Conceptualization, S.P. and J.Á.R.-H.; methodology, S.P.-B. and D.H.-N.; validation, S.P.-B. and B.N.-P.; formal analysis, B.N.-P.; investigation, D.H.-N., S.P. and J.Á.R.-H.; data curation, S.P.-B.; writing—original draft preparation, B.N.-P.; writing—review and editing, S.P.-B., S.P. and J.Á.R.-H.; supervision, S.P.-B. and J.Á.R.-H.; project administration, J.Á.R.-H.; funding acquisition, J.Á.R.-H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Figure 1. (A) Furosine levels in different food groups. Statical analysis was performed via Kruskal–Wallis test. Each of the groups were compared to the average of all of them (i.e., base-mean). Statistic labels: *: p < 0.05. **: p < 0.01, ns: not significant. (B) Furosine levels depending on the cooking applied. Statical analysis was performed via Kruskal–Wallis test. Each group was compared to the average of all of them (i.e., base-mean). Statistic labels: *: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01, ns: not significant.
Figure 1. (A) Furosine levels in different food groups. Statical analysis was performed via Kruskal–Wallis test. Each of the groups were compared to the average of all of them (i.e., base-mean). Statistic labels: *: p < 0.05. **: p < 0.01, ns: not significant. (B) Furosine levels depending on the cooking applied. Statical analysis was performed via Kruskal–Wallis test. Each group was compared to the average of all of them (i.e., base-mean). Statistic labels: *: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01, ns: not significant.
Figure 2. (A) HMF levels in different food groups. Statical analysis was performed via Kruskal–Wallis test. Each of the groups were compared to the average of all of them (i.e., base-mean). Statistic labels: ns: not significant. (B) HMF levels depending on the cooking applied. Statical analysis was performed via Kruskal–Wallis test. Each group was compared to the average of all of them (i.e., base-mean). Statistic labels: **: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001, ns: not significant.
Figure 2. (A) HMF levels in different food groups. Statical analysis was performed via Kruskal–Wallis test. Each of the groups were compared to the average of all of them (i.e., base-mean). Statistic labels: ns: not significant. (B) HMF levels depending on the cooking applied. Statical analysis was performed via Kruskal–Wallis test. Each group was compared to the average of all of them (i.e., base-mean). Statistic labels: **: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001, ns: not significant.
Figure 3. (A) Furfural levels in different food groups. Statical analysis was performed via Kruskal–Wallis test. Each of the groups were compared to the average of all of them (i.e., base-mean). Statistic labels: ns: not significant. (B) Furfural levels depending on the cooking applied. Statical analysis was performed via Kruskal–Wallis test. Each group was compared to the average of all of them (i.e., base-mean). Statistic labels: **: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001, ns: not significant.
Figure 3. (A) Furfural levels in different food groups. Statical analysis was performed via Kruskal–Wallis test. Each of the groups were compared to the average of all of them (i.e., base-mean). Statistic labels: ns: not significant. (B) Furfural levels depending on the cooking applied. Statical analysis was performed via Kruskal–Wallis test. Each group was compared to the average of all of them (i.e., base-mean). Statistic labels: **: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001, ns: not significant.
Figure 4. Correlations between heat damage markers (furosine, HMF and furfural) and antioxidant capacity measured via Folin–Ciocalteu (FC) (mg gallic acid equivalents/kg of food), FRAP (mmol Trolox equivalents/kg of food) and DPPH (mmol Trolox equivalents/kg of food) depending on the type of cooking applied. Statistic labels: *: p < 0.05.
Figure 4. Correlations between heat damage markers (furosine, HMF and furfural) and antioxidant capacity measured via Folin–Ciocalteu (FC) (mg gallic acid equivalents/kg of food), FRAP (mmol Trolox equivalents/kg of food) and DPPH (mmol Trolox equivalents/kg of food) depending on the type of cooking applied. Statistic labels: *: p < 0.05.
Table 1. Furosine values depending on the cooking method applied to the food.
Table 1. Furosine values depending on the cooking method applied to the food.
Food GroupFoodBoiledFriedGrilledRoastedToasted μg/g Foodmg/100 g Proteinμg/g Foodmg/100 g Proteinμg/g Foodmg/100 g Proteinμg/g Foodmg/100 gTable 2. HMF values (expressed in μg HMF/g of food) depending on the cooking method applied to the food.
Table 2. HMF values (expressed in μg HMF/g of food) depending on the cooking method applied to the food.
Food GroupFoodBoiledFriedGrilledRoastedToastedCerealsBread-2057.0--10,304.9 Penne6.7---- Rice15.3----EggEgg47.443.8168.926.5-FishCod fish30.8429.5336.0-- Salmon-275.2613.2115.3-FruitsApple-1505.6114.1444.0- Banana-n.d.1572.8179.4-LegumesBeans (Kidney)175.8--154.1- Lentils5.0-178.5134.5-MeatBeef13.31222.5720.852.9- Chicken33.5351.8720.9333.0- Pork4.563.71286.9423.3- Lamb2.652.061.76.2-TubersPotatoe708.0550.4737.4--VegetablesCapsicum88.071.7352.663.2- Carrot55.1104.1223.389.5- Cauliflower48.91868.489.8581.1- Onion127.64065.5237.01832.1-Table 3. Furfural values (expressed in μg Furfural/g of food) depending on the cooking method applied to the food.
Table 3. Furfural values (expressed in μg Furfural/g of food) depending on the cooking method applied to the food.
FigureFoodBoiledFriedGrilledRoastedToastedCerealsBread-1191.6--7858.6 Penne47.3---- Rice98.2----EggEgg42.9n.d.13.1351.8-FishCod fish268.055.5n.d.-- Salmon-494.3544.5191.1-FruitsApple-14,028.81.8810.3- Banana- 425.4338.3-LegumesBeans (Kidney)n.d. -449.0- Lentilsn.d. 61.527.4-MeatBeefn.d.613.6131.590.3- Chickenn.d.514.71168.0533.9- Porkn.d.54.61821.141.7- Lambn.d.n.d.18.520.0-TubersPotatoe864.219,164.01386.5--VegetablesCapsicum3.8232.71748.41844.1- Carrot83.776.2844.3139.7- Cauliflower3.33496.71199.2851.8- Onion396.417,596.9524.53672.6-Table 4. Antioxidant capacity measured via Folin–Ciocalteu (mg gallic acid equivalents/kg of food), FRAP (mmol Trolox equivalents/kg of food) and DPPH (mmol Trolox equivalents/kg of food) depending on the type of cooking applied.
Table 4. Antioxidant capacity measured via Folin–Ciocalteu (mg gallic acid equivalents/kg of food), FRAP (mmol Trolox equivalents/kg of food) and DPPH (mmol Trolox equivalents/kg of food) depending on the type of cooking applied.
AOX MethodIn Vitro Pre-TreatmentBoiledFriedGrilledRoastedToastedFolin-CiocalteuDigestion1259 ± 11441368 ± 10181409 ± 13742262 ± 16093536 ± 268 Fermentation33,396 ± 12,45538,221 ± 19,99043,498 ± 21,92643,837 ± 18,02416,573 ± 5625FRAPDigestion2.3 ± 2.06.8 ± 5.74.1 ± 2.44.6 ± 3.04.9 ± 1.0 Fermentation179 ± 66.9202 ± 115239 ± 118243 ± 98.497.4 ± 26.0DPPHDigestion13.2 ± 9.622.3 ± 24.112.1 ± 8.718.0 ± 13.81.1 ± 0.8 Fermentation213 ± 219222 ± 206.9253 ± 199290 ± 215108 ± 21.5
留言 (0)