SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Gıda / 2026 / Cilt: 51 Sayı: 2

DETERMINATION OF THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION AND FOOD ADDITIVE CONTENTS OF SUMAC SOUR CONDIMENTS

SUMAK EKŞİLERİNİN KİMYASAL BİLEŞİMİ VE GIDA KATKI MADDESİ İÇERİKLERİNİN BELİRLENMESİ

Büşra Erdem(SEMAS GIDA TUZ.SAN VE TİC. LTD.ŞTİ)0009-0007-6776-0046
Yakup Şirin(SEMAS GIDA TUZ.SAN VE TİC. LTD.ŞTİ)0000-0002-8759-0132
Perihan Gürkan(GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, FEN FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-0625-2482
Journal
Gıda
Pages
253–270
Publication Date
2026-03-04
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Overall, the study highlights considerable variability in the composition and quality of commercial sumac sour, influenced by raw material, processing, and potential additives.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, the physicochemical, nutritional, and bioactive properties of a total of 11 commercial sumac sour samples coded from SS-1 to SS-11 were evaluated.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The Brix values ranged from 61.8 to 78.6%, indicating high soluble solids and a viscous consistency. pH values varied between 1.23 and 3.05, confirming the acidic character of the products, which contributes to microbial stability.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Overall, the study highlights considerable variability in the composition and quality of commercial sumac sour, influenced by raw material, processing, and potential additives.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Sumak ekşisi · gıda · kimyasal bileşim

Abstract

In this study, the physicochemical, nutritional, and bioactive properties of a total of 11 commercial sumac sour samples coded from SS-1 to SS-11 were evaluated. The Brix values ranged from 61.8 to 78.6%, indicating high soluble solids and a viscous consistency. pH values varied between 1.23 and 3.05, confirming the acidic character of the products, which contributes to microbial stability. Viscosity, water activity, and electrical conductivity showed wide variability among samples, reflecting differences in raw materials and processing. Sugar profiling revealed significant variation in fructose, glucose, maltose, and sucrose contents, with some samples containing added sugars, while others maintained natural sugar composition. Ash content and protein levels were generally low, except for SS-11, which exhibited notably high mineral and protein values. Antioxidant analyses demonstrated that phenolic and flavonoid contents were highly variable, with SS-11 showing the strongest activity. Preservatives such as sorbic and benzoic acids were detected in some samples, while artificial sweeteners (Acesulfame-K, Aspartame, and Sucralose) were present in specific products. Overall, the study highlights considerable variability in the composition and quality of commercial sumac sour, influenced by raw material, processing, and potential additives. These findings underscore the importance of quality control to ensure both nutritional value and consumer safety.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, kodları SS-1’den SS-11’e kadar olan toplam 11 ticari sumak ekşisi örneğinin fizikokimyasal, besinsel ve biyoaktif özellikleri değerlendirilmiştir. Brix değerleri %61.8 ile %78.6 arasında değişen ürünler, yüksek çözünür katı içeriği ve yoğun viskoziteye sahiptir. pH değerleri 1.23 ile 3.05 arasında değişmekte olup, bu durum ürünlerin asidik karakterini ve mikrobiyal stabiliteye katkısını göstermektedir. Viskozite, su aktivitesi ve elektriksel iletkenlik değerleri, hammaddelerde ve işlem basamaklarında görülen farklılıkları yansıtarak örnekler arasında geniş bir değişkenlik göstermiştir. Şeker profillemesi, bazı örneklerde ilave şeker bulunurken, diğerlerinde doğal şeker bileşiminin korunması nedeniyle fruktoz, glikoz, maltoz ve sükroz içeriklerinde önemli farklılıklar olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Kül içeriği ve protein seviyeleri, belirgin şekilde yüksek mineral ve protein değerleri gösteren SS-11 dışında, genel olarak düşüktü. Antioksidan analizleri, fenolik ve flavonoid içeriklerinin oldukça değişken olduğunu, SS-11’in en güçlü aktiviteyi gösterdiğini göstermiştir. Bazı örneklerde sorbik ve benzoik asit gibi koruyucu maddeler tespit edilirken, bazı ürünlerde yapay tatlandırıcılar (Asesülfam-K, Aspartam ve Sükraloz) mevcuttu. Genel olarak çalışma, ticari sumak ekşisinin bileşiminde ve kalitesinde, hammadde, işleme ve olası katkı maddelerinden etkilenen önemli bir değişkenlik olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Bu bulgular, hem besin değerini hem de tüketici güvenliğini sağlamak için kalite kontrolünün önemini vurgulamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Erdem, B., Şirin, Y., Gürkan, P. (2026). DETERMINATION OF THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION AND FOOD ADDITIVE CONTENTS OF SUMAC SOUR CONDIMENTS. Gıda, Cilt: 51 Sayı: 2, 253–270. https://doi.org/10.15237/doi:10.15237/gida.GD25125

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (51)

  1. Abdulmumeen, H.A., Ahmed, N. R., Agboola, R. S. (2012). Food: Preservatives, additives and applications. International Journal of Chemical and Biochemical Sciences, 1, 36–47.
  2. Abu-Reidah, I.M., Jamous, R.M., Ali-Shtayeh, M.S. (2014). Phytochemistry, pharmacological properties, and industrial applications of Rhus coriaria L. (Sumac). Jordan Journal of Biological Sciences, 7(4), 233–244.
  3. Ahmadian-Attari, M. M., Amini, M., Farsam, H., Amin, G., Fazeli, M. R., Esfahani, H. R., &, Bairami, A. (2016). Isolation of major active antibacterial compounds from sumac fruit (Rhus coriaria L.). International Journal of Enteric Pathogens, 4(4), 1–37101.
  4. Akay, E., Yılmaz, İ., Eyioğlu, U. (2023). Use of Rhus coriaria L. in phytotherapy and its gastronomic value. Journal of Awareness Tourism and Studies (JATOS), 4(1), 56–65. https://doi.org/10.29228/jatos.69344
  5. Antinoro, L. (2008). EN rates 12 common food additives as safe or bad ingredients. Environmental Nutrition, 31(5), 1–4.
  6. Alsamri, H., Athamneh, K., Pintus, G., Eid, A. H., Iratni, R. (2021). Pharmacological and antioxidant activities of Rhus coriaria L. (Sumac). Antioxidants, 10(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox10010041
  7. Asgarpanah, J. Saati, S. (2011). A general overview of the phytochemical and pharmacological properties of Rhus coriaria L. International Journal of Pharmacology Research, 2(1), 188–194.
  8. Bahar, B., Altug, T. (2009, March 31). Flavor characterization of sumac (Rhus coriaria L.) using GC/MS and sensory flavor profiling techniques. International Journal of Food Properties, 12(2), 379–387
  9. Barakat, D., Al-Azem, H., Sarkis, D., Trefi, S. (2022). A validated HPLC method for separation and determination of Aspartame and Acesulfame-K in food products. Heliyon, 8(10), e11001. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11001
  10. Behall, K. M. (2000). Whole foods. Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 19(1), 61–70.
  11. Benzie, I. F. ve Strain, J. J. (1996). The ferric reducing ability of plasma (FRAP) as a measure of “antioxidant power”: The FRAP assay. Analytical Biochemistry, 239(1), 70–76.
  12. Can, Z., Yildiz, O., Sahin, H., Turumtay, E. A., Silici, S., Kolayli, S. (2015). An investigation of Turkish honeys: Their physico-chemical properties, antioxidant capacities, and phenolic profiles. Food Chemistry, 180, 133–141.
  13. Canbey, İ. (2025). Bioactive compounds, effects, and applications of sumac (Rhus coriaria L.). Food Science and Engineering Research, 4(1), 17–28.
  14. Cuendet, M., Hostettmann, K., Potterat, O., Dyatmiko, W. (1997). Iridoid glucosides with free radical scavenging properties from Fagraea blumei. Helvetica Chimica Acta, 80(4), 1144–1152.
  15. Czaja, T., Sobota, A., Szostak, R. (2020). Quantification of ash and moisture in wheat flour by Raman spectroscopy. Foods, 9(3), 280.
  16. EFSA ANS Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food). (2013). Scientific opinion on the re-evaluation of aspartame (E 951) as a food additive. EFSA Journal, 11(12), 3496. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3496
  17. EFSA ANS Panel (2016). Scientific opinion on the re-evaluation of benzoic acid (E 210), sodium benzoate (E 211), potassium benzoate (E 212), and calcium benzoate (E 213) as food additives. EFSA Journal, 14(3), 4433. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4433
  18. Anonymous (2015). Scientific opinion on the re-evaluation of sorbic acid (E 200), potassium sorbate (E 202), and calcium sorbate (E 203) as food additives. EFSA Journal, 13(6), 4144. https://doi. org/10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4144
  19. El Hasasna, H., Athamneh, H., El Samri, H., Karuvantevida, N., Al Dhaheri, Y., Hisaindee, S., &, ratni, R. (2015). Rhus coriaria induces senescence and autophagic cell death in breast cancer cells through a mechanism involving p38 and ERK1/2 activation. Scientific Reports, 5, 13013. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep13013
  20. Erdem, B., Cengiz, S., Şirin, Y., Gürkan, P., Artık, N. (2024). Food supplement production from propolis, honey, and mulberry molasses and its optimization. Journal of Apitherapy and Nature, 7(1), 28–52.
  21. Gruenwald, J. (1998). Olea europaea. In PDR for Herbal Medicines (pp. 999–1000). Montvale, NJ: Medical Economics Company.
  22. Gupta, A., Malviya, R., Singh, T. P., Sharma, P. K. (2010). Indian medicinal plants used in hair care cosmetics: A short review. Pharmacognosy Journal, 2(10), 361–364.
  23. Hamad, G. A., Sethuraman, S. P., Raju, K. (2025). In vitro antioxidant and antimicrobial pharmacological investigations of Rhus coriaria L. (Sumac): A review. Iraqi Journal of Pharmacy, 34(2), 1–20. https://doi. org/10.31351/vol34iss2pp1-20
  24. Işık, S., Çelik, Ş. (2023). A new sustainable breakfast product: Mulberry molasses cream. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tarım ve Doğa Dergisi, 26(2), 326–338.
  25. Karaduman, Z. N. (2022). Studies on nutritional and phytotherapeutic use of sumac (Rhus coriaria) (Master’s thesis, Bezmialem Vakif University, Turkey).
  26. Karataşlı, M., Çakmak, B., Özpınar, H. (2016). Investigation of sorbic acid and benzoic acid amount of some food exposed for sale in Istanbul. International Journal of Food Engineering Research, 2(2), 43–58.
  27. Koyuncu, F., Çetinbaş, M., Erdal, İ. (2014). Nutritional constituents of wild-grown black mulberry (Morus nigra L.). Journal of Applied Botany and Food Quality, 87.
  28. Kumar, H., Jha, A., Taneja, K. K., Kabra, K., Sadiq, H. M. (2013). A study on consumer awareness, safety perceptions and practices regarding food preservatives and flavoring agents used in packaged/canned foods from South India. National Journal of Community Medicine, 4(3), 402–406.
  29. Li, S., Chen, X. (2019). Optimization of determination of sucralose in drink by HPLC. Journal of Economic Science Research, 2(3). https://doi. org/10.30564/jesr.v2i3.1023
  30. Anonymous (1988). Food fraud and how it is detected. Londra Gıda Komisyonu, unpaged. MI Anon. (1991). Food irradiation – A technique to protect and improve food safety. Geneva: World Health Organization.
  31. Mirza, S. K., Asema, Kasim, S. S. (2017). Food additives: Colorants, flavoring agents, texturizers and preservatives. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry and Drug Discovery, 2(2, Special Issue), 610.
  32. Olaiya, C. O., Sabatier, J.-M., De Waard, M. (2022). Rhus coriaria L. (Sumac), a versatile and resourceful food spice with nutraceutical potential. Molecules, 27(16), 5179. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27165179
  33. Onkar, S., Mohammed, A., Nida, A., Ali, M. (2011). New antifungal aromatic compounds obtained from Rhus coriaria L. seeds. International Journal of Pharmacy Research, 2(1), 188–194.
  34. Reidel, R. V. B., Cioni, P. L., Majo, L., Pistelli, L. (2017). Evolution of volatile emission in Rhus coriaria organs during different stages of growth and evaluation of the essential oil composition. Chemistry & Biodiversity, 14(11).
  35. Seetaramaiah, K., Smith, A. A., Murali, R., Manavalan, R. (2011). Preservatives in food products – An overview. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biological Archives, 2(2), 583–599.
  36. Şirin, Y., Erdem, B., Cengiz, S., Gürkan, S., Gürkan, P. (2024). Biochemical composition and determination of sugar content of mulberry extracts. Gıda, 49(6), 1038–1061.
  37. Turkmen, F. U., Takci, H. M., Saglam, H., Sekeroglu, N. (2019). Investigation of some quality parameters of pomegranate, sumac and unripe grape sour products from Kilis markets. Quality Assurance and Safety of Crops & Foods, 11(1), 61–71.
  38. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (1993). Toxicological principles for the safety assessment of direct food additives and color additives used in food (Draft). Redbook II. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
  39. Wikipedia contributors. (2025, August 15). Sumac. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumac Yıldız, M. U., Özcan, M. M., Çalıșır, S., Demir, F., Er, F. (2009). Physico-chemical properties of wild chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) fruit grown in Turkey. World Applied Sciences Journal, 6(3), 365–372.
  40. Zannou, O., Oussou, K. F., Chabi, I. B., Alamou, F., Awad, N. M. H., Miassi, Y. E., &, İbrahim, S. A. (2025). Phytochemical and nutritional properties of sumac (Rhus coriaria): A potential component for developing functional foods. Journal of Future Foods, 5(1), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfutfo.2024.01.002
  41. Yegin, S. Ç. (2017). Determination of antioxidant capacity of sumac (Rhus coriaria L.) sour products from different regions. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi. https://doi.org/cusbed. cumhuriyet.edu.tr/tr/pub/issue/33432/331472
  42. Neta, E. R., Johanningsmeier, S. D., McFeeters, R. F. (2007). Sour taste intensity of acids depends on the protonated acid species concentration. Journal of Food Science, 72(9), S727–S739.
  43. Yılmaz, A., Kaya, B., Özkan, C., Demir, D., Şahin, E., & Arslan, F. (2025). Sumak’ın ( Rhus coriaria ) fitokimyasal ve besinsel özellikleri: Fonksiyonel gıdalar geliştirmek için potansiyel bir bileşen. Geleceğin Gıdaları Dergisi, 5(1), 21-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jfutfo.2024.01.002.
  44. Beuchat, L. R. (1981). Microbial stability as affected by water activity. Cereal Foods World, 26(7), 345–349.
  45. Abraham, K., Gürtler, R., Berg, K., Heinemeyer, G., Lampen, A., & Appel, K. E. (2011). Toxicology and risk assessment of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural in food. Molecular Nutrition & Food Research, 55(5), 667–678. https://doi.org/10.1002/mnfr.201000564
  46. Wang, C., Liu, Z., Hu, T., Li, Y., Liu, R., Zhang, J., &, He, H. (2020). Potential neurotoxicity of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural and its oligomers: Widespread substances in carbohydrate-containing foods. Food & Function, 11, 4216–4223. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9fo02526j
  47. The Toxicological Aspects of the Heat-Borne Toxicant 5-Hydroxymethylfurfural. (2019). International Journal of Food Science & Nutrition Toxicology. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7221839/
  48. Asioli, D., Aschemann-Witzel, J., Caputo, V., Vecchio, R., Annunziata, A., Næs, T., Guzek, D. (2017). “Make it clear, make it clean”: The role of clean label in consumer perception. Food Quality and Preference, 63, 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.05.005
  49. Kaur, A., Singh, B. (2021). Clean label trends in food industry: Consumer perception and regulatory aspects. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 58(2), 403–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-020-04878-1
  50. Balodi, V., Tripathi, A. D., Rizvana, Agarwal, A., Nirmal, N. P. (2025). Bölüm 22 – Etiketleme ve sertifikasyonun önemi: kalite ve şeffaflığın sağlanması. In Functional Foods and Unveiling the Power of Novel Bioactives (pp. 449–465). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-28862-3.00022-4
  51. Hamad, G. A., Sethuraman, S. P., Raju, K. (2025). In vitro antioxidant and antimicrobial pharmacological investigations of Rhus coriaria L. (Sumac): A review. Iraqi Journal of Pharmacy, 34(2), 1–20. https://doi. org/10.31351/vol34iss2pp1-20