| Journal of Food Processing Technology and Nutrition

Received: 08 August 2026; Revised: 06 October 2026; Accepted: 09 October 2026; Published Online: 05 November 2026

J. Food Process. Technol. Nutr., 2026, 1(1), 26601 | Volume 1 Issue 1 (December 2026) | DOI: https://doi.org/10.64189/fptn.26601

This article is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC-BY-NC 4.0)

Influence of Pressure-Cooking Parameters on the

Color, Texture, Nutrient Composition, Antioxidant

Capacity, Flavor and Sensory Profile of Drumstick

(Moringa oleifera)

R Rashmitha,

G Sai Preetham,

V Chandrasekar,

1,*

V. Eyarkai Nambi,

N. Baskaran

3,*

Department of Food Process Technology, School of Sensory Sciences, National Institute of Food Technology, Entrepreneurship, and

Management-Thanjavur (NIFTEM-T), Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, 613005, India

Department of Food Plant Operations, Incubation and Entrepreneurship, National Institute of Food Technology, Entrepreneurship,

and Management-Thanjavur (NIFTEM-T), Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, 613005, India

Department of Food Safety and Quality Assurance, National Institute of Food Technology, Entrepreneurship, and Management-

Thanjavur (NIFTEM-T), Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, 613005, India

*Email: vchandrasekar@iifpt.edu.in (V. Chandrasekar); baskaran@iifpt.edu.in (N. Baskaran)

Abstract

Our country’s rich culinary culture has allowed us to enjoy a variety of vegetables and fruits, resulting in several

health benefits. Drumstick, also known as Moringa oleifera, is a remarkable vegetable that is highly regarded

and piques our curiosity. Therefore, the aim of the present study focused mainly on the effects of pressure

cooking on the physicochemical, nutritional, antioxidant, flavor, and sensory profiles of drumsticks. The

drumstick-water ratio and the amount of salt used during pressure cooking varied. The total phenol content

and DPPH activity of pressure-cooked drumsticks ranged from 0.29–0.48 mg GAE/g and 31.76–56.70%,

respectively. The flavor profiles consisted of 9 aldehydes, 2 alcohols, 5 organic compounds, 2 sulfur compounds,

and ketones. Additionally, the phytonutrients identified by /MS were n-hexadecanoic acid, d-glucitol, 1-S-heptyl-

1-thio-, benzeneacetonitrile, 4-hydroxy-, benzeneacetonitrile, 3-hydroxy-, and d-glucitol and 1-S-heptyl-1-thio-.

Treatment T3 resulted in a high sensory score, whereas T9 resulted in a poor sensory score. Hierarchical cluster

analysis supported the sensory results with nutrient components and grouped the treatments into four groups:

Raw, A (T1-T4), B (T5 & T8), C (T9), and D (T6 & T7). The principal component analysis categorized all 19 data

sets of treatments into four principal components. The results of this study reveal that the drumstick-water ratio

and salt content during pressure cooking have no significant effect on any of the other parameters except

vitamin C.

Keywords: Pressure cooking; Drumstick; Bioactives; Sensory attributes; Principal component analysis.

1. Introduction

Drumstick is a more delicious vegetable in Indian cuisine and has a unique flavor. It is used for preparing dhal

and fish curries. The drumstick contains 3.70 g of carbohydrates, 0.10 g of fat, 4.80 g of total fiber, and 2.50 g of

protein. It is rich in minerals, namely, magnesium (24.00 mg), phosphorus (110.00 mg), calcium (30.00 mg),

iron (5.30 mg), and potassium (259.00 mg).

[1]

Drumstick is a nutrient-rich vegetable that contains bioactive

compounds, including flavonoids, phenolic compounds, phytochemicals, and volatile constituents, which

contribute to its characteristic flavor and nutritional properties. These components appear, disappear, reappear,

and transform during cooking because of the heat, water content, and ingredients used. Decreases in primary

volatile compounds and the emergence of bioactive isothiocyanates in Brassica vegetable cultivars were

observed during cooking.

[2]

The changes in bioactive compounds, phytochemicals, and volatile compounds are

due to oxidation, heat degradation, leaching, emergence, and transformation of phytochemicals available in the

products.

[3,4]

Cooking affects the biological, physical, and chemical composition of foods.

[3,5]

Cooking methods such as boiling, pressure cooking, microwave cooking, and oil frying, as well as cooking

conditions such as temperature, time, and with/without water, with/without oil, and the addition of salt and

spices, have greater effects on the quality of vegetables. Cooking methods influence the total phenol content,

flavonoid content, condensed tannin content, and DPPH activity of bottle gourd.

[6,7]

Conventional, pressure, and microwave methods of cooking green leafy vegetables did not significantly affect

nutrient content, whereas they did significantly affect ascorbic acid and β-carotene.

[8]

Similarly, appreciable

differences were not detected in the protein, fat, total ash, calcium, phosphorus, iron, or dietary fiber of either

raw or cooked beans (Phaseolus vulgaris var. vulgaris), brinjal (Solanum melongena var. esculentum), knol-khol

(Brassica oleracea var. caulorapa), or radish (Raphanus raphanistrum subsp. sativus).

[9]

Ingredients and methods

of preparation lead to significant changes in the nutritional and sensory properties of pureed products and the

loss of enzyme cofactors in Brassica vegetables.

[5,10]

Among the cooking methods, pressure cooking takes less

time, followed by microwave cooking and conventional cooking.

[8]

Although the drumstick is among the important vegetables in Indian cuisine, culinary studies on drumstick have

been almost nil. Studies on the shelf life of retort-processed drumsticks; the color, total flavonoids, antioxidants,

frictional, mechanical, and cutting forces of drumstick pods; and the textural properties of pressure-cooked

moringa have been reported.

[11,12]

In this study, the effects of pressure-cooking conditions on the color, nutrient

composition, antioxidant capacity, flavor, and sensory scores of drumsticks were evaluated, and variations were

analyzed using hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) and principal component analysis (PCA).

2. Materials and methodology

2.1 Materials and sample preparation

The PKM-1 variety of drumstick was procured from a local market in Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, India. Potable

water and table salt (NaCl, an ionic compound used to enhance taste) were used for cooking. Laboratory-grade

chemicals used for analysis were Folin–Ciocalteu’s phenol reagent (RM10822), gallic acid monohydrate

(GRM233), 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH; RM2798), L-ascorbic acid (CMS1014), 2,6-

dichlorophenolindophenol sodium salt dihydrate (RM350), sodium carbonate anhydrous (GRM851), sodium

hydrogen carbonate (GRM3955), oxalic acid dihydrate (GRM694), methanol (AS059; HPLC grade, AS061),

sulfuric acid (AS016), potassium sulphate (GRM1403), copper(II) sulphate (GRM6391), sodium hydroxide

(GRM467), boric acid (GRM1224), hydrochloric acid (AS004), methyl red (GRM121), bromocresol green

(GRM118), petroleum ether 40–60 °C (AS063) and nitric acid (AS009) were purchased from HiMedia

Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. (Mumbai, India).

2.2 Drumstick pressure cooking

The drumstick was cleaned, washed, cut into chewable pieces (4.5 cm), and cooked using a pressure cooker. The

drumstick-to-water ratio was varied from 1:0.5 to 1:2 (g/mL), while the amount of salt ranged from 1.5 to 2.5

g. The treatments were Raw, T1 (1:0.5 & 1.5), T2 (1:0.5 & 2.0), T3 (1:0.5 & 2.5), T4 (1:1 & 1.5), T5 (1:1 & 2.0),

T6 (1:1 & 2.5), T7 (1:2 & 1.5), T8 (1:2 & 2.0), and T9 (1:2 & 2.5). The cooking pressure and time were maintained

at 2 psi and 10 min, respectively, for all the treatments. The cooked drumstick samples were cooled and used

for color, texture, volatile compound, and sensory analyses. A portion of each sample was shadow-dried,

powdered, and used for nutritional analysis.

2.3 Estimation of color of pressure-cooked drumstick

The color parameters were measured using a Hunter Lab ColorFlex EZ spectrophotometer.

[11]

The

measurements were performed using the CIELAB color system under a D65 illuminant and a 10° standard

observer. The total color difference (ΔE*) was calculated using the following equation (Eqn. 1):

∆E* =



(∆L*

+∆a*

+∆b*

) (1)

where ∆L* is (L*sample - L*standard), ∆a* is (a*sample - a*standard) and ∆b* is (b*sample - b*standard).

2.4 Estimation of the texture profile analysis of the pressure-cooked drumstick

The texture profile analysis (TPA) was carried out using a texture analyzer (Stable Micro Systems TA.HDplus).

A two-bite compression test was performed using a flat cylindrical plunger probe (P/75, 75 mm diameter). The

operating conditions included a pre-test speed of 1.00 mm/s, a post-test speed of 2.00 mm/s, a strain of 5%,

and two compression cycles.

[13]

The texture parameters, including hardness, cohesiveness, springiness,

gumminess, and chewiness, were determined from the force–time curves. Hardness is expressed in N, whereas

cohesiveness is reported as a dimensionless ratio.

2.5 Estimation of nutrient composition of pressure-cooked drumsticks

The moisture, crude protein, carbohydrate, fat, crude fiber, and ash contents of the drumstick were estimated

by modified AOAC methods.

[14,15]

The vitamin C content was estimated by the volumetric method using the dye

solution technique.

[16]

The iron content was estimated by the AOAC method using ICP-OES, and the emission

intensity and concentration were recorded.

[17]

The amount of vitamin C and iron content were calculated using

the formulas (Eqn. 2) and (Eqn. 3), respectively.

=

0.5 mg

5 mL

D ×10

×100 (2)

 













(3)

where V1 is the volume of the dye consumed for standard vitamin C, mL; V2 is the average volume of dye

consumed for the sample, mL; Ce is the analyte concentration in the final extract, µg/L; Ve is the final sample

extract volume, mL; D is the dilution factor (Diluted volume/aliquot volume); and W is the sample weight, g.

2.6 Estimation of the total phenolic content of pressure-cooked drumsticks

The total phenolic content (TPC) was determined using the Folin–Ciocalteu method described by Golla et al.,

with slight modifications.

[11]

Briefly, 200 mg of the sample was mixed with 4 mL of methanol and vortexed for 5

min. The mixture was then incubated in an incubator and shaken for 2 h. Following the incubation, the mixture

was centrifuged at 10,000 rpm for 5 min, and the resulting supernatant was collected in a centrifuge tube,

covered with aluminum foil, and stored at 4°C until further analysis.

A gallic acid working standard solution (1 mg/mL) was prepared from the gallic acid stock solution. Working

standards ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 mg/mL were prepared at 0.1 mg/mL intervals. For the analysis, 1 mL of the

sample supernatant was transferred into a test tube, followed by the addition of 4 mL of 7.5% sodium carbonate

solution, 1.5 mL of Folin–Ciocalteu reagent, and 1 mL of distilled water. The reaction mixture was thoroughly

mixed and allowed to stand for 30 min at room temperature for color development. The absorbance was

measured at 765 nm using a spectrophotometer. A calibration curve was prepared using the gallic acid working

standards, and the coefficient of determination (R²) was 0.991. The TPC of the samples was determined by

extrapolation from the calibration curve and expressed as mg gallic acid equivalents (GAE) per g of sample.

2.7 Estimation of 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) activity of pressure-cooked drumsticks

The DPPH radical-scavenging activity was estimated using the spectrophotometric method described by Golla

et al, with slight modifications.

[11]

A 0.1 mM solution of DPPH was prepared in ethanol. One milliliter of the DPPH

solution was added to 3 mg of sample prepared in ethanol at different concentrations (10, 30, and 50 µg/mL).

The mixtures were allowed to stand at room temperature for 30 min, after which the absorbance was measured

at 517 nm using a spectrophotometer. Vitamin C was used as the reference standard compound. The DPPH

radical-scavenging activity was calculated using the following equation (Eqn. 4):

DPPH radical-scavenging activity (%) = [(A₀ − Aᵢ)/A₀] × 100 (4)

where A₀ is the absorbance of the control (in the absence of the sample/scavenger) and Aᵢ is the absorbance of

the sample. The absorbance measurements were recorded at 517 nm.

2.8 Screening of phytonutrients in pressure-cooked drumsticks

The phytonutrients were screened using a TSQ 9000 Triple Quadrupole GC-MS/MS system. The sample was

extracted with methanol, and 1 µL of the extract was injected in split mode at a split ratio of 10:1. The sample

was separated using a Trace GOLD™ TG-5MS capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm ID × 1.4 µm film thickness).

Helium was used as the carrier gas at a flow rate of 1 mL/min. The oven temperature was initially set at 110°C

and held for 3.5 min, followed by an increase to 200°C at a rate of 10°C/min. The temperature was then

increased to 280°C at a rate of 5°C/min and held at that temperature for 12 min. The injector temperature was

maintained at 280°C. The total GC run time was approximately 45–50 min. The NIST 2011 library was used for

the identification of the detected compounds. The inlet temperature, ion source temperature, and electron

ionization energy were 290°C, 250°C, and 70 eV, respectively. Mass spectra were acquired over a scan range of

m/z 50–500. The total MS acquisition time was approximately 40–50 min, with a solvent delay of 0–3.5 min.

2.9 Determination of volatile compounds in pressure-cooked drumsticks

The volatile profiles were determined using a HERACLES GC Flash electronic nose (AlphaMos, France).

[18]

Two

grams of sample were placed in a 20-mL glass vial and sealed with a septum and cap. The sample vials were

incubated in a shaker oven at 50°C and 500 rpm for 30 minutes. Afterward, an automatic headspace sampler

draws the flavor from the head space and injects it. The column, injection, and detector temperatures were 40,

180, and 220°C, respectively. FID detected the signals at 0.01 s. Kovats indices were used to identify volatile

compounds from AroChemBase software.

2.10 Sensory profile analysis of pressure-cooked drumsticks

Sensory profile analysis was carried out using a 9-point hedonic scale test.

[19]

Thirty panelists aged 21–48 years

were selected, and their color, texture, aroma, taste, overall acceptability, and mouthfeel were evaluated.

2.11 Statistical analysis

All measurements were performed in triplicate, and the results are expressed as the mean ± SD. Tukey’s test

was used to determine significant differences among treatments at P < 0.05. Hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA)

was performed using the cophenetic coefficient, and a dendrogram was generated using Ward’s method.

Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed to classify the pressure-cooked drumstick samples on the

basis of their sensory scores using MATLAB R2020.

[20]

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Color of the pressure-cooked drumstick

The variation in the color values of the drumsticks was not significant (p > 0.05) (Fig. 1). The total color

difference ΔE* was between 0.07 and 24.54. The lightness and a* and b* values decreased with increasing water

and salt contents, whereas the ΔE* value increased. The T1 sample had the highest ΔE value (24.54), and sample

T2 had the lowest ΔE value (2.5). Compared with the raw drumstick samples, all the pressure-cooked samples

had higher ΔE* values. ΔE* decreased with increasing water and salt content. Sample T1 retained its green color

after pressure cooking, whereas sample T2 turned brown because of charring because of insufficient water level

and high salt concentration. Changes in color might be due to the leaching of pigments. No significant differences

in color were observed between boiled and steamed parsnip and Jerusalem artichoke, whereas the color of

boiled and steamed beetroot samples significantly differed.

[21]

Fig. 1: Color values of the raw and pressure-cooked drumstick: The drumstick-to-water ratio (g/mL) and salt level

(g) were varied. The treatments were Raw (uncooked control) and T1–T9: T1–T3 (1:0.5; 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 g salt), T4–

T6 (1:1; 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 g salt), and T7–T9 (1:2; 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 g salt), respectively.

3.2 Analysis of the texture profile of the pressure-cooked drumstick

The texture profile of the drumstick samples did not significantly differ (p > 0.05) among the treatments. The

texture profile results have been previously reported by the authors; however, the data were further used for

hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) and principal component analysis (PCA) in the present study.

[12]

The

hardness of the drumstick samples ranged from 1.56 to 19.11 N. The cohesiveness ranged from 1.46 to 8.93 and

was expressed as a dimensionless parameter. Springiness values ranged from 0.998 to 1.00 mm. The highest

chewiness value was observed in the raw sample (28.12 N), whereas the lowest value was observed in T9 (4.00

N). Chewiness was expressed in N according to the instrument/software output.

3.3 Nutritional composition of pressure-cooked drumstick

The pressure-cooking factors had no significant (p > 0.05) effect on nutritional composition (Table 1). The

carbohydrate content ranged from 78.27 to 84.24%. The raw drumstick contained 76.50% carbohydrate. The

T9 and T2 samples had the highest (84.24%) and lowest (78.27%) carbohydrate contents, respectively. The

carbohydrate content of pressure-cooked drumsticks was higher than that of raw drumsticks. This might be due

to the leaching out of polysaccharides and bound carbohydrates from the ruptured drumstick cells and to

increasing digestible starch in the drumstick during cooking. The carbohydrate content of mushrooms, such as

Jerusalem parsnip and artichokes, increased with different cooking methods.

[21,22]

The total carbohydrate

content in vegetables increases during boiling and steaming because of the leaching of soluble metabolites and

the availability of insoluble cell wall polysaccharides upon thermal treatment.

[21]

The crude protein content of the drumstick samples ranged from 14.00 to 18.81%, whereas that of the raw

sample ranged from 19.03%. Among the pressure-cooked treatments, T3 and T4 resulted in the highest crude

protein content (18.81%), whereas T9 resulted in the lowest value (14.00%). Overall, compared with the raw

sample, pressure cooking resulted in a slight reduction in crude protein. This reduction may be associated with

the migration of soluble nitrogenous compounds into the cooking medium under the combined influence of

heat, pressure, and moisture. Similar losses of nitrogenous components during boiling have been reported in

mushrooms.

[22]

Table 1: Nutritional composition of raw and pressure-cooked drumsticks

Treat

Carbohydrates

Crude

Fat

Crude

Protein

Crude

Fiber

Ash

Vitamin C

Iron

TPC

DPPH

activity

Raw

76.76± 0.36a

2.00±

0.71a

19.03 ±

0.31a

78.00 ±

2.12a

2.21±

0.04a

181.22 ±

10.04a

39.06±

0.97e

0.33+0.0

50.05±1.3

80.27± 3.49a

1.50±

1.41a

17.72±1.5

5abc

69.25 ±

1.77c

0.51±0.5

3bc

137.54±11

.66abc

62.57±

0.33a

0.49+0.0

3ab

48.81±2.3

4ab

78.28± 1.74a

1.25±

1.06a

18.81±

0.62ab

71.25±1.

06abc

1.66±0.0

6ab

143.72±

10.18ab

51.04±

0.07c

0.3+0.02

36.74±1.4

0ab

83.94± 1.20a

1.50±

1.41a

14.00 ±

0.62c

70.75±

1.77bc

0.56±0.4

1bc

137.54±29

.12abc

36.72±

0.34f

0.33+0.0

1bc

56.71±1.2

5bc

82.53± 3.09a

1.75±

1.06a

14.88±1.2

4abc

73.75±0.

35abc

0.84±0.7

9bc

124.97±10

.26bcd

33.72±

0.47 g

0.47+0.0

4bc

56.4±0.91

0bc

80.28± 0.64a

1.25±

0.35a

17.72±0.3

1abc

74.00±2.

12abc

0.75±0.0

2bc

99.93 ±

9.68bcde

36.52±

0.55f

0.35+0.0

2bc

47.38±1.3

8abc

80.07± 0.44a

1.50±

0.71a

17.72±0.3

1abc

73.25±2.

47abc

0.71±0.0

4bc

93.75

±18.89cde

53.20±

0.23b

0.29+0.0

2ac

45.13±2.3

0abc

79.66± 1.32a

1.75±

1.06a

17.72±0.3

1abc

69.25 ±

1.77c

0.87±0.0

5bc

75.00 ±

18.88e

47.46±

0.47d

0.35+0.0

1ac

31.77±1.2

2abc

82.96± 3.08a

1.25±

0.35a

15.53±2.7

8abc

70.75±

1.77bc

0.26±

0.06c

87.46 ±

10.43de

30.92±

0.27 h

0.42+0.0

1ac

43.22±1.3

3abc

84.24± 0.09a

0.75±

0.35a

14.44

±0.62bc

76.5 ±

1.41ab

0.57±0.1

7bc

74.88 ±

18.00e

21.31±

0.43i

0.28+0.0

1ac

49.25±2.3

3abc

* Mean ± standard deviation of three treatment replications. Values in the same column with different letters are

significantly different (P<0.05). The drumstick-to-water ratio (g/mL) and salt level (g) were varied. The treatments

were Raw (uncooked control) and T1–T9: T1–T3 (1:0.5; 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 g salt), T4–T6 (1:1; 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 g salt),

and T7–T9 (1:2; 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 g salt), respectively.

The crude fat content ranged from 0.75 to 1.75% in the pressure-cooked drumstick samples, whereas it ranged

from 2.00% in the raw sample. T4 and T7 presented the highest fat content (1.75%), whereas T9 presented the

lowest (0.75%). The observed reduction in fat content following pressure cooking may be related to the

redistribution or loss of soluble components during cooking. Similarly, changes in fat content have been

reported in mushrooms subjected to microwave and boiling treatments.

[22]

The crude fiber content of the pressure-cooked drumstick samples ranged from 69.25 to 76.50%, whereas that

of the raw sample was 78.00%. T9 resulted in the highest crude fiber content (76.50%), whereas T7 resulted in

the lowest (69.25%). Similar increases in the measured crude fiber content following pressure cooking and

boiling have been reported for cowpea pods.

[23]

The ash content of the pressure-cooked drumstick samples ranged from 0.25 to 1.65%, whereas that of the raw

sample ranged from 2.21%. T8 and T2 presented the highest (1.65%) and lowest (0.25%) ash contents,

respectively. Overall, a reduction in ash content was observed after pressure cooking, which may be attributed

to the leaching of mineral components into the cooking medium. A comparable reduction in ash content was

reported in pressure-cooked cowpea pods compared with raw samples, whereas no significant changes were

observed in the ash content of sweet potatoes subjected to different cooking methods.

[23,24]

3.4 Vitamin C content of pressure-cooked drumstick

The pressure cooking and cooking parameters significantly (p < 0.05) affected the vitamin C content (Table 1).

The vitamin content of pressure-cooked drumsticks varied from 74.89% to 143.72%, and that of raw drumsticks

was 181.22%. Treatment T2 resulted in the highest vitamin content (143.72%), whereas the lowest vitamin

content (74.89%) was observed in T9 (1:2-2.5). The decrease in vitamin C occurred because of the water

solubility of vitamin C. Compared with fresh-cut materials, microwave heating and steaming did not cause any

significant loss of vitamin C in red cabbage, but stir-frying and boiling caused a significant reduction.

[25]

The

greatest decrease in vitamin C in Brassica spp. was observed after boiling.

[15]

3.5 Iron content of the pressure-cooked drumstick

The pressure-cooking factors did not significantly affect the Fe content of the drumsticks (p > 0.05) (Table 1).

The iron content of pressure-cooked drumsticks ranged from 21.31 to 62.58 mg/L, whereas the iron content of

the raw drumstick was 39.06 mg/L (Table 1). An iron concentration of approximately 62.58 mg/L was observed

in T1 (1:0.5–1.5), and the lowest iron concentration of 21.3 mg/L was observed in T9 (1:2–2.5). Compared with

the raw pods, the iron content of sample T1 was greater, but the iron content was lower in the other treatments.

The increase in iron content might be due to iron being leached from the cooking vessel because the charred

drumstick skins were stuck to the vessel. Compared with raw pods with longer cooking times, a significant

reduction (p < 0.05) in the Fe content was detected in both the boiling and pressure cooking of cowpea pods.

[23]

3.6 Total polyphenol content of the drumstick

The total polyphenol content ranged from 0.28 to 0.48 mg GAE/g in pressure-cooked drumsticks (Table 1). The

drumstick-water ratio and table salt concentration did not significantly affect the total polyphenol content of

pressure-cooked drumsticks (p > 0.05). The raw drumstick contains 0.32 mg GAE/g. The highest phenolic

content (0.49 mg GAE/g) was observed in T1, and the lowest (0.28 mg GAE/g) was observed in T9. The increase

in total phenols in vegetables is dependent on food matrices, time-temperature combinations, and heating

conditions.

[26]

There were no significant differences in the total phenolic content of red cabbage between the

steaming, microwave heating, and fresh-cut treatments; nonetheless, compared with the fresh-cut samples, the

boiling and stir-frying treatments resulted in a significant decrease in the total phenolic content.

[25]

3.7 DPPH activity of the pressure-cooked drumstick

The DPPH radical-scavenging activity of pressure-cooked drumsticks ranged from 31.77% to 56.70%, while the

raw drumstick activity was 50.04% (Table 1). The highest (56.71%) and lowest (31.77%) DPPH activities were

observed in T3 and T7, respectively, at the concentration used for the DPPH assay. All cooking methods increase

the antioxidant activity of Hericium erinaceus (Lion’s mane).

[27]

In contrast, a decrease in antioxidant activity was

reported in Brussels sprouts following cooking.

[10]

The bioavailability of antioxidants varies depending on the

nature of cooking.

[25,29]

The antioxidant cascade system plays a major role in preventing non-communicable

diseases.

3.8 Phytochemical components of pressure-cooked drumstick

The major phytochemical components present in raw and pressure-cooked drumsticks are shown in Table 2.

Cooking caused the appearance and disappearance of various phytonutrients. Antimicrobial compounds, fatty

acids, methyl esters, aromatic compounds, organic compounds, and sugars were found on the drumstick. The

peak areas of n-hexadecanoic acid, benzeneacetonitrile, 3-hydroxyl-; D-glucitol, 1-S-heptyl-1-thio-; methyl 6-

oxoheptanoate; benzeneacetonitrile, 4-hydroxyl-; and 2,4-di-tert-butyl phenol were greater than those of the

other compounds. These phytonutrients have anticancer, antimutagenic, antiaging, antibacterial, and

antidiabetic properties. Drumstick peel extract has shown antibacterial, hemolytic, and photocatalytic activity.

Table 2: Phytochemical components in raw and pressure-cooked drumsticks

Name of the compound

Retention time

Peak area

RAW

Thymine

3.38

3.883

3.893

3.83

3.38

3.15

4.81

5.81

3.76

4.12

4-Amino-1,5-pentandioic acid

4.25

1.39

4H-Pyran-4-one, 2,3-dihydro-3,5-

dihydroxy-6-methyl-

4.45

4.9

4.887

4.864

4.45

5.45

5.07

4.41

3.33

4.27

5-Methoxypyrrolidin-2-one

4.91

5.2

0.97

5-Hydroxymethylfurfural

6.101

6.13

3.66

7.99

Methyl 3-hydroxytetradecanoate

6.318

6.335

6.301

3.06

1.31

1.89

2.06

4.56

Methyl 6-oxoheptanoate

6.67

6.83

6.67

10.45

0.25

7.77

2-Propyl-tetrahydropyran-3-ol

6.857

1.78

2-(2-Hydroxy-2-methyl-4-phenyl-

but-3-ynylamino) hexanoic acid

7.485

1.08

á-D-Glucopyranose,4-O-á-

Dgalactopyranosyl

7.59

1.77

1.31

Octadecanedioic acid

8.3

1.63

0.55

9-Hexadecenoic acid

8.46

0.84

Lactose

9.5

11.24

Benzeneacetonitrile, 3-hydroxy-

9.858

9.835

9.784

9.72

13.13

10.08

5.27

6.13

2,4-Di-tert-butylphenol

10.238

10.236

10.233

2.12

2.27

4.17

9-Octadecenoic acid (Z)-

11.23

1.48

0.57

Dodecanoic acid, 3-hydroxy

12.07

0.55

Quinic acid

11.68

2.31

Dodecanoic acid, 3-hydroxy-

13.21

1.39

(E)-4-(3-Hydroxyprop-1-en-1-yl)-

2-methoxyphenol

13.053

13.044

13.06

0.65

1.23

0.8

Melezitose

14.37

1.56

n-Hexadecanoic acid

15.63

15.696

15.678

15.63

15.1

2.74

1.94

2.57

3.25

cis-Sinapyl alcohol

16.14

0.66

Linoleic acid ethyl ester

17.42

0.36

9,12-Octadecadienoic acid (Z,Z)-

17.94

18.073

18.07

17.94

9.14

1.29

1.69

1.78

9,12,15-Octadecatrienoic acid,

(Z,Z,Z)-

18.03

18.191

18.176

18.03

17.89

3.43

2.92

4.79

4.21

Dienestrol, 2TMS derivative

21.478

21.482

1.25

2.86

3-(1,5-Dimethyl-hexyl)-

3a,10,10,12b-tetramethyl-

1,2,3,3a,4,

21.479

7.5

d-Glucitol, 1-S-heptyl-1-thio-

22.95

48.36

Dotriacontane

23.11

4.08

3.04

Hexadecanoic acid, 2-hydroxy-1-

(hydroxymethyl)ethyl ester

23.544

23.536

23.53

1.01

1.62

1.71

Acetic acid, [(2,4,6-

triethylbenzoyl)thio]-

24.41

1.73

β-l-Rhamnofuranoside, 5-O-acetyl-

thio-octyl-

24.557

1.11

Heptacosane

25.91

7.6

4.33

9,12-Octadecadienoic acid (Z,Z)-,

2,3-dihydroxypropyl ester

26.087

26.083

26.078

1.78

2.22

1.92

Vitamin E

33.053

33.055

1.38

1.39

1.65

Campesterol

35.147

35.151

35.145

6.05

5.65

6.3

Stigmasterol

35.964

35.966

35.957

4.25

4.13

4.28

γ-Sitosterol

37.583

37.566

37.546

13.74

12.9

14.27

Betulin

39.866

1.67

* Not detected

The drumstick-to-water ratio (g/mL) and salt level (g) were varied. The treatments were Raw (uncooked control)

and T1–T9: T1–T3 (1:0.5; 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 g salt), T4–T6 (1:1; 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 g salt), and T7–T9 (1:2; 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5

g salt), respectively.

The major fatty acids present in raw and pressure-cooked drumsticks were dodecanoic acid, 3-hydroxy; 9-

hexadecenoic acid; linoleic acid ethyl ester; and 10-undecenoic acid, octyl ester. The fatty acids methyl 3-

hydroxytetradecanoate, octadecanedioic acid, n-hexadecanoic acid, 9,12-octadecadienoic acid (Z, Z)- and

9,12,15-octadecatrienoicacid (Z, Z, Z)- were commonly present in both the raw and cooked pods. The methyl

esters present were methyl 6-oxoheptanoate and 9-octadecenoic acid (Z)-. The major alcoholic compounds

observed were (E)-4-(3-hydroxyprop-1-en-1-yl)-2-methoxyphenol and cis-sinapyl alcohol. The aromatic

compounds were thymine and benzeneacetonitrile, 3-hydroxy-. Thymine was present in both raw and cooked

drumsticks, whereas benzylacetonitrile, 3-hydroxy-, was seen only in cooked drumsticks. In addition to 5-

hydroxymethylfurfural, 5-methoxypyrrolidin-2-one, and dotriacontane are common organic compounds. The

major sugars found were α-D-glucopyranose, 4-O-á-D-galactopyranosyl, lactose, melezitose, DL-arabinose, d-

mannose, and D-ribose. 4H-Pyran-4-one,2,3-dihydro-3,5-dihydroxy-6-methyl; d-Glucitol, 1-S-heptyl-1-thio-; 4-

Amino-1,5-pentandioic acid; and Heptacosane were the other phytonutrients present in the raw and pressure-

cooked drumstick pods. Phytochemicals play a major role in the alleviation of major kinds of lifestyle disorders,

such as cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and obesity.

[30]

3.9 Volatile components of the pressure-cooked drumstick

The 130 volatile compounds and corresponding flavor and taste characteristics (AlphaMos, France) are listed

in Table 3. The esters, aldehydes, alcohols, ketones, organic compounds, aromatic compounds, sulfur

compounds, and other volatile compounds found in the drumstick are associated with unique sensory

properties and acceptance. Esters such as ethyl formate, isopropyl acetate, ethyl propanoate, bornyl acetate,

ethyl acrylate, ethyl salicylate, benzyl phenyl acetate, and isopentyl salicylate were found in drumsticks. These

esters contribute to the sensory properties of cognac, sweet, rose, pine, winter green, and minty. Isopropyl

acetate, ()-bornyl acetate, and ethyl salicylate were found in both raw and pressure-cooked drumsticks.

Esterification of isopropanol and acetic acid releases isopropyl acetate and ()-bornyl acetate and a fruity odor.

These esters are liquid in nature and are present in sweet-smelling foods.

Nine major aldehydes, viz. Acetaldehyde, propanal, 2-methylpropanal, ethyl formate, butanal, 3-methylbutanal,

heptanal, hexanal and pentanal were found in both the raw and pressure-cooked drumsticks. These aldehydes

contribute to the “green,” “fresh,” “floral,” and “fruity” sensory properties of the raw and pressure-cooked

drumstick pods.

[2]

The oxidation of aldehydes produces carboxylic acid during pressure cooking. The levels of

hexanal, octanal, nonanal, and decanal increase in green beans during cooking because of enzymatic and

nonenzymatic oxidation.

[31]

3-Methylbutanal is derived from the amino acid leucine during the cooking process,

and a wide range of aldehydes are generated by Strecker degradation.

Two major alcohols, namely, 2-propanol and n-butanol, were found in both raw and cooked drumsticks. 2-

Propanol was commonly found in both raw and pressure-cooked drumsticks with a high peak area, whereas n-

butanol was found only in raw drumsticks with a lower peak area. These alcohols contribute to the solvent,

pungent, ethereal, nutty, earthy, musty, and woody sensory properties of the drumstick. n-Butanol is lost during

pressure cooking, which might be due to heat degradation of alcoholic compounds. High loss of alcohols in pot-

cooked green beans was observed.

[31]

The ketones butan-2-one, 2,3-pentanedione, and pentan-2-one were found. 2,3-Pentanedione, also known as

acetylpropionyl, is a flavoring agent released during pressure cooking. These ketones contribute to burnt,

buttery, caramelized, grainy, malty, nutty, oily, and sickly sensory properties. Increased ketones during heat

treatments, except for pressure cooking, were observed by Rodríguez-Bernaldo De Quirós et al., whereas the

present study revealed an increase in ketones during pressure cooking.

[31]

This might be due to the minimal

cooking time, temperature, and presence of salt.

Five major organic compounds, butane-2,3-dione, 1-propanol, 2-methyl-, 1S- ()-a-pinene, nonanoic acid, and

phenylacetic acid, were observed. Among these compounds, butane-2,3-dione and nonanoic acid were

commonly found in raw and treated drumsticks. These organic compounds contribute to alliaceous, fishy, meaty,

and rotten food; onion, fusel, leek, licorice, unpleasant, chlorine, acidic, and bitter sensory properties.

Isobornyl acetate, hydroxycitronellal, citronellyl formate, and 2,4-decadienal were the four major aromatic

compounds observed. They contribute to the herbal, lily of the valley, melon, tropical, waxy, leafy, citrus, fatty,

orange, and tallowy sensory properties. Dimethyl sulfide and dimethyl trisulfide were the two major sulfur

compounds present in both the raw and pressure-cooked drumsticks. Dimethyl trisulfide has alliaceous,

cauliflower, cabbage, meaty, rotten food, onion, and fishy-like sensory properties.

[31]

A trivial loss of volatiles was observed in some of the pressure-cooked drumstick samples from T1-T3, T5, T8,

and T9, whereas slightly increased volatile compounds were observed in T4, T6, and T7. This might be due to

alterations in the chemical compounds present in the drumstick during pressure cooking. Ravi et al. reported

that the number of volatile compounds in sweet potato increased after cooking.

[18]

Table 3: Volatile components in raw and pressure-cooked drumsticks

Name

Formula

Sensory descriptors

Relevance index

RAW

Acetaldehyde

Aldehydic; Etheral; Fresh; Fruity; Pleasant; Pungent

49.04

55.35

51.37

41.58

40.38

dimethyl sulfide

Cabbage; Corn; Fruity; Gaseous; Gasoline; Green; Moldy;

Onion; Sulfurous; Sweet; Tomato; Vegetable; Vegetable

soup

76.79

17.96

19.9

18.22

6.17

Propanal

acetaldehyde; Cocoa; Earthy; Etheral; Nutty; Plastic;

Pungent; Solvent

59.24

28.27

24.26

28.58

31.43

2-propanol

Acetone; Alcoholic; Ethanol; Etheral; Musty; Pleasant;

rubbing alcohol; Woody

34.89

13.02

12.34

16.16

19.35

2-methyl propanal

Aldehydic; Bakedpotato; Burnt; Floral; Fresh; Fruity;

Green; Malty; Pungent; Sharp; Spicy; Toasted

68.87

16.23

13.69

23.32

27.6

ethyl formate

Cognac; Etheral; Fruity; Green; Pungent; Rose

butane-2,3- dione

Butter; Caramelized; Chlorine; Creamy; Fruity; Pineapple;

Pungent; Spirit; Strong; Sweet

11.61

17.65

7.07

29.8

3.36

Butanal

Chocolate; Cocoa; Green; Malty; Musty; Pungent

10.73

9.28

29.1

butan-2-one

Acetone; Butter; Cheese; Chemical; Chocolate; Etheral;

Fragrant; Fruity; Gaseous; Pleasant; Pungent; Sharp;

Sweet

12.81

13.39

7.12

16.42

4.21

1-Propanol, 2-

methyl-

Alcoholic; Bitter; Chemical; Fusel; Glue; Leek; Licorice;

Musty; Oil; Solvent; Sweet; unpleasant; Winey

54.41

32.18

39.19

34.46

57.62

acetic acid

acetic; Acidic; Odorless; Pungent; Sharp; Sour; Vinegar

55.3

31.66

38.57

33.99

57.62

3-methyl butanal

Aldehydic; Almond; Apple; Cheese; Chocolate; Fatty;

Fruity; Green; Herbaceous; Malty; Peach; Toasted

31.74

90.91

33.12

Isopropyl acetate

Banana; Chemical; Etheral; Fruity; Sweet

89.37

31.31

39.59

81.37

31.3

2,3-Pentanedione

Almond; Apple; Burnt; Butter; Butterscotch;

Caramelized; Cheese; Creamy; diacetyl; Fresh; Fruity;

grain; Malty; Nutty; Oily; Pungent; sickly; Sweet

80.72

Heptanal

Aldehydic; Citrus; Fatty; fish(dry); Fresh; Fruity; Green;

Heavy; Oily; Ozone; Pesticide; Pungent; putty; Rancid;

Smoky; Solvent

19.03

Dimethyl trisulfide

Alliaceous; Cabbage; Cauliflower; Fishy; Meaty; Onion;

onion(cooked); Rotten food; Sulfurous

75.67

Methyl eugenol

Carnation; Cinnamon; Clove; Fresh; Mild; Spicy; Sweet;

Warm

43.66

Ethyl propanoate

Banana; Chemical; Etheral; Fruity; Sweet

61.91

ethyl butyrate

Acetone; Banana; Bubblegum; Caramelized; Fruity;

Pineapple;

Strawberry; Sweet

4.6

Propyl propanoate

Apple; Chemical; Fruity; fruity(sweet); Pineapple;

Pungent; Sharp; Sweet; Winey

5.71

Butyl acetate

Banana; Bitter; Etheral; Fruity; Green; Pear; Pine; apple;

Pleasant; Solvent; Strong; Sweaty; Sweet

8.28

Hexanal

Acorn; Aldehydic; Fatty; Fishy; Fresh; Fruity; Grassy;

Green;

Herbaceous; Leafy; Sharp; Strong; Sweaty; Tallowy;

vinous

13.13

3-methylbutanal

Aldehydic; Almond; Apple; Cheese; Chocolate; Fatty;

Fruity; Green; Herbaceous; Malty; Peach; Toasted

31.74

90.91

33.12

n-butanol

Alcoholic; amylalcohol; Banana; Cheese; Fermented;

Fruity; Fusel; Harsh; Medicinal; Oil; Rancid; Strong;

Sweet

18.48

23.79

1S-()-a-pinene

Fresh; Herbaceous; Pine; Resinous; Sharp; Terpenic;

Turpentine; Warm

12.58

Isobornyl acetate

Camphor; herbal (weak); Pine

Hydroxy citronellal

Floral; Green; Herbaceous; Lily; Melon; Lily of valley;

Sweet; Tropical; Waxy

()-bornyl acetate

Balsamic; Floral; Fresh; herb; Pine; Sweet; Woody

Ethyl salicylate

Floral; Heavy; Minty; Spicy; Sweet; Wintergreen

2,4-decadienal

Citrus; Fatty; Fresh; Fruity; Green; Orange; Sweet;

Tallowy; Waxy

Phenylacetic acid

Candy; Floral; Honey; Pollen; Rose; Sour; Sweet; Urine;

Vanilla; Waxy

Myristicin

Balsamic; Mild; Spicy; Warm; Woody

56.14

Benzyl phenyl

acetate

Cocoa; Floral; Sweet

* Not detected; NA- Not applicable

The drumstick-to-water ratio (g/mL) and salt level (g) were varied. The treatments were Raw (uncooked control)

and T1–T9: T1–T3 (1:0.5; 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 g salt), T4–T6 (1:1; 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 g salt), and T7–T9 (1:2; 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5

g salt), respectively.

3.10 Sensory scores of pressure-cooked drumsticks

In terms of the sensory scores (Fig. 2), T3 had the highest scores for all the sensory factors, whereas T9 had low

scores. The sensory scores of the sensory parameters did not significantly differ (p > 0.05) among the

treatments. However, the highest overall acceptability was observed for T3, followed by T1, T2, T5, T6, T4, T7,

T8, and T9. Compared with the other treatments, the T3 and raw treatments resulted in higher color values.

Compared with all the other treatments, the T7, T8, and T9 treatments resulted in the lowest color values and

taste values. In terms of texture, aroma, and aftertaste, compared with T9, all the treatments resulted in almost

equivalent scores. Compared with the other samples, treatment T3 resulted in higher overall acceptability (9 =

like extremely), whereas T8 and T9 resulted in the lowest score (5 = neither like nor dislike). The lowest score

of the treatments was due to the light-colored drumstick causing more water to be used for pressure cooking to

leach the color pigments and high and salty taste. Poor taste acceptability might be due to high salt content. The

appearance and color, raw and T3 (9 = extremely), had the highest score, indicating bright green pods. With

respect to appearance, T6 scored the lowest, followed by T7, T8, and T9.

Fig. 2: Spider graph of the sensory analysis of raw and pressure-cooked drumsticks: The drumstick-to-water ratio

(g/mL) and salt level (g) were varied. The treatments were Raw (uncooked control) and T1–T9: T1–T3 (1:0.5; 1.5, 2.0,

and 2.5 g salt), T4–T6 (1:1; 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 g salt), and T7–T9 (1:2; 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 g salt), respectively.

3.11 Classification of pressure-cooked drumsticks on the basis of color, texture, nutrient composition,

antioxidant capacity, and sensory score

(A) Hierarchal cluster analysis

Hierarchical cluster analysis was performed to categorize the treatments on the basis of similarity. The height

of the clades is greater; the treatments are more dissimilar. From the dendrogram (Fig. 3a), it was observed that

when the raw drumstick was grouped alone (RAW), the treatments T1–T4 were grouped A, T5 and T8 were

grouped B, T9 was in a group (C), and T6 and T7 were grouped C. Treatment T3 resulted in the highest sensory

score, which decreased in group A. Therefore, it appears that the group A samples were more sensorily

acceptable than the other groups were.

(B) Principal component analysis

From the principal component analysis, the first four principal components that can describe the variation in

19 parameters were found using eigenvalues (Fig. 3b). Biplots between PC1 and PC2 and between PC3 and PC4

show the variation and group variables (Fig. 3c&d). The first 2 components, namely, PC1 and PC2, had

variabilities of 36.40% and 22.65%, respectively, whereas the other 2 components, PC3 and PC4, had data

variabilities of 15.48% and 8.49%, respectively. The separation of PC1 was due mainly to iron, cohesiveness and

a*, whereas the separation of PC2 constituted the protein content, overall acceptability, ascorbic acid, fat, ash,

and chewiness. The main attributable components in PC2 are chewiness and overall acceptability, where both

can be correlated. However, carbohydrates and moisture are on the negative side of PC. In the case of PC3, the

separation was mainly chewiness, which was again sensory, followed by carbohydrate, DPPH, and ascorbic acid.

The correlations between the overall acceptability of carbohydrate, DPPH, ascorbic acid, and chewiness were

good for PC3, whereas the ash, fiber, and color characteristics were good for PC4. The biplots revealed that

cooking strongly affected the proximate components.

Fig. 3 (a) Heat map with hierarchical cluster diagram, (b) Scree plot of Eigen value diagram to indicate the PC, (c)

PCA classification of raw and pressure-cooked drumsticks between PC1 and PC2, (d) PCA classification of raw and

pressure-cooked drumsticks between PC3 and PC4.

4. Conclusion

The pressure-cooked drumstick of treatment T2 (1:0.5-2) resulted in higher color, textural, nutritional,

phytonutrient, and volatile contents, and T9 (1:2-2.5) presented the lowest values. Treatment T3 resulted in

better consumer acceptability. The HCA concludes that the treatments T2, T1, T3, and T4 are grouped together.

Since T3 and T2 are grouped together, T3 (1:0.5–2.5) is greater among the other treatments. The pressure-

cooking factors, the drumstick-water ratio, and salt did not significantly affect the color, texture, or nutrient

profiles. However, color and vitamin C content were significantly affected. The phytonutrient and volatile

profiles were affected by the drumstick–water ratio and salt content during pressure cooking. More research is

needed exclusively on the emergence and disappearance of phytonutrients and volatile profiles for optimizing

water and salt.

Acknowledgment

The authors express their gratitude to the National Institute of Food Technology Entrepreneurship and

Management, Thanjavur, Tamilnadu, India, for providing infrastructural assistance for the current work.

CRediT Author Contribution Statement

R Rashmitha: Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing – Original draft. G Sai Preetham:

Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – Original draft. V Chandrasekar: Conceptualization, Methodology,

Writing – Review & editing, Supervision, Project administration. V Eyarkai Nambi: Methodology, Writing –

Review & editing, Supervision. N. Baskaran: Methodology, Data curation, Writing – Review & editing,

Supervision.

Funding Declaration

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-

profit sectors.

Ethics Statement

The sensory analysis study was reviewed by the National Institute of Food Technology, Entrepreneurship and

Management (NIFTEM) Institutional Board, and ethical approval was waived. The School of Sensory Sciences

(NIFTEM-Thanjavur) follows standard procedures for sensory evaluation. Panelists were screened in

accordance with the recommendations of the E-18 Committee, and written informed consent was obtained from

all participants/panelists using the prescribed consent forms/score sheets. The sensory analysis was conducted

in accordance with ISO 8586. The results of the sensory analysis are presented in a radar chart. The study was

conducted in accordance with local legislation, institutional requirements, and the guidelines of the Declaration

of Helsinki. The plant material used in this study (Moringa oleifera Lam., PKM-1 variety) was procured as a

commercially cultivated agricultural produce from Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, India in February 2022. As the

material is a cultivated crop obtained through commercial purchase and was used solely for research purposes,

no prior approval from the NBA or the State Biodiversity Board was required. No wild plant material was

collected for this study.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable

request.

Conflict of Interest

Dr. N. Baskaran, an author of this article, is a member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Food Processing

Technology and Nutrition. He had no involvement in the editorial handling, peer review or decision-making for

this manuscript, which was handled independently of him. The authors declare no other conflicts of interest.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use Disclosure

The authors declare that no generative artificial intelligence tools were used in the conceptualization, analysis,

interpretation, or generation of the scientific content of this manuscript.

Supporting Information

Not applicable

References

[1]

T. Longvah, I. An antan , K. Bhaskarachary, K. Venkaiah, T. Longvah, Indian food composition tables,

National Institute of Nutrition, Indian Council of Medical Research Hyderabad, 2017,

https://www.nin.res.in/ebooks/IFCT2017.pdf, Accessed 1 August 2026.

[2]

M. N. Wieczorek, H. H. Jeleń, Volatile compounds of selected raw and cooked Brassica vegetables,

Molecules, 2019, 24, 391, doi: 10.3390/molecules24030391.

[3]

M. Danowska-Oziewicz, A. Narwojsz, A. Draszanowska, N. Marat, The effects of cooking method on

selected quality traits of broccoli and green asparagus, International Journal of Food Science &

Technology, 2020, 55, 127–135, doi: 10.1111/ijfs.14269.

[4]

L. Zhan, L. Pang, Y. Ma, C. Zhang, Thermal processing affecting phytochemical contents and total

antioxidant capacity in broccoli (Brassica oleracea L.), Journal of Food Processing and Preservation,

2018, 42, e13548, doi: 10.1111/jfpp.13548.

[5]

X. Wu, H. Huang, H. Childs, Y. Wu, L. Yu, P. R. Pehrsson, Glucosinolates in Brassica vegetables:

Characterization and factors that influence distribution, content, and intake, Annual Review of Food

Science and Technology, 2021, 12, 485-511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-food-070620-025744.

[6]

S. Saikia, C. L. Mahanta, Effect of steaming, boiling and microwave cooking on the total phenolics,

flavonoids and antioxidant properties of different vegetables of Assam, India, International Journal of

Food and Nutritional Sciences, 2013, 2, 47-53.

[7]

R. Yadav, B. S. Yadav, R. Yadav, Influence of various cooking treatments and extraction solvents on

bioactive compounds and antioxidant capacities of bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria) fruit in India,

Food Production, Processing and Nutrition, 2024, 6, 19, doi: 10.1186/s43014-023-00189-2.

[8]

A. Kala, J. Prakash, Nutrient composition and sensory profile of differently cooked green leafy

vegetables, International Journal of Food Properties, 2004, 7, 659-669, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1081/JFP-200033079.

[9]

A. Kala, J. Prakash, The comparative evaluation of the nutrient composition and sensory attributes of

four vegetables cooked by different methods, International Journal of Food Science and Technology,

2006, 41, 163-171, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2005.01043.x

[10]

N. Ilhamto, H. H. Keller, L. M. Duizer, The effect of varying ingredient composition on the sensory and

nutritional properties of a pureed meat and vegetable, Journal of Nutrition in Gerontology and

Geriatrics, 2014, 33, 229-248, doi: 10.1080/21551197.2014.927307.

[11]

S. P. Golla, R. R. Kumar, C. Veerapandian, J. Rangarajan, T. A. M. Anthony, Meta analysis on color, total

flavonoids, antioxidants, frictional, mechanical, and cutting force of moringa pods, Journal of Food

Process Engineering, 2022, 45, e14136, doi: 10.1111/jfpe.14136.

[12]

R. Rashmitha, G. Sai Preetham, V. Chandrasekar, V. Eyarkai Nambi, N. Baskaran, Influence of

ingredients and pressure cooking on the textural properties of Moringa pods, The Pharma Innovation

Journal, 2022, 11, 207-210.

[13]

S. Nwosisi, D. Nandwani, R. Ravi, Texture profile analysis (TPA) of organic sweetpotato (Ipomoea

batatas) cultivars as affected by different processing methods, Journal of Microbiology, Biotechnology

and Food Sciences, 2019, 1254-1259.

[14]

S. Sultana, Nutritional and functional properties of Moringa oleifera, Metabolism Open, 2020, 8,

100061, doi: 10.1016/j.metop.2020.100061.

[15]

N. E. Elawati, C. R. Lestari, S. P. Dewi, Proximate Analysis of Merang Mushrooms (Volvariella volvacea)

Cultivated on Corncob and Rice Bran Media, Natural Sciences Engineering and Technology Journal,

2021, 2, 73-78, doi: 10.37275/nasetjournal.v2i2.17.

[16]

S. S. Nielsen, Vitamin C Determination by Indophenol Method, in Food Analysis Laboratory Manual,

Springer, 2017, 153-156, 10.1007/978-3-319-44127-6_15.

[17]

K. Marimuthu, M. Thilaga, S. Kathiresan, R. H. M. H. Xavier, R. H. M. H. Mas, Effect of different cooking

methods on proximate and mineral composition of striped snakehead fish (Channa striatus, Bloch),

Journal of Food Science and Technology, 2012, 49, 373-377, doi: 10.1007/s13197-011-0418-9.

[18]

R. Ravi, D. Nandwani, S. Nwosisi, Volatile profiles of cooked organic sweetpotato by electronic nose,

Organic Agriculture, 2022, 12, 17-32, doi: 10.1007/s13165-021-00376-w.

[19]

L. Guo, L. Huang, X. Cheng, Y. Gao, X. Zhang, X. Yuan, C. Xue, X. Chen, Volatile flavor profile and sensory

properties of vegetable soybean, Molecules, 2022, 27, 939, doi: 10.3390/molecules27030939.

[20]

D. Granato, A. R. Karnopp, S. M. van Ruth, Characterization and comparison of phenolic composition,

antioxidant capacity and instrumental taste profile of juices from different botanical origins, Journal

of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2015, 95, 1997–2006, doi: 10.1002/jsfa.6910.

[21]

M. Danowska-Oziewicz, A. Narwojsz, A. Draszanowska, N. Marat, The effects of cooking method on

selected quality traits of broccoli and green asparagus, International Journal of Food Science &

Technology, 2020, 55, 127–135, doi: 10.1111/ijfs.14269.

[22]

T. Reid, M. Munyanyi, T. Mduluza, Effect of cooking and preservation on nutritional and phytochemical

composition of the mushroom Amanita zambiana, Food Science & Nutrition, 2017, 5, 538-544, doi:

10.1002/fsn3.428.

[23]

J. K. Deol, K. Bains, Effect of household cooking methods on nutritional and anti nutritional factors in

green cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) pods, Journal of Food Science and Technology, 2010, 47, 579-581,

doi: 10.1007/s13197-010-0112-3

[24]

H. Sun, T. Mu, L. Xi, Z. Song, Effects of domestic cooking methods on polyphenols and antioxidant

activity of sweet potato leaves, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2014, 62, 8982-8989, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1021/jf502328d

[25]

F. Xu, Y. Zheng, Z. Yang, S. Cao, X. Shao, H. Wang, Domestic cooking methods affect the nutritional

quality of red cabbage, Food Chemistry, 2014, 161, 162-167, doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.04.025.

[26]

S. Martínez, J. Armesto, L. Gómez-Limia, J. Carballo, Impact of processing and storage on the

nutritional and sensory properties and bioactive components of Brassica spp. A review, Food

Chemistry, 2020, 313, 126065, doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.126065.

[27]

K. A. Chang, H. N. Kow, T. E. Tan, K. L. Tan, L. Y. Chew, Y. P. Neo, V. Sabaratnam, Effect of domestic cooking

methods on total phenolic content, antioxidant activity and sensory characteristics of Hericium

erinaceus, International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 2021, 56, 5639-5646, doi:

10.1111/ijfs.15158.

[28]

E. Hwang, Influence of cooking methods on bioactive compound content and antioxidant activity of

Brussels sprouts, Preventive Nutrition and Food Science, 2017, 22, 353, doi:

10.3746/pnf.2017.22.4.353.

[29]

D. C. Murador, A. Z. Mercadante, V. V. de Rosso, Cooking techniques improve the levels of bioactive

compounds and antioxidant activity in kale and red cabbage, Food Chemistry, 2016, 196, 1101-1107,

doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.10.037.

[30]

A. R. B. Prasad, A. Arunkumar, S. Vignesh, D. V Chidanand, N. Baskaran, Exploring the nutritional

profiling and health benefits of Palmyra palm haustorium, South African Journal of Botany, 2022, 151,

228–237, doi: 10.1016/j.sajb.2022.01.027.

[31]

A. I. Rodríguez-Bernaldo De Quirós, J. López-Hernández, M. J. González-Castro, C. De la Cruz-García, J.

Simal-Lozano, Comparison of volatile components in raw and cooked green beans by GC-MS using

dynamic headspace sampling and microwave desorption, European Food Research and Technology,

2000, 210, 226-230, doi: 10.1007/PL00005517.

Publisher Note: The views, statements, and data in all publications solely belong to the authors and

contributors. GR Scholastic is not responsible for any injury resulting from the ideas, methods, or products

mentioned. GR Scholastic remains neutral regarding jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional

affiliations.

Open Access

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which

permits the non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format,

as long as appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source is given by providing a link to the Creative

Commons License and changes need to be indicated if there are any. The images or other third-party material

in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons License, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line

to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons License and your intended use is

not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly

from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this License, visit: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-

nc/4.0/