Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences logoLink to Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences
. 2019 Jun 19;27(1):173–176. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2019.06.014

Comparative study of physio-chemical analysis of fresh and branded honeys from Pakistan

Muhammad Sajid 1,⁎, Muhammad Yamin 1, Farkhanda Asad 1, Sajid Yaqub 1, Shahzad Ahmad 1, Maryyam Ali Muhammad Samee Mubarik 1, Bilal Ahmad 1, Waqas Ahmad 1, Samina Qamer 1,⁎
PMCID: PMC6933215  PMID: 31889832

Abstract

Honey is a nutritious substance produced by bees. Its quality and nutritional value is of great importance for consumers. Keeping this in view physicochemical and minerals determination as quality parameters of fresh floral Pakistani honeys produced by A. mellifera and branded honeys was conducted. The results of fresh honey indicated average means of Color as 48.78 mmPfund, pH 4.9, Total acidity 37.14 meq/kg, Moisture content 18.62%, Electrical conductivity 0.23 mS/cm, Ash content 0.49%, HMF content 30.85 mg/kg, Proline 365.84 mg/kg, Diastase activity 34.39(DN) and Invertase activity was 68.61(IN) comparable to honey standards. Natural honey were rich in k+ (408.46 ppm) and Na+ (405 ppm). Although Ca+ was very low. Whereas, Co, Mn and Ba concentrations exceed the 1 ppm. However, Pb, Cr, and Mo were unnoticeable. Similarly, Color, pH, MC, EC, T. Acidity, HMF, Proline, Ash content, Diastase and Invertase activity of branded honey samples average means found were 42.5 mmPfund, 5.05, 20.5%, 0.18 mS/cm, 15.34 meq/kg, 36.5 mg/kg, 181.6 mg/kg, 1.11%, 7.90(DN) and 36.97(IN) respectively. The findings showed that fresh honey samples were good and of consumable quality as per honey standards than branded honey. Higher HMF content and lower enzymatic activity in branded honey sample than the Codex standards revealed its either long or improper storage.

Keywords: Honey analysis, Branded honey, Mineral content, Pakistan

1. Introduction

Honey is defined as “the sweet substance produced by honeybees from the nectar of flowers, which the bees collect, transform and store in honey combs”. It is the most important natural substance and categorized by its massive nutritive cost (330 kcal/100 g) and rapid absorption of carbohydrates during consumption (Conti et al., 2007, Khaliq and Swaileh, 2017). Although, the main components of honey are almost identical in all honeys, yet the chemical composition and physical properties of natural honey depends on the floral sources, the processing, storage and climatic conditions (Lazarević et al., 2012, Boussaid et al., 2018, Sakač et al., 2019).

In Pakistan, four species (Apis florae, Apis dorsata, Apis cerana and Apis mellifera) of honey bees are present (Morse and Calderone, 2000, Qamer et al., 2009). A. mellifera is one of them, that improved quantities and Qualities of crops through pollination in the selected study areas and have a key role in honey agro-food chain (Munawar et al., 2009). Honey has become one of the most commercial agricultural products for trade in Pakistan since few years (Waghchoure and Martin, 2009, Adnan et al., 2014, Anjum et al., 2015).

Physicochemical parameters like moisture, acidity, pH, hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) content, color, sugar composition and specific conductivity of the natural honey are precisely defined, and each characteristic is known to represent quality indicators (Tosi et al., 2008, Ajlouni and Sujirapinyokul, 2010, Khan et al., 2016, Adgaba et al., 2017, Ansari et al., 2018, Boussaid et al., 2018). Honey is also well known natural cheaper source of essential inorganic elements for consumers which are required for body metabolism (Alwaili et al, 2013; Sakač et al., 2019).

The present study was aimed to identifying natural and branded honey varieties quality found collected from different areas, local shops and markets of various districts, Punjab Pakistan in terms of their physicochemical properties and mineral contents according to International Honey Standards.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Honey collection

A total of Sixty-five honey samples (fresh honey n = 50, branded honey n = 15) were collected from shopkeepers and beekeepers from the different areas/ districts such as Chakwal, Sialkot, Lahore, Sahiwal, Narowal, Sheikupura, Nankana Shab and Muree of Punjab Pakistan during the year 2017–2018. Fresh honey samples were stored in sealed plastic jars followed by labeling and dating and kept at the room temperature ±29 °C till completion of analysis. All these honey samples were classified on the basis of their dominant botanical and geographical origin.

2.2. Honey quality tests

Honey water content was detected using a refractometer REF-116, pH by pH-meter ((Bibby Scientific Ltd., UK) with a solution of 75 ml of carbon dioxide-free water in which 10 g of honey was dissolved (AOAC method 1990), EC by Vorwohl (1964) directly with 13% honey solution. Results were expressed in milli Siemens per centimeter (mS/cm). Muffle furnace was used to determine the ash content by burning the samples at 500 °C for 6 h. Acidity was estimated by AOAC Official (1990) and results were expressed as meq/kg. The HMF content in honey were determined by using the actual method of Wrinkler et al. (1955). Honey Color parameters was measured in Minolta Chromameter® CR 410 type instrument as well Lovibond. The L* parameter (lightness index scale) ranges from 0 (black) to 100 (white). The diastase activity was determined by phadebas tablets as recommendation by International Honey Commission (2009). Siegenthaler (1977) method was used to analyzed Invertase activity. Mineral contents were analyzed using a Varian Spectra Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (Model 220, Varian, USA) and emission photometry.

2.3. Statistical analysis

SPSS-2001 software was used to analyze the data. The statistical difference in honey samples were tested with ANOVA at p < 0.05

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Physicochemical properties

The physicochemical parameters of the 65 honey samples were analyzed as shown in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3. The moisture content of fresh and branded honey samples ranged from 18 to 19.2% and 19.50–21.25% respectively. Despite of different floral sources, water % of all the fresh honey samples were within the international limit (≤21%) than branded honey. The highest moisture content value was found in Bari (19.2) and Qureshi honey (21.25%). Kumar et al., 2018, Al-Ghamdi et al., 2019, Can et al., 2015 were reported 18.37–22%, 18.50 ± 1.53, and 16.54–20.84% respectively, which seems close to the current findings. Honey moisture content depends on several factors such as degree of maturity reached, yielding season, and ecological factors (Acquarone et al., 2007).

Table 1.

Physicochemical parameters of fresh honey samples analyzed (mean ± SD).

Parameters Phulai (Acacia modesta)
n = 3		 Baiker (Jusdticia adhatoda)
n = 19		 Serson (Brassica comprestris)
n = 8		 Bari (Zizipus jojoba)
n = 2		 Orange (Citrus xsinensis)
n = 3		 Barseem (Trifolium repens)
n = 13		 Sheesham (Dalbergia sisso)
n = 2		 P value Codex*
Color (mm Pfund) 52.67 ± 11.59 27.95 ± 10.16 40.5 ± 23.42 78 ± 24.04 47 ± 6.92 47.38 ± 10.13 48 ± 2.35 0.00 –
pH 4.73 ± 0.47 4.75 ± 0.70 4.35 ± 0.48 7.05 ± 0.21 4.43 ± 0.49 4.95 ± 0.35 4.5 ± 0.92 0.00 –
Acidity (meq/kg) 35.67 ± 1.15 35.65 ± 5.27 34.01 ± 3.99 46.5 ± 2.82 36.63 ± 2.95 38.55 ± 6.18 33 ± 4.8 0.04 ≤50 meq/kg
Moisture (%) 18 ± 1 19.07 ± 0.99 18.61 ± 1.27 19.2 ± 1.06 18.83 ± 1.25 18.65 ± 1.12 18 ± 0.43 0.65 ≤21%
EC (ms/cm) 0.11 ± 0.04 0.18 ± 0.06 0.19 ± 0.06 0.61 ± 0.04 0.20 ± 0 0.2 ± 0.06 0.17 ± 0.03 0.07 ≤0.7 ms/cm
Ash (%) 0.52 ± 0.08 0.50 ± 0.22 0.40 ± 0.12 0.55 ± 0.07 0.43 ± 0.30 0.54 ± 0.26 0.5 ± 0.06 0.88 ≤0.6 g/kg
HMF (mg/kg) 33.53 ± 3.46 25.24 ± 4.32 31.67 ± 4.32 24.45 ± 2.82 31.83 ± 3.75 40.68 ± 4.24 28.55 ± 3.6 0.00 ≤40 meq/kg
Proline (mg/kg) 308.57 ± 67.56 410.15 ± 35.19 414.17 ± 42.21 511.1 ± 33.79 299.4 ± 8.47 329.95 ± 63.14 287.60 ± 56.1 0.00 ≥180 mg/kg
Diastase (DN) 41.47 ± 5.70 29.57 ± 14.52 29.27 ± 7.75 26.97 ± 22.23 43.46 ± 10.46 35.55 ± 12.64 34.5 ± 14.02 0.40 ≥8 (DN)
Invertase (IN) 74.33 ± 10.08 61.07 ± 5.04 70.57 ± 4.34 73.6 ± 6.92 81.9 ± 4.83 58.55 ± 8.30 60.3 ± 4.85 0.00 ≥50 (IN)
Open in a new tab

Means in the same column with different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05.

Table 2.

Comparative Analysis of Macro and Micro Elements Based on Botanical (floral) Origin.

Parameters Phulai (Acacia modesta)
n = 3		 Baiker (Jusdticia adhatoda)
n = 19		 Serson (Brassica comprestris)
n = 8		 Bairi (Zizipus jojoba)
n = 2		 Orange (Citrus xsinensis)
n = 3		 Barseem (Trifolium repens)
n = 13		 Sheesham (Dalbergia sisso)
n = 2		 P value
Potassium (ppm) 465.66 ± 108.56 398.68 ± 252.83 454.22 ± 269.26 166.5 ± 23.33 361.4 ± 254.08 370.81 ± 235.60 295.42 ± 115.2 0.80
Sodium (ppm) 335 ± 361.13 445.22 ± 345.40 445.77 ± 38.28 399.5 ± 47.37 579.6 ± 317.96 422.81 ± 362.94 211.6 ± 165.7 0.11
Calcium (ppm) 0.73 ± 0.23 0.57 ± 0.26 0.50 ± 0.30 0.69 ± 0.03 0.65 ± 0.23 0.62 ± 0.20 0.69 ± 0.12 0.77
Cobalt (ppm) 2.47 ± 0.63 3.68 ± 1.90 4.43 ± 0.56 4.54 ± 0.80 4.37 ± 0.50 4.39 ± 0.57 2.60 ± 0.65 0.43
Manganese (ppm) 3.11 ± 0.16 2.37 ± 0.91 2.75 ± 0.9 1.75 ± 0.18 2.22 ± 0.83 2.80 ± 0.14 1.05 ± 0.16 0.55
Barium (ppm) 4 ± 0.16 1.57 ± 0.93 3.88 ± 0.12 1.1 ± 0.2 3.8 ± 2.16 2.36 ± 0.25 3.24 ± 0.9 0.55
Lead (ppm) 0.10 ± 0.08 0.07 ± 0.02 0.04 ± 0.08 0.19 ± 0.06 0.09 ± 0.01 0.17 ± 0.09 0.07 ± 0.02 0.54
Chromium (ppm) 0.03 ± 0.02 0.25 ± 0.41 0.1 ± 0.03 0.023 ± 0.01 0.26 ± 0.1 0.11 ± 0.01 0.10 ± 0.07 0.50
Molybdenum (ppm) 0.05 ± 0.02 0.3 ± 0.61 0.09 ± 0.03 0.26 ± 0.24 0.03 ± 0.01 0.2 ± 0.06 0.07 ± 0.02 0.60
Open in a new tab

Means in the same column with different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05.

Table 3.

Physicochemical parameters of Branded honey samples analyzed (mean ± SD).

Parameters Quershi Honey
n = 2		 Marhaba honey
n = 2		 Sulman honey
n = 3		 Saudi honey
n = 3		 Young honey
n = 2		 Alshifa honey
n = 3		 P values Codex*
Color (mm Pfund) 50.50 ± 21.92 44 ± 4.24 34.86 ± 20.21 41.22 ± 15.95 44.50 ± 31.81 40 ± 22.5 0.93 –
pH 5.00 ± 0.84 5.35 ± 0.21 5.23 ± 0.15 4.86 ± 0.40 5.30 ± 0.70 4.6 ± 0.20 0.39 –
Acidity (meq/kg) 16 ± 2.12 15.50 ± 0.70 16.33 ± 1.60 15.33 ± 3.81 14.75 ± 0.35 14.16 ± 1.60 0.87 ≤50 meq/kg
Moisture (%) 21.25 ± 0.35 19.50 ± 0.00 20.33 ± 0.76 20.58 ± 1.66 20.62 ± 0.53 21 ± 1.73 0.74 ≤21%
EC (ms/cm) 0.17 ± 0.02 0.19 ± 0.03 0.23 ± 0.10 0.12 ± 0.02 0.21 ± 0.04 0.18 ± 0.03 0.38 ≥0.7 ms/cm
Ash (%) 1.05 ± 0.21 0.85 ± 0.07 0.99 ± 0.10 2.06 ± 0.65 1.05 ± 0.35 0.66 ± 0.11 0.01 ≤0.6 g/kg
HMF (mg/kg) 389.18 ± 296.95 316.86 ± 205.54 319.63 ± 268.43 331.26 ± 263.38 318.78 ± 214.42 516.26 ± 273.27 0.92 ≤40 meq/kg
Proline (mg/kg) 161.48 ± 49.83 195.19 ± 19.60 103.66 ± 50.59 329.66 ± 425.02 140.17 ± 49.99 159.93 ± 70.89 0.82 ≥180 mg/kg
Diastase (DN) 9.45 ± 1.48 5.95 ± 1.20 8.61 ± 1.99 6.9 ± 0.55 10.35 ± 1.48 6.15 ± 0.72 0.02 ≥3 (DN)
Invertase (IN) 6.8 ± 0.84 8.21 ± 11.00 3.10 ± 0.48 5.7 ± 0.95 8.35 ± 1.20 9.66 ± 0.45 0.39 ≥10 (IN)
Open in a new tab

Means in the same column with different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05.

pH is another important parameter during extraction and the conservation of honey. It increases the quality, constancy and shelf life of honey (Terrab et al., 2002). All the examined fresh honeys were acidic except Bairi samples. The average pH values of fresh and branded honey ranged from 4.35 to 7.05 and 4.6 to 5.35. Azonwade et al., 2018, Lokossou et al., 2017 reported pH of 5.08 and 5.00–5.48 respectively, showing almost the same range as found in the present research. However, Laredj and Waffa, 2017, Mohammed et al., 2017 recorded acidic pH values (4.17 and 4.20) in Algerian and Saudi honeys lower than present pH. In the same way EC ranges obtained by Bousaid et al. (2018) (0.39–0.89 mS/cm), Lokossou et al. (2017) (0.37–1.43 mS/cm) and Guler et al. (2017) (0.250–0.90 mS/cm) in Tunasian honey, Beninese and Turkish honeys were more or less same as found in fresh (0.11–0.61 mS/cm) and branded (0.17–0.23 mS/cm) honey samples. The resulted variation in EC depends on the different floral origins of honeys.

According to Perez-Arquillué et al. (1994), acidity in honey varies due to floral origins and harvesting seasons. Though acidity of fresh honeys (33–46.5 meq/kg) were within the International limits yet higher as compared to branded (14.16–16.33 meq/kg) samples, El-Haskoury et al., 2018, Alqarni et al., 2016 reported honey acidity 16.50–59.50 meq/kg and 55.5–145.5 meq/kg which is closely related to the current recorded values of acidity.

Another parameter used for the determination of the botanical origin is Ash content (White, 1978). As compared to branded honey (0.66–2.05%), the fresh honey samples are within the limit (0.4–0.55%) for ash content proposed by the Codex Alimentarius Standards (≤0.6 g/kg). Parviz et al., 2014, Anhwange et al., 2015 recorded ash content of 0.03–0.52%, 0.6–0.8 and 1.26–1.66 almost in the same range determined in current study.

The determination of color is a use full method for classification of multiflora honeys. The lightness values (L*) found for the sixty-five honey samples ranged from 27.95 mmPfund (White) to 78 mmPfund (Light amber) and 34.86 mmPfund (Extra light Amber) to 50.50 mmPfund (Light Amber) respectively. Honey color parameter is usually first honey assessment depending upon its ingredients by consumers. Orange, Barseem and Shesham have same values (47) that contain Extra light amber color while Qurshi honey has Light Amber color. Aazza et al. (2018). Boussaid et al., 2018, Khalafi et al., 2016 found the color range between 71.27 mmPfund, 36.64–51.37 mmPfund and 19–45.6 mmPfund, closely resemble the current research.

HMF is an important parameter used for honey purity and its freshness (Codex Alimentarius, 2001). According to international honey commission, the concentration of HMF should not exceed 40 mg/kg. The measured HMF content in current study ranged from 24.45 to 40.68 mg/kg and 316.86 to 516.26 mg/kg for fresh and branded honeys. Boussaid et al. (2018) and Perviz et al. (2014) reported similar HMF content of 27.43 ± 1.50 mg/kg and 37.31 ± 17.13 mg/kg. In addition, Al-Ghamdi et al., 2019, Kivrak et al., 2017 determined much lower (3.78 mg/kg and 3.87–4.64 mg/kg) in Saudi and Indian honeys. Storage and floral sources are the major causes of higher HMF (Terrab et al., 2002, Meda et al., 2005).

The estimated Proline content of honey samples range was 287.6–511.1 mg/kg and 103.66–329.66 mg/kg. The proline contents of fresh honey samples were within the codex limit (≥180 mg/kg) and directive 2001/EC (≥180 mg/kg) as compared to branded honey samples. Moloudian et al., 2018, Aazza et al., 2018 and Nayik and Nanda (2015) analyzed the proline content ranged from 240.4 to 848.07 mg/kg, 256.46–924.98 mg/kg and 205.3–551.74 mg/kg respectively, in Iranian and Morocco honey more or less similar to the range of proline content of fresh honeys examined in the current research. The level of proline has been reported to vary depending on the honey flora, but this is more closely associated with the working performance of bees (Manzanares et al., 2014).

The diastase numbers of fresh honey samples in the present research work were 26.97–43.47(DN) with in the international ranges as compared to branded samples 5.95–10.35(DN) respectively. Moloudian et al. (2018) recorded diastase number 17.75–28.68(DN) which are almost like that of current work. Diafat et al. (2017) analyzed diastase 129.49–43.67 (DN) was above the range of present study.

Invertase is a natural honey enzyme which is commonly used for determinant of freshness. In current study the invertase activity ranges from 58.55 to 81.9 (IN) and 3.10–9.66(IN). All the fresh honey samples showed a significant result as compared branded samples. Boussaid et al. (2018), Parvanov et al., 2012, Lichtenberg-Kraag, 2012 reported invertase number 46.25–184.68 (IN), 1.47–15.2(IN), 23.91–0.02(IN) and 86.95–33.76(IN) and the same range as found in the present research. Over all the Invertase activity indicate storage and processing condition.

3.2. Mineral composition

The mineral composition of the fresh fifty honey samples were also analyzed as shown in Table 2. In general, the most abundant macro elements found in the honey samples were Potassium and Sodium ranging from 166.5 to 642 and 211 to 579.6 ppm respectively. Boussaid et al. (2018) showed the sodium range from 497.54 to 362.55 ppm and 251.34 to 521.22 ppm almost same as found in present research. Ca+ level of all the fresh honey samples was below the international limit (200–2300 ppm). The micro minerals such as Cobalt, Manganese and Barium were found in normal range, while Chromium was found less according to standard range (>1 ppm) respectively. Khaliq and Swaileh (2017) analyzed potassium and sodium concentration range between 183.86 ppm and 104.66 ppm which is lower values as compared present research. Mineral results showed that fresh honey is rich in nutritive elements and free for toxic metals.

4. Conclusion

The results of this study indicated that the physiochemical characteristics of fresh honey samples were within recommended limits of international standards then branded samples. Evidence showed that the freshness and purity of fresh honey was due to dominant flora. The trace amount of heavy metal like Pb, Cr and Mo in all fresh honey samples showed the clean environment, while the richness in other essential metals represented the high nutritional values of Pakistani honey.

Acknowledgements

This work is done under the Project No 4952-/R&D/NRPU/HEC-14 and the part of PhD thesis of first author. We are also thankful to the Beekeepers for providing fresh honey samples.

Footnotes

Peer review under responsibility of King Saud University.

Contributor Information

Muhammad Sajid, Email: saghazlani@live.co.uk.

Samina Qamer, Email: saminabee@gmail.com.

References

  1. Aazza S., Elamine Y., El-Guendouz S., Lyoussi B., Antunes M.D., Estevinho L.M., Ofélia A Jorge, Cailer D., Coasta Maria C., Miguel M.G. Physicochemical characterization and antioxidant activity of honey with Eragrostis spp. pollen predominance. J. Food Biochem. 2018;42(1):124–131. [Google Scholar]
  2. Acquarone C., Buera P., Elizalde B. Pattern of pH and electrical conductivity upon honey dilution as a complementary tool for discriminating geographical origin of honeys. Food Chem. 2007;101(2):695–703. [Google Scholar]
  3. Adgaba N., Al-Ghamdi A.A., Getachew A., Tadesse Y., Belay A., Ansari M.J., Radloff S.E., Sharma D. Characterization of honeys by their botanical and geographical origins based on their physico-chemical properties and chemo-metrics analysis. J. Food Meas. Charact. 2017;11(3):1103–1117. [Google Scholar]
  4. Adnan M., Ullah I., Tariq A., Murad W., Azizullah A., Khan A.L., Ali N. Ethnomedicine use in the war affected region of northwest Pakistan. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2014;10(1):16. doi: 10.1186/1746-4269-10-16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Ajlouni S., Sujirapinyokul P. Hydroxymethyl fur furaldehyde and amylase contents in Australian honey. Food Chem. 2010;119(3):1000–1005. [Google Scholar]
  6. Al-Ghamdi A., Mohammed S.E.A., Ansari M.J., Adgaba N. Comparison of physicochemical properties and effects of heating regimes on stored Apis mellifera and Apis florea honey. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2019;26(4):845–848. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2017.06.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Alwaili N., Al Ghamdi A., Ansari M.J., Al-Attal Y., Al-Mubarak A., Salom K. Differences in composition of honey samples and their impact on the antimicrobial activities against drug multi-resistant bacteria and pathogenic fungi. Arch. Med. Res. 2013;44(4):307–316. doi: 10.1016/j.arcmed.2013.04.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Alqarni A.S., Owayss A.A., Mahmoud A.A. Physicochemical characteristics, total phenols and pigments of national and international honeys in Saudi Arabia. Arab. J. Chem. 2016;9(1):114–120. [Google Scholar]
  9. Anhwange B.A., Yiase S.G., Atoo G.H., Anzaki A.J. Chemical study of natural and farmed samples of honey from Riyom, Plateau State. J. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2015;1(3):347–351. [Google Scholar]
  10. Anjum S.I., Shah A.H., Azim M.K., Yousuf M.J., Khan S., Khan S.N. Prevalence of American foul brood disease of honeybee in north-west Pakistan. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2015;29(4):659–665. [Google Scholar]
  11. Ansari M.J., Al-Ghamdi A., Khan K.A., Adgaba N., El-Ahmady S.H., Gad H.A., Roshan A., Meo S.A., Kolyali S. Validation of botanical origins and geographical sources of some Saudi honeys using ultraviolet spectroscopy and chemometric analysis. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2018;25(2):377–382. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2017.09.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Azonwade F.E., Paraïso A., Dossa A., Cokou P., Dougnon V.T., N’tcha C., Mousse W., Baba-Moussa L. Physicochemical characteristics and microbiological quality of honey produced in Benin. J. Food Qual. 2018;2018:1–13. [Google Scholar]
  13. Boussaid A., Chouaibi M., Rezig L., Hellal R., Donsì F., Ferrari G., Hamdi S. Physicochemical and bioactive properties of six honey samples from various floral origins from Tunisia. Arab. J. Chem. 2018;11(2):265–274. [Google Scholar]
  14. Can Z., Yildiz O., Sahin H., Turumtay E.A., Silici S., Kolayli S. An investigation of Turkish honeys: their physico-chemical properties, antioxidant capacities and phenolic profiles. Food Chem. 2015;180:133–141. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.02.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Codex Alimentarius Committee on Sugars Revised Codex Standard for Honey. 2001;11:1–7. [Google Scholar]
  16. Conti M.E., Stripeikis J., Campanella L., Cucina D., Tudino M.B. Characterization of Italian honeys (Marche Region) on the basis of their mineral content and some typical quality parameters. Chem. Cent. J. 2007;1(1):1–10. doi: 10.1186/1752-153X-1-14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Diafat A.E.O., Benouadah A., Bahloul A., Meribai A., Mekhalfi H., Bouaziz F., Arrar L. Physicochemical properties and pollen analyze of some Algerian honeys. Int. Food Res. J. 2017;24(4):1453–1459. [Google Scholar]
  18. El-Haskoury R., Kriaa W., Lyoussi B., Makni M. Ceratonia siliqua honeys from Morocco: physicochemical properties, mineral contents, and antioxidant activities. J. Food Drug Anal. 2018;26(1):67–73. doi: 10.1016/j.jfda.2016.11.016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Guler A., Ali V.G., Onder H. Comparing biochemical properties of pure and adulterated honeys produced by feeding honeybees (Apis mellifera L.) colonies with different levels of industrial commercial sugars. Kafkas. Univ. Vet. Fak. Derg. 2017;23(2):259–268. [Google Scholar]
  20. Khalafi R., Goli S.A.H., Behjatian M. Characterization and classification of several monofloral Iranian honeys based on physicochemical properties and antioxidant activity. Int. J. Food Prop. 2016;19(5):1065–1079. [Google Scholar]
  21. Khaliq A., Swaileh K.M. Physico-chemical properties of multi-floral honey from the West Bank. Palestine. Int. J. Food Prop. 2017;20(2):447–454. [Google Scholar]
  22. Khan K.A., Al-Ghamdi A.A., Ansari M.J. The characterization of blossom honeys from two provinces of Pakistan. Ital. J. Food Sci. 2016;28:625–638. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kivrak Ş., Kivrak I., Karababa E. Characterization of Turkish honeys regarding of physicochemical properties, and their adulteration analysis. Food Sci. Technol. (Campinas) 2017;37(1):80–89. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kumar A., Gill J.P.S., Bedi J.S., Manav M., Ansari M.J., Walia G.S. Sensorial and physicochemical analysis of Indian honeys for assessment of quality and floral origins. Food Res. Int. 2018;108:571–583. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2018.04.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Laredj H., Waffa R. Microbiological and physicochemical characterization of honeys from the Tiaret Region of Algeria. Asian J. Pharm. Res. Health Care. 2017;9(3):85–91. [Google Scholar]
  26. Lazarević K.B., Andrić F., Trifković J., Tešić Ž., Milojković-Opsenica D. Characterisation of Serbian unifloral honeys according to their physicochemical parameters. Food Chem. 2012;132(4):2060–2064. [Google Scholar]
  27. Lichtenberg-Kraag B. Saccharose degradation over time in stored honey: influence of time, temperature, enzyme activity and botanical origin. J. Food Nutrit. Res. 2012;51:217–224. [Google Scholar]
  28. Lokossou S.C., Tchobo F.P., Yédomonhan H., Soumanou M.M. Physicochemical characterization and polyphenolic content of Beninese honeys. Int. Scholar. Res. Notices. 2017;37(3):1–8. doi: 10.1155/2017/6571089. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Manzanares A.B., García Z.H., Galdon B.R., Rodríguez E.R., Romero C.D. Physicochemical characteristics of minormonofloral honeys from Tenerife, Spain. LWT – J. Food Sci. Technol. 2014;55:572–578. [Google Scholar]
  30. Meda A., Lamien C.E., Romito M., Millogo J., Nacoulma O.G. Determination of the total phenolic, flavonoid and proline contents in Burkina Fasan honey, as well as their radical scavenging activity. Food Chem. 2005;91(3):571–577. [Google Scholar]
  31. Mohammed A., Elimam M., Alfifi A., Aalmudawi A., Alfaifi M.Y., Elbehairi S.E.I., Al-Bushnaq H.A. Some physiochemical properties of acacia honey from different altitudes of the Asir Region in Southern Saudi Arabia. Czech. J. Food Sci. 2017;35(4):321–327. [Google Scholar]
  32. Moloudian H., Abbasian S., Nassiri-Koopaei N., Tahmasbi M.R., Alsadat Afzal G., Ahosseini M.S., Mausd Y., Khoshayand M.R. Characterization and classification of iranian honey based on physicochemical properties and antioxidant activities, with chemometrics approach. Iran. J. Pharm. Res. 2018;17(2):708–725. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Morse R.A., Calderone N.W. The value of honey bees as pollinators of US crops in 2000. Bee Cult. 2000;128(3):1–15. [Google Scholar]
  34. Munawar M.S., Sarwar G., Raja S., Waghchoure E.S., Iftikhar F., Mahmood R. Pollination by honeybee (Apismellifera) increases seed setting and yield in black seeds (Nigella sativa) Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2009;11:611–615. [Google Scholar]
  35. Parvanov P., Dinkov D., Tananaki C. Invertase activity and carbohydrate spectrum of time, temperature, enzyme activity and botanical origin. J. Food Nutrit. Res. 2012;51:217–224. [Google Scholar]
  36. Parviz M., Karimi F., Rezaei M., Javanmard M.R., Javadzadeh M., Allahdadi G. Assessment of the physicochemical quality of Iranian honey. Qual. Assur. Saf. Crops Foods. 2014;7(5):629–634. [Google Scholar]
  37. Perez-Arquillué C., Conchello P., Ariño A., Juan T., Herrera A. Quality evaluation of Spanish rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) honey. Food Chem. 1994;51(2):207–210. [Google Scholar]
  38. Qamer S., Muzaffar N., Ali S.S., Shakoori A.R. Effect of storage on various honey quality parameters of unifloral sidder honey from Pakistan. Pak. J. Zool. 2009;45(3):741–747. [Google Scholar]
  39. Sakač M.B., Jovanov P.T., Marić A.Z., Pezo L.L., Kevrešan Ž.S., Novaković A.R., Nedeljković N.M. Physicochemical properties and mineral content of honey samples from Vojvodina (Republic of Serbia) Food Chem. 2019;276:15–21. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.09.149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Siegenthaler U. Eine einfache und rasche Methode zur Bestimmung der alpha Glucosidase (Saccharase) im Honig. Mitt. Geb. Lebensmittelunters Hyg. 1977;68:251–258. [Google Scholar]
  41. Terrab A., Díez M.J., Heredia F.J. Characterization of Moroccan unifloral honeys by their physicochemical characteristics. Food Chem. 2002;79(3):373–379. [Google Scholar]
  42. Tosi E., Martinet R., Ortega M., Lucero Η. Honey diastase activity modified by heating. Food Chem. 2008;106:883–887. [Google Scholar]
  43. Waghchoure E.S.C., Martin S.J. Population changes of Tropilaelaps clareae mites in Apis mellifera colonies in Pakistan. J. Agric. Res. 2009;48(1):46–49. [Google Scholar]
  44. White . Honey. In: Chichester C.O., editor. Advances in Food Research. Springer; 1978. pp. 287–374. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES