Dergiler / Türk Tarım - Gıda Bilim ve Teknoloji dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 11

Some Chemical Characteristics of Sucuk and Salami Samples Available at Retail in Adana

Sayfa
1307–1311
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

While relatively lower nitrite (14.30 mg/kg - 35.96 mg/kg) and no nitrate contents were observed in salami samples, the data indicated that a higher variation of both nitrite and nitrate contents were still present in sucuk samples in the local markets requiring more studies and inspections to lower the variation related to dietary exposure to nitrite and nitrite from these types of products.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:The aim of this study was to investigate some chemical characteristics and residual nitrite and nitrate levels of sucuk and salami samples collected from retail outlets of major supermarkets in Adana province.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:A total of 36 sucuk samples (12 brands; 7 national and 5 local producers) and 30 salami samples (10 brands; Macar salamis) were purchased from local markets.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:While relatively lower nitrite (14.30 mg/kg - 35.96 mg/kg) and no nitrate contents were observed in salami samples, the data indicated that a higher variation of both nitrite and nitrate contents were still present in sucuk samples in the local markets requiring more studies and inspections to lower the variation related to dietary exposure to nitrite and nitrite from these types of products.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate some chemical characteristics and residual nitrite and nitrate levels of sucuk and salami samples collected from retail outlets of major supermarkets in Adana province. A total of 36 sucuk samples (12 brands; 7 national and 5 local producers) and 30 salami samples (10 brands; Macar salamis) were purchased from local markets. Sucuk and salami samples were analyzed for pH value, moisture content, water activity and nitrite and nitrate contents. The average pH values of sucuk samples ranged between 4.69 and 6.56 indicating a higher variation while the average pH values of salami samples ranged between 6.05 and 6.43. Likewise, the average moisture contents of sucuk samples were between 33.56% and 46.78% whereas the average moisture contents of salami samples ranged between 62.09% and 67.91% indicating a relatively lower variation. Water activity values of the sucuk samples were between 0.932 and 0.861 while the average aw values of the salami samples ranged between 0.916 and 0.940. Among the sucuk samples analyzed in the present study mean nitrite and nitrate contents ranged from 58.65 mg/kg to 216.63 mg/kg and 34.86 mg/kg to 161.08 mg/kg, respectively. While relatively lower nitrite (14.30 mg/kg - 35.96 mg/kg) and no nitrate contents were observed in salami samples, the data indicated that a higher variation of both nitrite and nitrate contents were still present in sucuk samples in the local markets requiring more studies and inspections to lower the variation related to dietary exposure to nitrite and nitrite from these types of products.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

BENLİ, H. (2017). Some Chemical Characteristics of Sucuk and Salami Samples Available at Retail in Adana. Türk Tarım - Gıda Bilim ve Teknoloji dergisi, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 11, 1307–1311. https://ajindex.com/articles/331488

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (7)

  1. Aberle ED, Forrest JC, Gerrard DE, Mills EW, Hedrick HB, Judge MD, Merkel RA. 2001.
  2. Principles of meat science. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. ISBN 0787247200. Anar Ş. 2010. Et ve et ürünleri teknolojisi. Bursa: Dora. ISBN 9786054118571. Anonymous. 2002. Salam (salami). Turkish Standards Institute (TS 979). Atasever M, Keleş A, Güner A, Uçar G. 1998. Konya'da tüketime sunulan fermente sucukların bazı kalite nitelikleri. Avrasya Veteriner Bilimleri Dergisi. 14(2): 27-32.
  3. Bryan NS, Alexander DD, Coughlin JR, Milkowski AL, Boffetta P. 2012. Ingested nitrate and nitrite and stomach cancer risk: An updated review. Food Chem Toxicol. 50(10): 3646-3665. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2012.07.062 Buyukunal SK, Sakar FS, Turhan I, Erginbas C, Sandikci Altunatmaz S, Yilmaz Aksu F, Yilmaz Eker F, Kahraman T. 2016. Presence of salmonella spp., listeria monocytogenes, escherichia coli o157 and nitrate-nitrite residue levels in turkish traditional fermented meat products (sucuk and pastirma). Kafkas Univ Vet Fak. 22(2): 233-236. doi:10.9775/kvfd.2015.14238 Coskuner O, Ertas AH, Soyer A. 2010. The effect of processing method and storage time on constituents of turkish sausages (sucuk). J Food Process Preserv. 34: 125-135. doi:DOI 10.1111/j.1745-4549.2008.00328.x Çon AH, Gökalp HY. 1998. Türkiye pazarındaki sucukların bazı kimyasal ve mikrobiyolojik nitelikleri. Gıda. 23(3): 347-355.
  4. De Gonzalez MTN, Osburn WN, Hardin MD, Longnecker M, Garg HK, Bryan NS, Keeton JT. 2012. Survey of residual nitrite and nitrate in conventional and organic/natural/uncured/indirectly cured meats available at retail in the united states. J Agric Food Chem. 60(15): 3981-3990. doi:Doi 10.1021/Jf204611k Demeyer D, Stahnke L. 2002. Quality control of fermented meat products. In: Kerry J, Kerry J, Ledward D. Meat processing: Improving quality. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. p 464. ISBN 0849315395. Dionex Corporation. 1998. Application note 112 - determination of nitrate and nitrite in meat using high-performance anionexchange chromatography. http://tools.thermofisher.com/content/sfs/brochures/4069- AN112_LPN0837-01.pdf. Accessed 13 April 2017.
  5. Doğu M, Çon AH, Gökalp HY. 2002. Afyon ilindeki yüksek kapasiteli et işletmelerinde üretilen sucukların bazı kalite özelliklerinin periyodik olarak belirlenmesi. Turk J Vet Anim Sci. 26: 1-9.
  6. Erkmen O, Bozkurt H. 2004. Quality characteristics of retailed sucuk (turkish dry-fermented sausage). Food Technol Biotechnol. 42(1): 63-69.
  7. Gencelep H, Kaban G, Aksu M