Paper · 1994 · Journal of Food Science

Low Temperature Blanching Affects Firmness and Rehydration of Dried Cauliflower Florets

J. GARCIA‐REVERTER; M.C. BOURNE; A. MULET

3
claims
4
verbatim quotes
32
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

ABSTRACT Cauliflower florets were blanched at 55, 60, 65, and 70°C, held without cooling for 15, 30, 45, 60, and 90 min, blanched again at 100°and then dried in a hot air dehydrater. The coefficient for the rate of rehydration (?) was calculated using a diffusion model. Rehydrated samples were divided into two equal parts, one part was boiled in water and the other was uncooked. Firmness of rehydrated samples was measured by back extrusion. Blanching cauliflower between 55°and 70°before dehydration caused a substantial increase in extrusion forces after rehydration. Cooking the rehydrated cauliflower decreased firmness of all samples. However, the degree of softening caused by cooking was proportionally less for the low temperature blanch treatments than for the controls.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 3

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Low temperature blanching increased extrusion forces after cauliflower rehydration.

Treatment
Blanching cauliflower between 55°and 70°before dehydratione0
Outcome
extrusion forces after rehydratione0
Direction
increasee0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Brassica oleracea var. botrytis
Brassica oleracea var. botrytis · TaxonSusan Slater · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Blanching cauliflower between 55°and 70°before dehydration caused a substantial increase in extrusion forces after rehydration”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 445–571 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cooking rehydrated cauliflower decreased firmness across samples.

Treatment
Cookinge0
Outcome
firmnesse0
Direction
decreasede0
Qualifier
all samplese0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Brassica oleracea var. botrytis
Brassica oleracea var. botrytis · TaxonSusan Slater · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Cooking the rehydrated cauliflower decreased firmness of all samples”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 573–641 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cooking caused proportionally less softening after low temperature blanching than in controls.

Treatment
low temperature blanch treatmentse0
Outcome
degree of softening caused by cookinge0
Direction
proportionally lesse0
Comparator
controlse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Brassica oleracea var. botrytis
Brassica oleracea var. botrytis · TaxonSusan Slater · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the degree of softening caused by cooking was proportionally less for the low temperature blanch treatments than for the controls”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 652–781 · show in text ↑
e1

“Blanching cauliflower”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 445–466 · show in text ↑

processing · quality: postharvest · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Positive and negative results

9 papers: 7 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 papers →

cold · quality: postharvest · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Results agree

7 papers: 7 positive, 0 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.