Konya Bölgesindeki Marketlerde Satılan Farklı Ticari Çiçek Ballarının Bazı Kimyasal Özelliklerinin Türk Gıda Kodeksi Bal Tebliğine Uygunluğunun Araştırılması
Yükleniyor...
Dosyalar
Tarih
2017 Aralık
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Selçuk Üniversitesi
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Bu çalışmada Konya bölgesindeki marketlerde satışa sunulan farklı firmalara ait çiçekballarının bazı kimyasal özelliklerinin Türk Gıda Kodeksi-Bal Tebliğine uygunluğukıyaslaması yapılmıştır. Bu amaçla marketlerde satışa sunulan 5 farklı firmaya ait çiçekballarında pH, nem, asitlik, diastaz sayısı, prolin, HMF, sakkaroz, fruktoz/glukoz oranı,fruktoz + glukoz oranı, Balda protein ve ham bal delta C13 değerleri arasındaki fark, C4şekerler oranı analizleri yapılmıştır. Sonuçların Türk Gıda Kodeksi Bal Tebliğine uygunolup olmadığı ve diğer örneklerle benzerlik gösterip göstermediği kontrol edilmiştir.Tüm örnekler marketlerden satın alınarak analizler yapılıncaya kadar karanlıkta odasıcaklığında depolanmıştır. Firmalara ait bal örneklerinin sırasıyla pH değerleri; 4.20,3.91, 4.00, 4.37, 3.94, nem değerleri (%); 17.13, 16.55, 15.48, 16.48, 17.63, asitlikdeğerleri (meq/kg); 25.75, 22.78, 22.39, 34.06, 20.27, diastaz sayıları; 12.86, 13.02,14.22, 22.45, 13.46, prolin miktarları (mg/kg); 597.55, 515.17, 581.23, 699.05, 487.81,HMF içerikleri (mg/kg); 4.17, 17.12, 13.06, 6.75, 23.75 olarak tespit edilmiş, ancaksakkaroz miktarları (%); tespit edilememiştir. Sırasıyla fruktoz/glukoz oranı; 1.06, 1.09,1.09, 1.19, 1.09, fruktoz + glukoz oranı (%); 70.39, 73.39, 73.52, 65.20, 70.30, Baldaprotein ve ham bal delta C13 değerleri arasındaki fark; -0.55, -0.28, 0.25, 1.95, 0.13, C4şeker oranı (%); 3.53, 1.93, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 olarak bulunmuştur. Araştırmada kullanılanfirmalara ait bal örnekleri arasında (P<0.01) önemli farklar olmasına rağmen Türk GıdaKodeksi-Bal Tebliğine uygun bulunmuştur.
In the study, some chemical composition of different flower honey brands sold in markets in the city of Konya and the conformity of these features with Turkish Food Codex,Honey Communique were studied. In this respect, 5 different honey samples were evaluated for pH, humidity, the number of diastase, proline, HMF, sucrose, fructose/glucoseratio, fructose+glucose ratio, the differences of protein in honey and delta C13 value ofcrude honey, and C4 sugar ratio. Whether the results conform to Turkish Food Codex orthey are the same with other samples was studied. Till analysis, all samples were kept indark room after they were obtained from the markets. pH levels of the samples wererelatively 4.20, 3.91, 4.00, 4.37, 3.94 and the humidity levels were 17.13, 16.55, 15.48,16.48, 17.63 (%). The level of acidity was (meq/kg) 25.75, 22.78, 22.39, 34.06, 20.27and the numbers of diastase were 12.86, 13.02, 14.22, 22.45, 13.46. The quantity ofproline was (mg/kg) 597.55, 515.17, 581.23, 699.05, 487.81 and HMF content (mg/kg)was 4.17, 17.12, 13.06, 6.75, 23.75, respectively, however, the quantity of sucrose wasnot identified. The ratio of fructose/glucose was 1.06, 1.09, 1.09, 1.19, 1.09 and fructose+glucose ratio (%) was 70.39, 73.39, 73.52, 65.20, 70.30. The difference betweenprotein and delta C13 value of crude honey was -0.55, -0.28, 0.25, 1.95, 0.13. C4 Sugarratio was (%) 3.53, 1.93, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, respectively. Although the samples included inthe study had significant differences from each other (P<0.01), their all features were inaccordance with Turkish Food Codex, Honey Communique.
In the study, some chemical composition of different flower honey brands sold in markets in the city of Konya and the conformity of these features with Turkish Food Codex,Honey Communique were studied. In this respect, 5 different honey samples were evaluated for pH, humidity, the number of diastase, proline, HMF, sucrose, fructose/glucoseratio, fructose+glucose ratio, the differences of protein in honey and delta C13 value ofcrude honey, and C4 sugar ratio. Whether the results conform to Turkish Food Codex orthey are the same with other samples was studied. Till analysis, all samples were kept indark room after they were obtained from the markets. pH levels of the samples wererelatively 4.20, 3.91, 4.00, 4.37, 3.94 and the humidity levels were 17.13, 16.55, 15.48,16.48, 17.63 (%). The level of acidity was (meq/kg) 25.75, 22.78, 22.39, 34.06, 20.27and the numbers of diastase were 12.86, 13.02, 14.22, 22.45, 13.46. The quantity ofproline was (mg/kg) 597.55, 515.17, 581.23, 699.05, 487.81 and HMF content (mg/kg)was 4.17, 17.12, 13.06, 6.75, 23.75, respectively, however, the quantity of sucrose wasnot identified. The ratio of fructose/glucose was 1.06, 1.09, 1.09, 1.19, 1.09 and fructose+glucose ratio (%) was 70.39, 73.39, 73.52, 65.20, 70.30. The difference betweenprotein and delta C13 value of crude honey was -0.55, -0.28, 0.25, 1.95, 0.13. C4 Sugarratio was (%) 3.53, 1.93, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, respectively. Although the samples included inthe study had significant differences from each other (P<0.01), their all features were inaccordance with Turkish Food Codex, Honey Communique.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Asitlik, Bal, Diastaz, Glukoz, HMF, İnvert şeker, Prolin, Sakkaroz, Acidity, Honey, Diastase, Glucose, invert sugar, Sucrose
Kaynak
Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences
WoS Q Değeri
Scopus Q Değeri
Cilt
32
Sayı
1
Künye
Çiftçi, M., Parlat, S. S., (2017). Konya Bölgesindeki Marketlerde Satılan Farklı Ticari Çiçek Ballarının Bazı Kimyasal Özelliklerinin Türk Gıda Kodeksi Bal Tebliğine Uygunluğunun Araştırılması. Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences, 32(1), 38-42. DOI: 10.15316/SJAFS.2018.61
