收藏切换
Effects of Different Cooking Methods on the Quality and Digestibility of Lipu Taro
收藏切换
Mingjuan LI1, 2, Zhanwen HUANG3, Yayuan ZHANG1, 2, *, Xiangrong YOU1, 2, *, Linyan WEI1, Ying WANG1, 2, Kui ZHOU1, 2, Yang YANG1, 2, Zhichun LI1, 2
Science and Technology of Food Industry | 2026, 47(7) : 41 - 52
Less
收藏切换
Science and Technology of Food Industry | 2026, 47(7): 41-52
• Papers Invited by Guest Editors •
Effects of Different Cooking Methods on the Quality and Digestibility of Lipu Taro
Full
Mingjuan LI1, 2, Zhanwen HUANG3, Yayuan ZHANG1, 2, *, Xiangrong YOU1, 2, *, Linyan WEI1, Ying WANG1, 2, Kui ZHOU1, 2, Yang YANG1, 2, Zhichun LI1, 2
Affiliations
  • 1Institute of Agro-products Processing Science and Technology, Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanning 530007, China
  • 2Guangxi Key Laboratory of Fruits and Vegetables Storage-Processing Technology, Nanning 530007, China
  • 3Flower Research Institute, Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanning 530007, China
Published: 2026-04-01 doi: 10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2025070074
Outline
收藏切换

To explore the effects of cooking methods on the quality and digestibility of Lipu taro, Lipu taro was used as raw material to cooking by four methods including boiling, steaming, pressure cooking and roasting. Its edible quality, nutritional quality and in vitro digestibility were determined, and the comprehensive scores were evaluated by coefficient of variation method. The results showed that the Lipu taro processed by pressure cooking had the highest sensory score, cohesiveness, gumminess, recoverable deformation, protein, fat, slowly digestible starch (SDS), and comprehensive score, indicating the best overall quality. Steamed taro showed the highest amounts of dietary fiber, total amino acids (TAA), essential amino acids (EAA), non essential amino acid (NEAA), and flavor amino acid, while exhibiting the lowest resistant starch (RS) content. Lipu taro processed by roasting had the highest cooking loss rate, hardness, chewiness, elasticity, total starch, ash, carbohydrates, rapidly digestible starch (RDS), RS, hydrolysis rate (HR), and predicted glycemic index (PGI), but the lowest moisture and SDS content, along with severe browning. Boiled taro had the lowest cooking loss rate, sensory score, texture properties, basic nutritional components, amino acid content, RDS, HR, PGI, and comprehensive score, suggesting substantial nutrient loss. In summary, pressure cooking best preserved the overall quality properties and cooking performance of Lipu taro, followed by steaming, while boiling showed the poorest overall quality.

Lipu taro  /  cooking methods  /  edible quality  /  nutritional quality  /  digestive property
李明娟, 黄展文, 张雅媛, 游向荣, 韦林艳, 王颖, 周葵, 杨阳, 李志春. 不同烹饪方式对荔浦芋品质及消化性能的影响. 食品工业科技, 2026 , 47 (7) : 41 -52 . DOI: 10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2025070074
Mingjuan LI, Zhanwen HUANG, Yayuan ZHANG, Xiangrong YOU, Linyan WEI, Ying WANG, Kui ZHOU, Yang YANG, Zhichun LI. Effects of Different Cooking Methods on the Quality and Digestibility of Lipu Taro[J]. Science and Technology of Food Industry, 2026 , 47 (7) : 41 -52 . DOI: 10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2025070074
Year 2026 volume 47 Issue 7
109
48
Cite this Article
BibTeX
Article Info
doi: 10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2025070074
  • Receive Date:2025-07-08
  • Online Date:2026-10-24
  • Published:2026-04-01
Article Data
Affiliations
History
  • Received:2025-07-08
Affiliations
    1Institute of Agro-products Processing Science and Technology, Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanning 530007, China
    2Guangxi Key Laboratory of Fruits and Vegetables Storage-Processing Technology, Nanning 530007, China
    3Flower Research Institute, Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanning 530007, China
References
Share
https://castjournals.cast.org.cn/joweb/spgykj/EN/10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2025070074
Share to
QR

Scan QR to access full text

Cite this article
BibTeX
Citations
表12种不同金属材料的力学参数
科
Family
属数
Number of
genus
种数
Number of
species
占总种数比例
Percentage of
total species (%)
属
Genus
种数
Number of
species
占总种数比例
Percentage of total
species (%)
鹅膏菌科Amanitaceae 2 11 5.26 鹅膏菌属 Amanita 10 4.78
小菇科 Mycenaceae 2 12 5.74 丝盖伞属 Inocybe 5 2.39
多孔菌科 Polyporaceae 8 14 6.70 蜡蘑属 Laccaria 5 2.39
红菇科 Russulaceae 3 23 11.00 小皮伞属 Marasmius 6 2.87
小菇属 Mycena 11 5.26
光柄菇属 Pluteus 5 2.39
红菇属 Russula 17 8.13
栓菌属 Trametes 5 2.39
关闭全屏
  • BibTeX
  • EndNote
  • RefWorks
  • TxT