Correction: Şeker et al. Comparative Analysis of Phenolic, Carotenoid, and Elemental Profiles in Three Crataegus Species from Şebinkarahisar, Türkiye: Implications for Nutritional Value and Safety. Molecules 2025, 30, 2934

Mehmet Emin Şeker; Ayşegül Erdoğan; Emriye Ay

doi:10.3390/molecules30173647

,

and

¹

School of Tobacco Expertise, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Akhisar 45200, Türkiye

²

Application and Research Centre for Testing and Analysis (Ege MATAL), Ege University, İzmir 35040, Türkiye

³

Department of Chemistry, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Yunusemre 45140, Türkiye

^*

Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Molecules2025, 30(17), 3647;https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules30173647

Version Notes

Order Reprints

Error in Table

In the original publication [1], there was a mistake in “Table 6. Carcinogenic risks of some potentially to × ic metals in dry Crataegus samples.” as published. Table 5 was re-copied instead of Table 6. The corrected “Table 6. Carcinogenic risks of some potentially toxic metals in dry Crataegus samples.” appears below (Table 6). The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.

Table 6. Carcinogenic risks of some potentially toxic metals in dry Crataegus samples.

Reference

Şeker, M.E.; Erdoğan, A.; Ay, E. Comparative Analysis of Phenolic, Carotenoid, and Elemental Profiles in Three Crataegus Species from Şebinkarahisar, Türkiye: Implications for Nutritional Value and Safety. Molecules 2025, 30, 2934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Samples	Gender	Cr	Pb	Cd	Ni	As
C. tanacetifolia	M	1.80 × 10⁻⁶	1.10 × 10⁻¹⁰	4.90 × 10⁻⁹	3.10 × 10⁻⁵	2.10 × 10⁻⁷
C. tanacetifolia	FM	2.10 × 10⁻⁶	1.30 × 10⁻¹⁰	1.50 × 10⁻⁸	4.80 × 10⁻⁵	2.50 × 10⁻⁷
C. orientalis	M	2.90 × 10⁻⁶	1.10 × 10⁻¹⁰	4.80 × 10⁻⁹	1.90 × 10⁻⁵	2.10 × 10⁻⁷
C. orientalis	FM	3.40 × 10⁻⁶	1.30 × 10⁻¹⁰	1.50 × 10⁻⁸	1.90 × 10⁻⁵	2.50 × 10⁻⁷
C. microphylla	M	5.90 × 10⁻⁶	1.10 × 10⁻¹⁰	4.80 × 10⁻⁹	2.20 × 10⁻⁵	1.30 × 10⁻⁷
C. microphylla	FM	6.90 × 10⁻⁶	1.30 × 10⁻¹⁰	1.50 × 10⁻⁸	3.40 × 10⁻⁵	1.50 × 10⁻⁷

Correction: Şeker et al. Comparative Analysis of Phenolic, Carotenoid, and Elemental Profiles in Three Crataegus Species from Şebinkarahisar, Türkiye: Implications for Nutritional Value and Safety. Molecules 2025, 30, 2934

Error in Table

Reference

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics