100) was also adapted to the cooker
to measure the internal temperature of the vessel. Applied vacuum level
was measured from inside of the cooker. While vacuum level and
cooking time were controlled by PLC system, electrical heater was
programmed with PID control system. The internal temperature of the
cooker, vapor temperature at the condenser's exit and internal pressure
of cooker were recorded per each 3 s. Carrots and green peas were
cooked at different temperatures and times under CV method to un-
derstand the effect of the process conditions on cooking quality. The
vacuum pressure inside the cooker was applied according to the vapor
pressure of water for each cooking temperature, therefore absolute
pressure was varied in the range of 20 to 70 kPa (for CV, absolute
pressure was 20, 25, 40, 60, 70 kPa at 60, 64.39, 75, 85.61 and 90 °C,
respectively). The process conditions of CV method were arranged ac-
cording to CCRD experimental design as shown in Tables 2 and 4.
For SV method, the green peas and carrot dices were hermetically
vacuum wrapped and cooked in a water bath (Wisd Refrigerated Bath
Circulator Model: WCR-P8) at different time-temperature conditions
according to CCRD experimental design as given in Tables 1 and 3.
After cooking, the samples were cooled rapidly in a chiller (PolyScience
Model: 9602) at 4 °C for 30 min and stored at refrigerated conditions for
further analysis.
In TC, green peas and carrot dices were cooked at 100 °C for 15, 30,
45 and 60 min in the same cooker without vacuum pump function. All
cooking experiments were performed in replicate for each operating
condition, besides each analysis in thrice.
M. Koç et al. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 42 (2017) 109–119

Table 1
CCRD Experimental data for sous-vide (SV) of green peas.

Exp. no Temperature (°C) Time (min) DAA (%) DPC (%) DVC (%) ΔE Softening (%) GA

1 64.39 57.32 15.94 ± 4.08 13.72 ± 1.37 22.59 ± 1.93 3.84 ± 0.05 20.77 ± 4.32 3.44 ± 0.05
2 85.61 57.32 29.71 ± 3.86 16.55 ± 1.28 27.89 ± 1.29 19.74 ± 1.23 42.53 ± 3.37 4.01 ± 0.03
3 64.39 92.68 33.05 ± 4.13 18.39 ± 1.08 34.44 ± 1.26 6.67 ± 1.13 28.89 ± 3.92 3.73 ± 0.02
4 85.61 92.68 45.97 ± 6.54 20.67 ± 1.14 43.81 ± 2.99 20.89 ± 0.71 46.58 ± 2.93 3.17 ± 0.08
5 60.00 75.00 20.25 ± 4.09 14.11 ± 0.57 24.07 ± 1.69 4.43 ± 0.34 16.33 ± 0.84 3.33 ± 0.12
6 90.00 75.00 36.95 ± 5.07 19.09 ± 0.57 43.33 ± 1.16 21.34 ± 0.79 53.68 ± 0.71 3.13 ± 0.10
7 75.00 50.00 20.76 ± 1.29 14.08 ± 3.12 20.66 ± 1.30 8.69 ± 0.28 24.50 ± 0.44 4.06 ± 0.03
8 75.00 100.00 37.81 ± 4.23 19.38 ± 1.19 32.99 ± 1.21 10.18 ± 1.45 37.96 ± 3.08 3.50 ± 0.07
9 75.00 75.00 27.59 ± 5.99 17.19 ± 2.31 27.49 ± 1.74 9.08 ± 0.90 29.26 ± 3.16 4.00 ± 0.00
10 75.00 75.00 25.31 ± 5.23 19.04 ± 1.01 29.35 ± 1.49 8.46 ± 0.26 33.96 ± 1.10 4.26 ± 0.01
11 75.00 75.00 24.86 ± 1.99 18.73 ± 1.87 30.39 ± 1.39 11.23 ± 0.39 32.05 ± 4.55 4.19 ± 0.15
12 75.00 75.00 24.11 ± 3.77 17.35 ± 1.14 31.69 ± 0.84 8.58 ± 0.54 31.37 ± 4.51 4.39 ± 0.18
13 75.00 75.00 25.8 ± 3.02 16.76 ± 1.04 29.86 ± 3.97 7.77 ± 0.37 28.55 ± 0.47 4.21 ± 0.12

DAA: degradation of antioxidant activity (%), DPC: degradation of phenolic content (%), DVC: degradation of vitamin C content (%), GA: general acceptance.

2.3. Analyses Softening(%)

2.3.1. Peroxidase test
Peroxidase test was analyzed with guaiacol (1%) as an indicator and
H2O2 as oxidant (0.5%) (Cemeroğlu, 2010).
2.3.2. Antioxidants activity
Antioxidant activity of all raw materials and cooked samples was
determined using scavenging of DPPH (2,2-dipheynyl-1-picrylhydryzyl)
radical (Brand-Williams, Cuvelier, & Berset, 1995) spectro-
photometrically (VARIAN Cary 50 Bio, UV/VIS Spectrophotometer).
The reduction of antioxidant activity values was calculated as a ratio to
raw materials.
2.3.3. Total phenolic content
Total phenolic content of both raw and cooked carrots and green
peas was determined spectrophotometrically using the Folin-Ciocalteu
indicator (VARIAN Cary 50 Bio, UV/VIS Spectrophotometer) (Pelvan,
Alasalvar, & Uzman, 2012). Results were calculated and were shown as
percentage of total phenolic component reduction in terms of raw
materials.
2.3.4. Vitamin C content
Vitamin C content was analyzed by the spectrophotometric
(VARIAN Cary 50 Bio, UV/VIS Spectrophotometer) method of Hışıl
(2013). Reduction of vitamin C value was determined with the re-
ference of raw material.
2.3.5. Color
Color measurements were performed with a Minolta Chromameter
(Konica Minolta, Osaka, Japan). The colors of the carrot and green peas
were evaluated with CIE L*, a* and b* values. Besides, the color dif-
ferences (ΔE) were calculated using Eq. (1) (Hunter, 1975; CIE, 1978).
∆E = ∆L2 + ∆a2 + ∆b2
2.3.6. Texture (softening)
Texture of raw and cooked green peas and carrots were measured
using a TA.XT Plus Texture Analyzer (Stable Micro Systems, LTD,
Godalming) equipped with Warner Bratzler probe for carrots and
Multiple Pea Test Rig for green peas. The firmness (N) of the samples
was recorded with this analysis. In order to determine the effect of SV
and CV methods and their process conditions on textural changes of
green peas and carrots, softening value (%) was calculated in reference
to raw samples for all the treatments according to Eq. (2).
Firmness of raw sample(N) − Firmness of sample cooked(N)
=
Firmness of raw sample(N) (2)
2.3.7. Sensory evaluation
All samples cooked under sous-vide, cook-vide and traditional
methods were subjected to sensory analysis i.e. appearance, color, odor,
texture and taste properties. The sensory analysis was performed by 10
semi-trained panelists. The intensity of the properties was determined
using a 5-point scale (1 being the lowest and 5 the highest).
2.3.8. Statistical analysis
Response surface methodology (RSM) was used to investigate the
main effects of the independent variables (temperature and cooking
time) on degradation of antioxidant activity (%), degradation of phe-
nolic content (%), degradation of vitamin C content (%), change of
color (ΔE), softening (%) and general acceptance during cooking of
green peas and carrots. A central composite rotatable design (CCRD)
was performed that include 13 experiments formed by 5 central points.
All experimental data were fitted to a second-order polynomial model.
Regression coefficients were obtained for each response. Significant
terms in the models were found through analysis of variance (ANOVA)
by using Design Expert Ver. 7.0.0 software.
Green peas and carrots cooked in TC with four different runs (15,
30, 45, 60 min) were tested for the physical and chemical quality
parameters. The obtained data were statistically analyzed by the ana-
lysis of variance using the software SPSS version 13.0 for Windows
(SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) and mean analysis was performed using
Duncan's procedure at p < 0.05. Model adequacies were checked by
R2, adj-R2 (Tables 5–6). The model was adequate with no significant
lack of fit.
3. Results and discussion
The analytical results of physical and chemical properties of green
(1) peas and carrots cooked with SV and CV are given in Tables 1, 2, 3 and
4 while their ANOVA results are shown in Tables 5 and 6. The results
obtained from traditional cooking are given in Table 7.
The range of cooking time in SV and CV methods were determined
with respect to peroxidase test at the temperature of 75 °C. The dif-
ferences in cooking times with respect to cooking methods can be ex-
plained with the differences in the heat transfer mechanisms (De
Baerdemaeker & Nicolaï, 1995). In CV method, blanching water was at
boiling temperature due to the decreasing vapor pressure under va-
cuum (Mir-Bel et al., 2012). However, in SV method, water was in li-
quid form because of the atmospheric pressure. Moreover, the samples
cooked in CV contacted directly with blanching water, whereas the

111
M. Koç et al. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 42 (2017) 109–119

Table 2
CCRD Experimental data for cook-vide (CV) of green peas.

Exp. no Temperature (°C) Time (min) DAA (%) DPC (%) DVC (%) ΔE Softening (%) GA

1 64.39 35.86 1.72 ± 0.62 2.31 ± 0.83 11.43 ± 0.77 7.35 ± 1.47 16.80 ± 2.39 3.39 ± 0.56
2 85.61 35.86 57.34 ± 1.16 12.85 ± 0.73 49.50 ± 0.94 11.06 ± 1.27 40.04 ± 1.74 3.86 ± 0.06
3 64.39 64.14 32.29 ± 0.25 10.46 ± 1.01 37.10 ± 0.04 5.60 ± 0.38 23.54 ± 1.66 3.91 ± 0.23
4 85.61 64.14 67.07 ± 2.25 12.32 ± 1.59 55.36 ± 1.77 14.27 ± 1.36 46.15 ± 0.45 3.16 ± 0.05
5 60.00 50.00 14.89 ± 0.56 6.64 ± 0.98 31.25 ± 1.91 5.32 ± 0.66 20.83 ± 1.43 3.60 ± 0.32
6 90.00 50.00 71.10 ± 1.42 12.78 ± 0.98 58.09 ± 1.43 15.83 ± 1.20 48.97 ± 2.30 2.81 ± 0.70
7 75.00 30.00 2.09 ± 0.97 5.02 ± 0.24 17.20 ± 0.43 6.65 ± 0.04 24.40 ± 3.07 3.97 ± 0.04
8 75.00 70.00 34.94 ± 0.92 11.52 ± 0.95 57.11 ± 0.56 10.49 ± 1.14 40.15 ± 0.79 3.29 ± 0.30
9 75.00 50.00 27.39 ± 0.63 9.50 ± 0.82 21.52 ± 0.19 9.82 ± 0.71 32.21 ± 0.20 3.96 ± 0.15
10 75.00 50.00 15.86 ± 1.81 6.14 ± 0.07 23.66 ± 0.60 9.97 ± 1.76 33.56 ± 0.84 3.97 ± 0.57
11 75.00 50.00 26.56 ± 2.23 9.14 ± 0.43 27.50 ± 1.21 10.19 ± 0.55 28.31 ± 2.30 3.83 ± 0.06
12 75.00 50.00 27.55 ± 0.78 5.88 ± 0.38 34.66 ± 0.75 8.74 ± 0.97 29.88 ± 0.10 4.33 ± 0.11
13 75.00 50.00 20.39 ± 2.16 10.59 ± 1.37 22.77 ± 1.58 9.48 ± 1.47 31.20 ± 1.80 4.44 ± 0.09

DAA: degradation of antioxidant activity (%), DPC: degradation of phenolic content (%), DVC: degradation of vitamin C content (%), GA: general acceptance.

samples in SV were not able to contact with water due to packing possibly caused by outer skin strength of green peas against heat
materials. The surface heat transfer coefficient was also higher in transfer. For cooked carrots in SV, this situation was not encountered
boiling water (CV) than in liquid water (SV) (Consuelo Iborra-Bernad because carrots were peeled before cooking. Thus, in sous-vide cooking,
et al., 2013). Thus, heat transfer in SV was slower than CV. heat was transferred rapidly in carrots compared to green peas.

3.1. Degradation of antioxidant activity 3.2. Degradation of phenolic content

Because of thermal degradation, oxidation and similar events oc-
curred when vegetables and fruits are processed for as peeling, chop-
ping-cutting, heating, cooking etc., the antioxidant activity of products
reduced when compared with fresh vegetables (Podsędek, 2007). An-
tioxidant activity is known as an important quality characteristic of
green peas and carrots. In a previous study, antioxidant activity of
vacuum-cooked green vegetables were found slightly different from the
raw material (Renna, Gonnella, Giannino, & Santamaria, 2014).
Chiavaro et al. (2012) found that SV-cooked carrots had higher amount
of antioxidant activity than the ones cooked by traditional methods. In
this study, degradation of antioxidant activity (DAA) (%) increased
with an increase in temperature and time for green peas and carrots
(Tables 1,2,3 and 4). In the SV treatment, DAA (%) of green peas and
carrot was ranged from 15.94 to 45.97% for green peas and 13.26 to
34.92% for carrots while DAA (%) of green peas and carrots cooked
with CV method changed between 1.72 and 71.20%, and 18.57 and
51.72%, respectively. ANOVA results (Tables 5 & 6) showed that the
process conditions of cooking either in CV or SV in terms of temperature
and time had significantly affected DAA of green peas and carrots
(p < 0.05). However, both temperature and time were found to be
efficient independent variables for green peas cooked in SV (Fig. 2),
while at higher temperature was more significant variable for green
peas cooked in CV compared to time (Fig. 3). This situation was
Cooking has negative effects on nutrients i.e. vitamins and phenolics
as they are relatively unstable when heated (A. Patras,
Tiwari, & Brunton, 2011; Prochaska, Nguyen, Donat, & Piekutowski,
2000). Therefore, SV and CV cooked samples showed lower total phe-
nolic content than the raw samples. Degradation of phenolic content
(DPC) (%) values of green peas were found in the range of
13.72–20.67% in SV and 2.31–12.32% in CV. On the other hand, for
carrots, DPC (%) values were determined as 8.94–20.41 in SV and
4.38–19.33% in CV. Similarly, Patras, Brunton, & Butler (2010) de-
termined that SV cooked carrot disks had higher concentrations of total
phenolic compounds in comparison with water immersed sample. In
another study, phenolic compounds of carrots were appeared to be
better preserved by vacuum treatments compared to TC (Chiavaro
et al., 2012).
The effect of temperature and time on DPC (%) values of samples
cooked with SV and CV methods were found to be statistically sig-
nificant (p < 0.05). For green peas, cooking time was determined to be
more important variable in SV (p < 0.05), while temperature was
more important than time in CV (Figs. 2, 3; p < 0.05). For carrots,
temperature was more important than time in SV and CV methods
(Figs. 4, 5; p < 0.05).

Table 3
CCRD Experimental data for sous-vide (SV) of carrots.

Exp. no Temperature (°C) Time (min) DAA (%) DPC (%) DVC (%) ΔE Softening (%) GA

1 64.39 98.79 14.56 ± 1.92 8.94 ± 0.81 10.78 ± 3.19 10.21 ± 1.14 46.56 ± 0.35 3.36 ± 0.11
2 85.61 98.79 24.49 ± 4.18 15.33 ± 0.75 20.35 ± 3.38 14.89 ± 1.90 89.42 ± 0.22 3.85 ± 0.07
3 64.39 141.21 26.22 ± 1.15 18.40 ± 0.38 25.64 ± 3.48 14.85 ± 1.71 52.78 ± 0.29 3.65 ± 0.09
4 85.61 141.21 34.92 ± 1.51 20.41 ± 0.55 35.47 ± 2.04 14.75 ± 1.57 92.70 ± 0.64 3.25 ± 0.20
5 60.00 120.00 14.99 ± 1.93 12.04 ± 0.21 14.84 ± 3.79 12.01 ± 2.28 50.34 ± 0.26 3.41 ± 0.08
6 90.00 120.00 33.69 ± 1.65 19.19 ± 0.52 36.24 ± 0.29 15.51 ± 2.43 94.20 ± 0.38 3.23 ± 0.12
7 75.00 90.00 13.26 ± 1.74 9.16 ± 3.47 13.78 ± 2.37 12.10 ± 0.75 58.85 ± 0.35 3.97 ± 0.11
8 75.00 150.00 24.52 ± 1.27 18.05 ± 2.20 32.58 ± 3.32 16.21 ± 0.93 75.43 ± 0.67 3.82 ± 0.21
9 75.00 120.00 16.51 ± 2.40 13.49 ± 0.32 18.62 ± 2.26 15.37 ± 2.89 70.76 ± 0.42 4.21 ± 0.13
10 75.00 120.00 19.51 ± 1.48 14.48 ± 1.71 19.25 ± 1.38 13.33 ± 1.62 69.57 ± 0.54 3.97 ± 0.17
11 75.00 120.00 19.79 ± 1.79 13.14 ± 0.55 20.72 ± 2.39 13.33 ± 2.94 70.66 ± 0.32 4.12 ± 0.10
12 75.00 120.00 19.65 ± 3.81 13.67 ± 0.58 20.93 ± 3.95 13.79 ± 2.99 67.91 ± 0.48 3.90 ± 0.15
13 75.00 120.00 19.48 ± 1.83 16.29 ± 1.30 21.51 ± 3.97 14.36 ± 1.55 76.36 ± 0.61 4.05 ± 0.05

DAA: degradation of antioxidant activity (%), DPC: degradation of phenolic content (%), DVC: degradation of vitamin C content (%), GA: general acceptance.

112
M. Koç et al. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 42 (2017) 109–119

Table 4
CCRD experimental data for cook-vide (CV) of carrots.

Exp. no Temperature (°C) Time (min) DAA (%) DPC (%) DVC (%) ΔE Softening (%) GA

1 64.39 25.86 19.89 ± 2.88 4.38 ± 1.01 5.67 ± 3.35 12.44 ± 1.69 44.73 ± 1.29 3.54 ± 0.40
2 85.61 25.86 26.62 ± 2.96 13.25 ± 0.57 14.60 ± 1.06 15.18 ± 0.22 81.80 ± 1.14 3.83 ± 0.35
3 64.39 54.14 27.68 ± 1.98 8.79 ± 1.33 12.79 ± 3.91 14.12 ± 0.50 56.58 ± 0.65 3.62 ± 0.21
4 85.61 54.14 51.72 ± 1.82 19.33 ± 0.08 27.42 ± 3.88 18.02 ± 0.69 90.54 ± 0.91 4.00 ± 0.28
5 60.00 40.00 24.58 ± 0.48 8.22 ± 3.11 8.22 ± 0.89 14.35 ± 0.34 31.54 ± 0.97 3.38 ± 0.33
6 90.00 40.00 43.16 ± 1.16 17.30 ± 1.08 25.28 ± 2.15 19.20 ± 1.69 88.99 ± 0.91 3.71 ± 0.28
7 75.00 20.00 18.57 ± 0.92 6.90 ± 1.70 10.18 ± 0.26 12.84 ± 0.80 57.21 ± 0.14 3.84 ± 0.22
8 75.00 60.00 36.41 ± 0.64 14.57 ± 0.70 26.85 ± 2.61 15.80 ± 1.58 85.08 ± 1.14 4.10 ± 0.35
9 75.00 40.00 34.60 ± 1.64 16.13 ± 0.05 23.43 ± 0.31 15.04 ± 0.94 68.93 ± 0.46 4.33 ± 0.14
10 75.00 40.00 28.88 ± 2.21 13.60 ± 1.49 25.13 ± 0.76 13.67 ± 1.91 68.49 ± 0.23 4.47 ± 0.07
11 75.00 40.00 37.20 ± 1.73 14.18 ± 2.41 25.99 ± 2.92 13.17 ± 0.28 71.13 ± 0.46 4.42 ± 0.14
12 75.00 40.00 31.81 ± 1.12 15.96 ± 0.03 23.49 ± 0.21 13.63 ± 0.53 75.94 ± 0.74 4.20 ± 0.23
13 75.00 40.00 31.57 ± 2.20 14.13 ± 0.27 23.93 ± 2.21 13.30 ± 1.30 70.55 ± 0.97 4.10 ± 0.30

DAA: degradation of antioxidant activity (%), DPC: degradation of phenolic content (%), DVC: degradation of vitamin C content (%), GA: general acceptance.

3.3. Degradation of vitamin C
Vitamin C is a kind of water soluble vitamin that is an indicator to
determine the quality changes during processing. Vitamin C con-
centration changed as a result of irreversible oxidation mechanism that
was enhanced by excessive temperature treatment (Gonçalves, Abreu,
Brandao, & Silva, 2011; Serpen, Gökmen, Bahçeci, & Acar, 2007). For
green peas, DVC (%) values were determined as 20.66–43.81% in SV
and 11.43–58.09% in CV. Vitamin C content of samples cooked with SV
and CV is significantly affected by cooking time and temperature
(Figs. 2, 3; p < 0.05). Although, the long cooking time resulted in an
increase of DVC (%), vitamin C content decreased slowly between 60
and 75 °C and 50 to 75 min in SV while it took 30 to 50 min in CV. After
these points, DVC (%) values showed a tendency to increase. In those
circumstances, most part of the proteins in green peas partly denatured.
Unaffected proteins caused an increase in water-holding capacity of
green peas below 75 °C. Also, temperature was found as more important
process variable than cooking time for DVC (%) values (Figs. 2, 3;
p < 0.05).
DVC (%) values of carrots were ranged 10.78–36.24% and
5.67–27.42% in SV and CV methods, respectively. Increase in cooking
time and temperature also caused an increase in degradation of vitamin
C. Same as in DVC (%) of green peas, temperature was more important
process variable than cooking time for DVC (%) values of carrots
(Figs. 4, 5; p < 0.05).
Moreover, the oxidation of vitamins in products inhibited with
vacuum treatments that was more efficient than traditional technique
(Church & Parsons, 1993). Martínez-Hernández et al. (2013) showed
that the vacuum cooking has the best retention of the total C vitamin
content of broccoli compared to the conventional boiling and vitamin C
content of cooked broccoli with SV was higher than the vacuum
cooking.
3.4. Color changes
Color is an important physical attribute of cooked vegetables as it
determines consumer acceptability. Heat treatment causes a change in
the color of green vegetables as chlorophyll degrades (Tonucci & Von
Elbe, 1992). Chlorophylls degradation should be kept at minimum to
protect the color of green peas (Canjura, Schwartz, & Nunes, 1991;
Manninen, Paakki, Hopia, & Franzen, 2015). Therefore, control cooking
is needed. Δ E parameter shows the overall color change in different
cooking techniques. High ΔE value means higher differences in color
values between the raw and cooked sample (Limbo & Piergiovanni,
2006; Paciulli et al., 2016).
Δ E values for green peas in SV varied between 3.84 and 21.34 and
between 5.32 and 15.83 for CV-cooked samples. The range of color
change values of green peas cooked in SV was wider than values of CV.
This circumstance was due to the release of water located between the
cells of green peas at high temperature and for the long cooking time in
SV method. At this condition, the heat transfer coefficient (h) increased
due to the changing of water phase into vapor phase, and the rate of

Table 5
ANOVA evaluation of linear, quadratic and interaction terms for each response variables for green peas (β1: temperature; β2: cooking time).

Cooking method Variation coefficient p-Value

DAA (%) DPC (%) DVC (%) ΔE Softening (%) GA

SV Model < 0.0001 0.0018 0.0013 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002

β1 < 0.0001 0.0020 0.0009 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.4688
β2 < 0.0001 0.0004 0.0006 0.2156 0.0049 0.0070
β1 β2 0.8395 0.7679 0.4709 0.6125 0.4800 0.0028
β12 0.0296 0.2364 0.0460 0.0059 0.0555 < 0.0001
β22 0.0157 0.3062 0.3628 0.3408 0.6513 0.0047
Lack of fit 0.0978 0.6937 0.0628 0.2515 0.2161 0.6847
R2 0.9652 0.9053 0.9144 0.9589 0.9592 0.9522
Adj-R2 0.9403 0.8376 0.8532 0.9296 0.9301 0.9180
CV Model 0.0002 0.0086 0.0011 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0186
β1 < 0.0001 0.0033 0.0008 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.1054
β2 0.0020 0.0103 0.0012 0.0148 0.0012 0.1727
β1 β2 0.1466 0.0385 0.1387 0.0136 0.8996 0.0554
β12 0.0017 0.2294 0.0062 0.1483 0.1544 0.0048
β22 0.9037 0.8441 0.0647 0.1046 0.8885 0.0910
Lack of fit 0.2356 0.8998 0.3294 0.1683 0.2738 0.4652
R2 0.9521 0.8490 0.9193 0.9644 0.9646 0.8090
Adj-R2 0.9179 0.7411 0.8616 0.9390 0.9393 0.6725

113
M. Koç et al. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 42 (2017) 109–119

Table 6
ANOVA evaluation of linear, quadratic and interaction terms for each response variables for carrots (β1: temperature; β2: cooking time).

Cooking method Variation coefficient p-Value

DAA (%) DPC (%) DVC (%) ΔE Softening (%) GA

SV Model 0.0009 0.0005 < 0.0001 0.0020 0.0001 0.0005

β1 0.0004 0.0009 < 0.0001 0.0018 < 0.0001 0.6127
β2 0.0010 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0011 0.0258 0.1425
β1 β2 0.8120 0.1079 0.9476 0.0104 0.7322 0.0055
β12 0.0073 0.0637 0.0143 0.4562 0.6360 < 0.0001
β22 0.4214 0.9780 0.1523 0.9696 0.2907 0.0593
Lack of fit 0.0546 0.5789 0.0929 0.9061 0.1887 0.6232
R2 0.9229 0.9367 0.9672 0.9023 0.9589 0.9352
Adj-R2 0.8678 0.8915 0.9438 0.8326 0.9295 0.8888
CV Model 0.0002 0.0002 < 0.0001 0.0004 < 0.0001 0.0007
β1 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0002 < 0.0001 0.0124
β2 0.0001 0.0005 < 0.0001 0.0021 0.0010 0.1122
β1 β2 0.0153 0.5276 0.1303 0.4006 0.7029 0.7193
β12 0.5014 0.0540 0.0002 0.0009 0.0158 < 0.0001
β22 0.0480 0.0030 0.0008 0.6212 0.6310 0.0075
Lack of fit 0.7815 0.3695 0.1156 0.7287 0.1783 0.9555
R2 0.9487 0.9532 0.9742 0.9386 0.9704 0.9292
Adj-R2 0.9121 0.9197 0.9557 0.8948 0.9492 0.8786

chlorophyll degradation increased rapidly with changing of the heat
transfer coefficient. Furthermore, temperature was found to be a more
effective independent variable on color compared to cooking time for
both SV and CV methods (Figs. 2, 3, 4 and 5; p < 0.05). The color of
green peas was changed from brighter/vivid green at high temperature
and long time since the chlorophyll got turned into pheophytin and
other isomers (Rinaldi et al., 2013; Schwartz, Woo, & Von Elbe, 1981).
At the high temperature application (> ~80 °C), the degradation of the
color of green peas at CV method was less than at SV, however, SV
could have made possible to minimize the change of color at low
temperature application (< ~80 °C) comparing to CV (Figs. 2, 3).
Moreover, Iborra-Bernad et al. (2013) reported that the green beans
cooked in SV have higher lightness value compared to CV. In other
words, the color of samples has been better preserved in SV than in CV.
The color of carrots was able to change by cooking consequence of
the cis-isomerization of both α- and β-carotenoids (Chen, Peng, & Chen,
1995). Δ E values of carrots cooked with SV and CV were found in the
range of 10.21 to 16.21 and 12.44 to 19.20, respectively. Although
these values were close, cooking times of SV were excessively longer
than CV. Increasing both cooking temperature and time brought an
increase in Δ E values with respect to raw carrots for both SV and CV. In
CV method, a slight increase was observed in Δ E at 60–75 °C between
20 and 30 min. After that, Δ E values increased. Chiavaro et al. (2012)
hypothesized the reason of this increase to be related to the release of α-
and β-carotenes in low temperature and time under the vacuum treat-
ment. Although temperature was a significant independent variable
compared to cooking time for CV (Fig. 5, p < 0.05), in contrast to
carrots cooked in SV (Fig. 4, p < 0.05). In addition, Araya et al. (2009)
compared the SV (90 °C) and TC (100 °C) methods in their study and
observed that Hue values of carrots cooked with traditional method
higher than those cooked with sous-vide method. Thus, carrots cooked
in TC were degraded quickly compared to the vacuum treatments.
3.5. Softening
Texture is known as one of the most important quality criteria that
affects the shelf life of products, the consumer acceptability and the
application of foods (Bourne, 1978). Softening of foods highly depends
on temperature, cooking time, and the direct contact with cooking
medium (Iborra-Bernad, García-Segovia, & Martínez-Monzó, 2015).
Change of texture of foods in SV was more slowly than CV as plastic
pouch restricted heat transfer (Xie, 2000). In order to determine the
effect of SV and CV methods and their process conditions on textural
changes of green peas and carrots, the softening value (%) was calcu-
lated in reference to the raw samples for all the treatments. For green
peas, softening (%) values were determined at a level of 16.23–53.68%
in SV and 16.80–48.97% in CV methods (Tables 1 and 2). Softening
values of both SV and CV were found close to each other, keeping in
mind that SV treatments were applied longer time than CV because of
slow heat transfer. Cooking temperature and time significantly affected
the softening values (%). Increasing of these process variables led to an
increase in softening (%), for both of vacuum cooking methods (Figs. 2,
3; p < 0.05).
Softening values of carrots were changed from 46.56 to 89.42% in
SV and from 44.73 to 90.54% in CV. The softening (%) response surface
graph (Fig. 4) was similar with CVs' softening graph (Fig. 5). For both
methods, temperature and time were effective variables on softening
values (%) of green peas and carrots (Figs. 2, 3, 4 and 5; p < 0.05).

Table 7
Experimental data for atmospheric cooking (traditional cooking (TC)) of green peas and carrots.

Samples Time (min) DAA (%) DPC (%) DVC (%) ΔE Softening (%) GA

Green peas 15 19.41a ± 2.88 15.96a ± 0.73 15.38a ± 1.97 4.57a ± 0.64 16.41a ± 0.63 3.28a ± 0.17
30 29.12b ± 2.96 18.71ab ± 1.68 32.08a ± 0.57 7.36a ± 2.21 31.01a ± 1.17 3.76a ± 0.01
45 34.31bc ± 1.98 20.14b ± 0.66 35.84b ± 0.37 9.94a ± 1.73 32.65b ± 1.44 3.57a ± 0.11
60 38.60c ± 1.82 20.94b ± 0.57 42.98b ± 1.69 10.72a ± 1.12 39.71b ± 2.51 3.72a ± 0.11
Carrots 15 16.17a ± 2.99 16.30a ± 0.33 6.91a ± 1.94 10.51a ± 1.39 63.76a ± 0.42 3.76a ± 0.78
30 27.23b ± 2.14 19.03ab ± 1.90 13.27a ± 2.00 12.21a ± 0.71 70.98a ± 2.71 4.19a ± 0.52
45 33.65bc ± 2.75 21.09b ± 1.38 21.91b ± 1.01 13.18a ± 1.57 81.04b ± 1.18 4.04a ± 0.67
60 37.70c ± 1.71 22.88b ± 0.14 29.09b ± 2.82 15.79a ± 1.53 88.36b ± 3.48 3.84a ± 0.27

The different letter in the same column are significantly different (p < 0.05) for TC.

114
M. Koç et al.
3.6. Sensory evaluation
Customer preferences play a vital role for the quality criteria. The
sensory evaluation test helped understanding whether the customers'
needs were met or not. The result of the sensory evaluation test can be
defined as a general acceptance scaling from 1 (the lowest) to 5 (the
highest). The general acceptance was evaluated in terms of color, taste,
smell and texture of green peas and carrots. The highest scores of
general acceptances were found at ~75–80 °C in CV and SV for green
peas and carrots. Above these temperatures, the general acceptance
scores decreased due to the softening of texture and the degradation of
color. Similarly, cooking at low temperature and short time resulted in
uncooked product taste and harder texture so this led to low scores
given by the panelists. In literature, Nyati (2000) determined that the
sensory evaluation was in the range of acceptable values by application
of SV technique. Iborra-Bernad et al. (2013) showed that the treatment
preferred by consumers was SV, due to the texture perceived in mouth,
flavor and the overall preference for carrots. Moreover, temperature
was found more significant factor than cooking time on general ac-
ceptance scores of the samples (Figs. 2, 3, 4 and 5; p < 0.05).
115
Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 42 (2017) 109–119
Fig. 2. Response surface and contour plot
for green peas cooked in SV.
3.7. Comparison of traditional atmospheric cooking with sous-vide and
cook-vide cooking
Green peas and carrots were also traditionally cooked (TC) at at-
mospheric pressure for 15, 30, 45, 60 min to compare the physical and
chemical properties of the samples cooked with SV and CV. In TC, ve-
getables are generally cooked in blanching water at atmospheric con-
dition (100 °C) for several minutes (Araya et al., 2009). As mentioned
above, the heat transfer in CV was faster than that in SV due to the
higher heat transfer coefficient. Blanching water boils at lower tem-
perature under the vacuum when compared to atmospheric conditions
so the heat transfer coefficient of CV is lower than atmospheric one
(Mir-Bel et al., 2012). Higher heat transfer coefficient makes heat
transfer into the product easy that reduces cooking time. Thus, cooking
time of TC was shorter than other methods as determined in this study.
The physical and chemical properties of green peas and carrots
cooked at atmospheric condition were changed with cooking time in TC
(Table 7). DAA (%), DPC (%), DVC (%), Δ E and softening (%) values
were increased with increasing cooking time (Table 7). Losses of phe-
nolics, antioxidants, vitamins etc. could be attributed to the applied
heat treatment. Beside, blanching of vegetables in boiling water re-
sulted loss in phenolic content over 40% (e.g., spinach, cabbage, peas or
M. Koç et al.
squash) (Turkmen, Sari, & Velioglu, 2005).
While DAA (%), DVC (%) and softening (%) values of green peas
and carrots cooked at atmospheric pressure were significantly different
(p < 0.05) (Table 7), DPC (%), Δ E and general acceptability values of
green peas and carrots cooked at atmospheric pressure were indifferent
(p > 0.05).
As seen in Table 7, TC-cooked green peas and carrots at 30 min got
the highest score in terms of general acceptance, which showed an
upward tendency until 30 min. As time was increased, general accep-
tance scores slightly decreased. At this point, the softening (%) value of
green peas was 31.01%. Softening (%) value of TC was selected as a
target value to compare the quality properties of green peas cooked
with three different cooking methods (#Exp. No 12 in SV, #Exp. No 13
in CV) (Tables 1, 2).
It was observed that antioxidant activity, phenolic content and vi-
tamin C content were better protected in CV than SV and TC. However,
Δ E values of TC were lower than the others. It can be hypothesized that
the color of the samples was better protected with TC due to the shorter
cooking times. Considering the general acceptance, green peas cooked
with CV got the highest appreciation comparing the other methods.
116
Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 42 (2017) 109–119
Fig. 3. Response surface and contour plot for
green peas cooked in CV.
Green peas cooked in CV had the lowest values of DAA (%), DPC
(%) and DVC (%) comparing to other methods; however, DAA (%), DVC
(%), DPC (%) change of TC and SV cooked samples were quite similar to
each other. As mentioned before, outer skin of green peas became a
resistance to diffusion of water soluble materials (phenolic components,
vitamins, minerals etc.) to blanching water. Moreover, the heat transfer
mechanism occurred slowly so the diffusion of water soluble materials
into blanching water were limited compared to TC method.
As seen in Table 5, the maximum general acceptance scores were
given to carrots cooked in TC for 30 min. The softening (%) value of
carrots cooked at this point in TC (70.98%) was chosen as a target value
to compare the quality properties of carrots cooked with three different
cooking methods (#Exp. No 11 in SV, #Exp. No 13 in CV) (Tables 3, 4).
Although DAA (%) values were nearly the same as CV and TC, de-
gradation of antioxidant activity (%) values in SV was almost half than
those of CV and TC. Moreover, phenolic content was better protected in
SV. Vitamin C content in TC was also higher than others due to the
shorter cooking time. Color changes of carrots (Δ E) were similar for all
three cooking methods compared to raw material. Carrots cooked in TC
had the lowest general acceptance scores compared to SV and CV.
M. Koç et al.
Panelists preferred carrots cooked in CV and SV. The reason of that is
probably the high temperature applied in TC makes the appearance of
carrots undesirable comparing to other methods.
SV method may be preferred to cook carrots since they do not
possess outer skin that would cause a resistance to water soluble
compounds to release into blanching water. In other words, in carrots,
the heat transfer and the diffusion of water soluble materials into
blanching water were easier than green peas. The samples cooked in CV
contacted directly with blanching water that caused the release of water
soluble materials to blanching water easier, however in SV method,
samples were not directly contacted with liquid water which is pre-
ferable to protect the properties of carrots.
TC method is not recommended due to high temperature applied
and rapid diffusion of water-soluble materials for both green peas and
carrots.
4. Conclusion
Three different cooking methods i.e. sous-vide (SV), cook-vide (CV)
and traditional cooking (TC) and their parameters were investigated
and compared through cooking of green peas and carrots. TC-cooked
samples were of lower quality when compared to SV and CV. The
longest cooking time to achieve the acceptable cooked green peas and
117
Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 42 (2017) 109–119
Fig. 4. Response surface and contour plot for
carrots cooked in SV.
carrots was observed in SV method. Although CVs' cooking time was
longer than TC, it was more reasonable because of the protection of
nutrients of green peas and carrots. CV method can be suggested for
vegetables having high water binding capacity and a natural outer skin
(such as green peas). However, vegetables do not directly contact with
the water in SV, thus it prevented the diffusion of water soluble ma-
terials and enhanced the nutritional quality of vegetables besides pro-
tecting the color of samples two times better than other techniques.
SV method is not suitable for the application of temperature above
80 °C due to the problems faced such as releasing of the intercellular
water and the swelled pouch. CV could be preferred if the aim is to
decrease the time by cooking of vegetables above 80 °C and to protect
the compounds of the samples. Generally, the nutrients of vegetables
and fruits were protected more in both SV and CV than TC. The most
effective cooking method could be determined after the comparison of
different cooking methods considering of sample properties/qualities,
time saving and the energy consumption issues together.
Acknowledgements
Funding provided by Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology,
Republic of Turkey SAN-TEZ project (Project no: 0724.STZ.2014) and
Arçelik A.Ş is appreciated.
M. Koç et al.
Fig. 5. Response surface and contour plot for carrots cooked in CV.
References
Andrés-Bello, A., García-Segovia, P., & Martínez-Monzó, J. (2009). Effects of vacuum
cooking (cook-vide) on the physical-chemical properties of sea bream fillets (Sparus
aurata). Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology, 18(1–2), 79–89.
Araya, X. I. T., Smale, N., Zabaras, D., Winley, E., Forde, C., Stewart, C. M., & Mawson, A.
J. (2009). Sensory perception and quality attributes of high pressure processed car-
rots in comparison to raw, sous-vide and cooked carrots. Innovative Food
Science & Emerging Technologies, 10(4), 420–433.
Armstrong, G. A., & McIlveen, H. (2000). Effects of prolonged storage on the sensory
quality and consumer acceptance of sous vide meat-based recipe dishes. Food Quality
and Preference, 11(5), 377–385.
Baldwin, D. E. (2012). Sous vide cooking: A review. International Journal of Gastronomy
and Food Science, 1(1), 15–30.
Baysal, A. (1986). Ev koşullarında besinlerin hazırlanması, pişirilmesi ve saklanması
sırasında oluşan vitamin kayıpları. Vitaminlerin Sağlığımızdaki Önemi, 80–88.
Bourne, M. C. (1978). Texture profile analysis [food acceptability]. Food technology.
Retrieved from http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=
US19780340841.
Brand-Williams, W., Cuvelier, M.-E., & Berset, C. (1995). Use of a free radical method to
evaluate antioxidant activity. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 28(1), 25–30.
Canjura, F. L., Schwartz, S. J., & Nunes, R. V. (1991). Degradation kinetics of chlorophylls
and chlorophyllides. Journal of Food Science, 56(6), 1639–1643.
Cemeroğlu, B. (2010). Gıda Analizleri (2. Baskı). Ankara: Gıda Teknolojisi Derneği
Yayınları.
118
Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 42 (2017) 109–119
Chen, B. H., Peng, H. Y., & Chen, H. E. (1995). Changes of carotenoids, color, and vitamin
A contents during processing of carrot juice. Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry, 43(7), 1912–1918.
Cheng, Q., & Sun, D.-W. (2008). Factors affecting the water holding capacity of red meat
products: A review of recent research advances. Critical Reviews in Food Science and
Nutrition, 48(2), 137–159.
Chiavaro, E., Mazzeo, T., Visconti, A., Manzi, C., Fogliano, V., & Pellegrini, N. (2012).
Nutritional quality of sous vide cooked carrots and Brussels sprouts. Journal of
Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 60(23), 6019–6025.
Church, I. J., & Parsons, A. L. (1993). Sous vide cook-chill technology. International
Journal of Food Science and Technology, 28(6), 563–574.
CIE (1978). International commission on illumination, recommendations on uniform color
spaces, color difference equations, psychometric color terms. Supplement No. 15 to CIE
publication (E-1.3.1) 1971/(TO-1.3)Paris, France: Bureau Central de la CIE.
Creed, P. G., & Reeve, W. (1998). Principles and applications of sous vide processed foods.
Sous vide and cook-chill processing for the food industry (pp. 25–56). .
De Baerdemaeker, J., & Nicolaï, B. M. (1995). Equipment considerations for sous vide
cooking. Food Control, 6(4), 229–236.
Dogruyol, H., & Mol, S. (2016). Effect of irradiation on shelflife and microbial quality of
cold-stored sous-vide mackerel fillets. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation.
Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jfpp.12804/full.
García-Segovia, P., Andrés-Bello, A., & Martínez-Monzó, J. (2008). Textural properties of
potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L., cv. Monalisa) as affected by different cooking pro-
cesses. Journal of Food Engineering, 88(1), 28–35.
Gonçalves, E. M., Abreu, M., Brandao, T. R., & Silva, C. L. (2011). Degradation kinetics of
colour, vitamin C and drip loss in frozen broccoli (Brassica oleracea L. ssp. Italica)
M. Koç et al.
during storage at isothermal and non-isothermal conditions. International Journal of
Refrigeration, 34(8), 2136–2144.
Gong, Y., Deng, G., Han, C., & Ning, X. (2015). Process optimization based on carrot
powder color characteristics. Engineering in Agriculture, Environment and Food, 8(3),
137–142.
Hışıl, Y. (2013). Enstrümental Gıda Analizler (4. Baskı). İzmir: Ege Üniversitesi Yayınları.
Hunter, R. S. (1975). Scales for the measurements of color difference. In the Measurement of
Appearance, . New York: John Willy & Sons, 133–140.
Iborra-Bernad, C., García-Segovia, P., & Martínez-Monzó, J. (2015). Physico-Chemical
and Structural Characteristics of Vegetables Cooked Under Sous-Vide, Cook-Vide, and
Conventional Boiling. Journal of Food Science, 80(8), E1725–E1734.
Iborra-Bernad, C., Philippon, D., García-Segovia, P., & Martínez-Monzó, J. (2013).
Optimizing the texture and color of sous-vide and cook-vide green bean pods. LWT-
Food Science and Technology, 51(2), 507–513.
Iborra-Bernad, C., Tárrega, A., García-Segovia, P., & Martínez-Monzó, J. (2014).
Comparison of vacuum treatments and traditional cooking using instrumental and
sensory analysis. Food Analytical Methods, 7(2), 400–408.
Limbo, S., & Piergiovanni, L. (2006). Shelf life of minimally processed potatoes: Part 1.
Effects of high oxygen partial pressures in combination with ascorbic and citric acids
on enzymatic browning. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 39(3), 254–264.
Manninen, H., Paakki, M., Hopia, A., & Franzen, R. (2015). Measuring the green color of
vegetables from digital images using image analysis. LWT- Food Science and
Technology, 63(2), 1184–1190.
Martín Cerdeño, V. J. (2009). Consumo de frutas y hortalizas en España. Distribución Y
Consumo, 106, 38–50.
Martínez-Hernández, G. B., Artés-Hernández, F., Colares-Souza, F., Gómez, P. A., García-
Gómez, P., & Artés, F. (2013). Innovative cooking techniques for improving the
overall quality of a kailan-hybrid broccoli. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 6(8),
2135–2149.
Mir-Bel, J., Oria, R., & Salvador, M. L. (2012). Influence of temperature on heat transfer
coefficient during moderate vacuum deep-fat frying. Journal of Food Engineering,
113(2), 167–176.
Nyati, H. (2000). An evaluation of the effect of storage and processing temperatures on
the microbiological status of sous vide extended shelf-life products. Food Control,
11(6), 471–476.
Oz, F., & Seyyar, E. (2016). Formation of heterocyclic aromatic amines and migration
level of bisphenol-a in sous-vide-cooked trout fillets at different cooking temperatures
and cooking levels. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 64(15), 3070–3082.
Paciulli, M., Ganino, T., Carini, E., Pellegrini, N., Pugliese, A., & Chiavaro, E. (2016).
Effect of different cooking methods on structure and quality of industrially frozen
carrots. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 1–9.
Patras, A., Brunton, N. P., & Butler, F. (2010). Effect of water immersion and sous-vide
processing on antioxidant activity, phenolic, carotenoid content and color of carrot
disks. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, 34(6), 1009–1023.
Patras, A., Tiwari, B. K., & Brunton, N. P. (2011). Influence of blanching and low tem-
perature preservation strategies on antioxidant activity and phytochemical content of
carrots, green beans and broccoli. LWT- Food Science and Technology, 44(1), 299–306.
Pelvan, E., Alasalvar, C., & Uzman, S. (2012). Effects of roasting on the antioxidant status
and phenolic profiles of commercial Turkish hazelnut varieties (Corylus avellana L.).
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 60(5), 1218–1223 http://dx.doi.org/10.
119
Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 42 (2017) 109–119
1021/jf204893x.
Podsędek, A. (2007). Natural antioxidants and antioxidant capacity of Brassica vege-
tables: A review. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 40(1), 1–11 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.lwt.2005.07.023.
Préstamo, G., Palomares, L., & Sanz, P. (2004). Broccoli (Brasica oleracea) treated under
pressure-shift freezing process. European Food Research and Technology, 219(6),
598–604.
Prochaska, L. J., Nguyen, X. T., Donat, N., & Piekutowski, W. V. (2000). Effects of food
processing on the thermodynamic and nutritive value of foods: Literature and data-
base survey. Medical Hypotheses, 54(2), 254–262.
Renna, M., Gonnella, M., Giannino, D., & Santamaria, P. (2014). Quality evaluation of
cook-chilled chicory stems (Cichorium intybus L., Catalogna group) by conventional
and sous vide cooking methods. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 94(4),
656–665.
Rinaldi, M., Dall'Asta, C., Meli, F., Morini, E., Pellegrini, N., Gatti, M., & Chiavaro, E.
(2013). Physicochemical and microbiological quality of sous-vide-processed carrots
and Brussels sprouts. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 6(11), 3076–3087.
Rodriguez-Estrada, M. T., Penazzi, G., Caboni, M. F., Bertacco, G., & Lercker, G. (1997).
Effect of different cooking methods on some lipid and protein components of ham-
burgers. Meat Science, 45(3), 365–375.
Sağun, E., Testereci, H., Yörük, İ. H., & Ekici, K. (1997). Konvansiyonel ve Mikrodalga ile
Pişirmenin Van Balığı'nın (Chalcalburnus tarichi) D3 Vitamin Düzeyi Üzerine Etkisi.
Van Tıp Dergisi, 4(3), 142–146.
Schwartz, S. J., Woo, S. L., & Von Elbe, J. H. (1981). High-performance liquid chroma-
tography of chlorophylls and their derivatives in fresh and processed spinach. Journal
of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 29(3), 533–535.
Serpen, A., Gökmen, V., Bahçeci, K. S., & Acar, J. (2007). Reversible degradation kinetics
of vitamin C in peas during frozen storage. European Food Research and Technology,
224(6), 749–753.
Somsub, W., Kongkachuichai, R., Sungpuag, P., & Charoensiri, R. (2008). Effects of three
conventional cooking methods on vitamin C, tannin, myo-inositol phosphates con-
tents in selected Thai vegetables. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 21(2),
187–197.
Tonucci, L. H., & Von Elbe, J. H. (1992). Kinetics of the formation of zinc complexes of
chlorophyll derivatives. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 40(12),
2341–2344.
Turkmen, N., Sari, F., & Velioglu, Y. S. (2005). The effect of cooking methods on total
phenolics and antioxidant activity of selected green vegetables. Food Chemistry,
93(4), 713–718.
Urbano, G., López-Jurado, M., Lawomir Frejnagel, S., Gómez-Villalva, E., Porres, J. M.,
Frías, J., ... Aranda, P. (2005). Nutritional assessment of raw and germinated pea
(Pisum sativum L.) protein and carbohydrate by in vitro and in vivo techniques.
Nutrition, 21(2), 230–239.
Xie, G. (2000). Comparison of textural changes of dry peas in sous vide cook-chill and
traditional cook-chill systems. Journal of Food Engineering, 43((3), 141–146.
Zhang, D., & Hamauzu, Y. (2004). Phenolics, ascorbic acid, carotenoids and antioxidant
activity of broccoli and their changes during conventional and microwave cooking.
Food Chemistry, 88(4), 503–509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2004.01.
065.