Skip to main content
PMC home page
Molecules logoLink to Molecules
. 2021 Jul 21;26(15):4399. doi: 10.3390/molecules26154399

Establishing Relationship between Vitamins, Total Phenolic and Total Flavonoid Content and Antioxidant Activities in Various Honey Types

Norhasnida Zawawi 1,2,*, Pei Juin Chong 1, Nurul Nadhirah Mohd Tom 1, Nurkhairina Solehah Saiful Anuar 1, Salma Malihah Mohammad 1, Norra Ismail 3, Arif Zaidi Jusoh 3
Editors: Nada Orsolic, Maja Jazvinšćak Jembrek
PMCID: PMC8347116  PMID: 34361551

Abstract

Honey is a well-known natural sweetener and is rich in natural antioxidants that prevent the occurrence of oxidative stress, which is responsible for many human diseases. Some of the biochemical compounds in honey that contribute to this property are vitamins and phenolic compounds such as phenolic acids and flavonoids. However, the extent to which these molecules contribute towards the antioxidant capacity in vitro is inconsistently reported, especially with the different analytical methods used, as well as other extrinsic factors that influence these molecules’ availability. Therefore, by reviewing recently published works correlating the vitamin, total phenolic, and flavonoid content in honey with its antioxidant activities in vitro, this paper will establish a relationship between these parameters. Based on the literature, vitamins do not contribute to honey’s antioxidant capacity; however, the content of phenolic acids and flavonoids has an impact on honey’s antioxidant activity.

Keywords: honey, antioxidant activities, vitamin, total phenolic content, flavonoid content

1. Introduction

Honey is a natural sweetener that is well-known all around the world. Naturally, it contains a concentrated sugar solution which is mostly fructose and glucose, making it favorable as a substitute for table sugar. It also contains different minor compounds, including polyphenols, enzymes, organic acids, and water-soluble vitamins [1], which contribute to its wide range of biological effects [2]. One of its sought after properties is its ability to counter oxidative stress, thereby acting as a potent antioxidant source.

Oxidative stress causes various pathological conditions such as cancer, neurological disorders, hypertension, and diabetes [3]. However, with a substantial amount of antioxidants the damage can be prevented. An antioxidant is any material that delays or stops the oxidation process of an oxidizable substance [4]. They include both enzymatic (superoxide dismutase, catalase etc.) and non-enzymatic molecules, which are the subject of interest in this review. An example of the important antioxidant compounds in honey are the phenolic compounds such as phenolic acid, flavonoids, and also vitamins [5,6,7].

There are various types of tests that can be used to measure honey’s antioxidant capacity in vitro, but none has been declared as the official method. Owing to some modifications within the same applied methods and test limitations, the results become difficult to compare. To counter this, researchers use more than one antioxidant assay and evaluate them using statistical analysis [8]. The measurement methods include ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP), inhibition of the 2,2′-azinobis-3-ethylbenozothiazoline-6-sulfonate (ABTS) radical cation, 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH), and many others [9]. Among these, the DPPH assay is most commonly applied to measure free radical scavenging activity due to its low cost [10].

Although honey has been reported to exhibit antioxidant properties, there is limited information about the specific cause of its antioxidant capacities [11]. Some studies have reported that the antioxidant properties are contributed by its different biochemical compounds found in varying degrees, and resulting from its floral origin, geographical origin, and environmental conditions [12].

This review focuses on analyzing the relationship between the vitamin, total phenolic, and total flavonoid contents with the antioxidant activities in honey in vitro. When these bioactive compounds increase, it is expected that honey’s antioxidant capacity will increase linearly.

2. Methodology

A literature search was conducted to identify recent articles and studies illustrating the relationship of antioxidant activities in honey to their vitamin, total phenolic, and flavonoid content. Several online databases were queried and used, including ScienceDirect, Wiley Online Library, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The keywords used individually and in combination as inclusion criteria for the articles to be taken into consideration for this review were honey, antioxidant, vitamin, phenolic acids, biochemical compounds, and total flavonoid. The inclusion criteria of the papers were (i) research that focused on the measurement of biochemical compound concentrations and antioxidant activities; (ii) papers written in English; and (iii) papers with accessible full text. This review covers a period of around 20 years, which includes publications from the year 2000 to 2020.

3. Vitamin and Antioxidant Activity

Vitamins are a large group of complex organic compounds that help to support body metabolism, growth, and development, and regulate the function of cells. To ensure a proper metabolic and cellular reaction in the body, vitamins are required in small amounts to work as important coenzymes and cofactors.

Vitamin A, vitamin C, and vitamin E are known to exhibit certain antioxidant properties. For instance, vitamin C’s antioxidant effects are due to its ability to reduce oxidation by reacting with superoxide ion O2− and singlet oxygen such as HOO− or OH− through dehydrogenation to generate dehydroascorbate. Vitamin E can remove O2− and quench singlet oxygen and superoxide dismutase by working glutathione peroxidase so that consumers have an antioxidant effect inside their body [13]. However, because of honey’s nature as an aqueous-based foodstuff [11], most studies only reported the content of water-soluble vitamins, such as Vitamin C and Vitamin B complex.

There are several methods for quantifying vitamins in honey, such as using a fluorometric method, titrimetric method, and chromatograpy [14]. The titrimetric method is widely employed for its simplicity and cost efficiency. However, when considering accuracy and precision, chromatography techniques such as high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) are preferred [11].

Vitamin C and Vitamin B1, B2, and B3 were detected in honey samples of different botanical origins and geographical locations at various concentrations (Table 1). Manuka honey had the highest level of vitamins (1067.37 mg vitamin C/kg honey), followed by thyme honey (759 mg vitamin C/kg honey). The honey samples that had the lowest vitamin levels were eucalyptus 1 and multifloral honey from Province Leon, both having the same value at 3.40 mg vitamin C/kg honey.

Table 1.

Vitamins concentrations and antioxidant activities of honey.

Botanical Origin Bee
Species		 Vitamin Quantification Method Vitamin
Concentration (mg/kg)		 DPPH FRAP CBI (%) ABTS Relationship References
IC50
(mg/mL)		 % Inhibition
Gelam 1
(Melaleuca cajuputi)		 Apis
dorsata 		Vitamin B1 RP-HPLC with PDA detector 13.85 15.681 N/A 82.529 mg TE/100g honey 67.41 N/A Vitamin with DPPH:
r = 0.8226, p > 0.05
Vitamin with FRAP:
r = 0.4338, p < 0.05
Vitamin with CBI:
r = 0.2649, p > 0.05		 [11]
Vitamin B3 355.38
Vitamin C 67.36
Acacia 1
(Robinia Pseudocacia)		 Apis mellifera Vitamin B1 11.85 29.846 82.386 mg 74.66
Vitamin B3 134.67
Vitamin C 62.80
Kedah 1 (Malaysia)
(Tualang forest honey)		 Apis
dorsata 		Vitamin B3 170.38 48.896 52.386 mg 35.81
Vitamin B3 52.20
Avocado
(Persea americana)		 Apis Mellifera Vitamin C Titrimetric Method (AOAC 967.21) 59.50 13.8 N/A N/A 56.9 N/A Vitamin with DPPH:
r = 0
Vitamin with CBI:
r = − 0.61, p < 0.05		 [15]
Chestnut 1
(Castanea sativa)		 36.40 23.0 66.8
Rosemary 1
(Rosmarinus officinalis)		 45.10 202 28.3
Eucalyptus 1
(Eucalyptus sp.)		 3.40 202 71.8
Thyme
(Thymus sp.)		 759.00 5.46 −1.34
Province of Granada (Spanish) 91.10 9.25 32.9
Province of
Cuenca (Spanish)		 24.10 38.0 58.4
Province of
Pontevedra (Spanish)		 13.50 28.9 92.9
Province of Leon
(Spanish)		 3.40 54.0 68.1
Strawberry tree
(Arbutus unedo)		 Apis mellifera/Apis cerana/Trigona minangkabau Vitamin C RP-HPLC 71.57 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.44 Vitamin with ABTS
r = N/A, p > 0.01		 [16]
Cardoon
(Carlina racemos)		 Apis florea/Apis mellifera 93.43 0.85
Carob
(Ceratonia siliqua)		 Apis mellifera 138.87 1.55
Orange 2
(citrus sinensis)		 Apis mellifera/Apis cerana 77.70 4.04
Sunflower
(Helianthus annuus)		 Apis mellifera/Apis dorsata/Apis cerana/Trigona laeviceps 98.57 3.17
Algarve
(Portugal)		 Vespa Velutina 95.73 1.73
Sleman, Yogyakarta (Indonesia) Tetragonula laeviceps Vitamin C Titrimetric Method 78.80 N/A 90.50 N/A N/A N/A Vitamin with DPPH (%)
r = 0.56, (not significant)		 [29]
Klaten, Central Java
(Indonesia)		 65.10 91.20
Nglipar, Yogyakarta (Indonesia) 56.70 47.3
Manuka
(Leptospermum scoparium) 		Apis mellifera/ Vitamin C Titrimetric Method 1067.37 N/A N/A 434.3 μmol Fe(II)/100g honey N/A N/A Vitamin with FRAP
r = N/A		 [30]
Longan
(Dimocarpus longan) 		Apis cerana/Apis dorsata 190.61 258.9 μmol
Mangosteen
(Garcinia mangostana) 		Apis mellifera/Apis cerana 379.31 908.3 μmol
Pararubber
(Hevea brasiliensis) 		Apis mellifera 185.82 262.2 μmol
Open in a new tab

RP: reversed phase, HPLC: high performance liquid chromatography, PDA: photodiode array, N/A: not available, CBI: β-carotene bleaching inhibition.

There are numerous reports on vitamins in honey, but only a few studies have statistically analyzed the relationship between vitamin content and antioxidant activity. For example, Chua et al. [11] found that the water-soluble vitamin concentration in Gelam, Tualang, and Acacia honey in Malaysia was significantly correlated with FRAP values (r = 0.4338, p < 0.05). Although there was a high correlation with DPPH activity, it was insignificant (r = 0.8226, p > 0.05). Gelam had the highest vitamin content and the highest antioxidant capacity.

Moreover, Combarros-Fuertes and Azza et al. [15,16] found no significant relationship between vitamin content and DPPH activity in various honey samples. This suggests that vitamins, in small amounts, do not contribute towards the antioxidant activity of a sample. A higher vitamin content has been shown to reduce the β-carotene bleaching inhibition in honey (r = −0.61; p < 0.05), which is believed to be due to the formation of ascorbyl radical [15].

In addition, many studies did not correlate vitamin content with antioxidant activity [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28] but the vitamin content was significantly different (p < 0.05) across each sample.

4. Total Phenolic Content and Antioxidant Activity

Phenolic compounds are one of the most important compounds contributing to the antioxidant activity of honey [5]. Based on carbon chain classification, there are 16 classes of phenolic compounds [31]. In honey, the two most common are phenolic acid (non-flovonoid) and flavonoids [32]. Phenolic content in honey varies among honey types and geographical origins.

The recovery of phenolic compounds is primarily affected by sample preparation and the method of extraction. Some important variables need to be taken into account such as type of solvent and the time and temperature parameters of the extraction process [33]. The most common method used to quantify total phenolic content are the Folin–Denis and Folin–Ciocalteu methods [33]. To identify and quantify individual compounds, chromatography approaches such as HPLC or liquid chromatography (LC coupled with UV-VIS or diode array detector) were adopted [20,34,35,36,37].

In Table 2, 16 different phenolic compounds detected in honey samples are shown. Overall, multifloral 1 honey from Brazil [34] had the highest phenolic content (78.2 ± 2.7 mg/g GAE), while the lowest was reported in Clover honey (0.65 ± 0.42 mg/g GAE) [35]. Reports have mostly shown a strong correlation between total phenolic content and the antioxidant capacity of honey samples (Table 1).

Table 2.

The phenolic content and antioxidant activities of honey.

Botanical Origin Bee Species Method Phenolic
Compounds		 TPC
(mg/100 g)		 DPPH FRAP Relationship Reference
% Inhibition IC50
(mg/mL)
Orange Blossom 1 Apis mellifera Folin–Dennis method with LC-DAD Gallic acid, vanillic acid, syringic acid, quercetin. 35.7 ± 2.4 ND 36.22 ± 3.82 438.69 ± 2.78
(mol Fe(II)/100 g)		 TPC with FRAP
r = 0.857, p < 0.01
TPC with DPPHIC50
r = −0.8918, p < 0.01		 [34]
Orange Blossom 2 protocatechuic acid, p-coumaric acid, syringic acid, cinnamic acid 38.8 ± 3.6 40.80 ± 4.68 376.66 ± 1.60
Orange Blossom 3 protocatechuic acid 53.2 ± 2.9 29.85 ± 2.67 375.73 ± 6.99
Orange Blossom 4 p-hydroxybenzoic acid, vanillic acid, p-coumaric acid 40.1 ± 2.9 33.21 ± 2.51 34.99 ± 4.24
Orange Blossom 5 protocatechuic acid, syringic acid, p-coumaric acid, cinnamic acid 34.0 ± 7.58 52.64 ± 4.70 303.51 ± 1.60
Multifloral 1
(Brazil)		 gallic acid, vanillic acid, p-hydroxybenzoic acid, Sinapic acid, Morin cinnamic acid. 78.2 ± 2.7 10.81 ± 0.50 95.18 ± 3.21
Multifloral 2
(Brazil)		 protocatechuic acid, p-coumaric acid, cinnamic acid 42.8 ± 1.9 19.74 ± 1.62 408.14 ± 10.02
Multifloral 3
(Brazil)		 protocatechuic acid, quercetin, p-hydroxybenzoic acid 57.2 ± 2.4 18.42 ± 1.47 109.99 ± 11.23
Multifloral 4
(Brazil)		 vanillic acid, p-hydroxybenzoic acid, p-coumaric acid, morin 54.0 ± 2.3 17.52 ± 1.10 78.51 ± 4.24
Chestnut Apis mellifera Folin–Ciocalteu method with HPLC-UV-VIS Gallic acid, protocatechuic acid, p-hydroxybenzoic acid, vanillic acid, caffeic acid, p-coumaric acid, ferulic acid, quercetin. 8.10 ± 2.56 ND 20.05 ± 5.42 4.30 ± 0.13
(µmol FeSO4•7H2O/g)		 TPC with FRAP
r = 0.81, p < 0.05
TPC with DPPH
r = N/A		 [35]
Astragalus Gallic acid, p-coumaric acid, p-hydroxybenzoic acid, vanillic acid, caffeic acid, protocatechuic acid, ferulic acid, rutin, apigenin 0.86 ± 0.49 123.56 ± 25.12 0.66 ± 0.74
Heather Gallic acid, protocatechuic acid, protocatechuic acid, catechin, caffeic acid, p-coumaric acid, aquercetin. 5.84 ± 1.80 1.42 ± 0.28 27.84 ± 13.20
Clover p-coumaric acid, p-hydroxybenzoic acid, caffeic acid 0.65 ± 0.42 98.19 ± 58.03 0.59 ± 0.21
Lavender p-hydroxybenzoic acid, catechin, caffeic acid, epicatechin p-coumaric acid, rutin. 2.20 ± 1.54 70.20 ± 31.50 0.67 ± 0.25
Lime protocatechuic acid, p-hydroxybenzoic acid, caffeic acid, apigenin. 0.95 ± 0.18 76.20 ± 12.30 0.86 ± 0.12
Jerusalem Tea p-hydroxybenzoic acid, vanillic acid, caffeic acid, p-coumaric acid, ferulic acid, quercetin, apigenin. 2.80 ± 1.10 61.05 ± 5.20 0.65 ± 0.46
Common eryngo p-hydroxybenzoic acid, catechin, caffeic acid, p-coumaric acid, ferulic acid. 0.85 ± 0.64 60.08 ± 6.10 2.27 ± 0.96
Chaste tree p-hydroxybenzoic acid, catechin, caffeic acid, p-coumaric acid, ferulic acid, apigenin. 0.95 ± 0.24 121.05 ± 20.40 0.67 ± 0.46
Rhododendron Gallic acid, protocatechuic acid, p-hydroxybenzoic acid, vanilic acid, caffeic acid, p-coumaric acid, ferulic acid, quercetin, apigenin, kaempferol. 0.92 ± 0.39 78.06 ± 28.65 0.67 ± 0.22
Oak Gallic acid, protocatechuic acid, p-hydroxybenzoic acid, caffeic acid, syringic acid, epicatechin, p-coumaric acid, ferulic acid, rutin 3.10 ± 0.56 12.56 ± 2.50 3.07 ± 0.84
Pine Protocatechuic acid, p-hydroxybenzoic acid, catechin, vanillic acid, caffeic acid, syringic acid, p-coumaric acid, ferulic acid, rutin, quercetin, kaempferol. 1.58 ± 1.30 44.30 ± 25.07 1.48 ± 0.83
Acacia p-hydroxybenzoic acid, caffeic acid, synringic acid, p-coumaric acid, ferulic acid, apigenin, kaempferol, isorhamnetin. 1.58 ± 0.22 152.40 ± 62.00 0.64 ± 0.34
Japanese Grape Apis mellifera Folin–Ciocalteu method with RP-HPLC-UV-VIS Gallic acid, p-coumaric acid, quercetin. 30.5 ± 14.4 ND 179.12 ± 101.8 0.33 ± 0.6 (μmolET.g−1) TPC with FRAP
r = 0.8594, p < 0.001
TPC with DPPHIC50
r = −0.7582, p < 0.001		 [36]
Mastic Gallic acid, cinnamic acid, quercetin. 63.5 ± 17.3 62.2 ± 29.7 1.8 ± 0.5
Quitoco Gallic acid, quercetin. 50.2 ± 17.7 180.0 ± 82.8 0.4 ± 0.3
Wild Flower Gallic acid. 56.5 ± 0.00 86.04 ± 0.00 0.97 ± 0.0
Manuka
(New Zealand)		 Apis mellifera Folin–Ciocalteu method with HPLC-DAD Caffeic acid, p-coumaric acid, catechin. 52.63 ± 1.21 N/A 4.71 ± 0.36 1.295 ± 0.01 (μM Fe[II]/kg) TPC with FRAP
r = 0.965, p < 0.01
TPC with DPPH %
r = 0.976, p < 0.01		 [37]
Borneo Tropical
(Malaysia)		 Apis cerana Catechin, caffeic acid. 15.21 ± 0.51 17.51 ± 0.51 0.492 ± 0.01
Tualang
(Malaysia)		 Apis dorsata Catechin, gallic acid, syringic acid, caffeic acid. 28.87 ± 0.41 8.60 ± 0.66 0.707 ± 0.007
Multiflora (Bednja) N/A Folin–Ciocalteu method N/A 19.581 ± 0.578 N/A 11.94 ± 0.71 398.02 ± 36.87 (mM of Fe(II) in 10% honey solution. TPC with DPPHIC50:
r = 0.5791, p = N/A
TPC with FRAP:
r = 0.8325, p = N/A		 [39]
Multiflora (Ivanec) 20.876 ± 15.94 11.86 ± 1.99 283.98 ± 30.23
Multiflora (Novi Marof) 23.638 ± 0.805 11.26 ± 1.06 351.10 ± 86.09
Multiflora (Ludbreg) 16.362 ± 1.322 13.73 ± 6.95 244.55 ± 32.93
Forest (Kosovo) N/A Folin–Ciocalteu method N/A 84.17 ± 30.40 66.92 ± 23.18 N/A 22.39 ± 12.86
(mg TE/100 g)		 TPC with DPPH %
r = 0.804, p < 0.01
TPC with FRAP:
r = 0.829, p = 0.01		 [38]
Meadow 46.48 ± 16.59 42.23 ± 25.06 10.73 ± 7.46
Mixed 46.33 ± 18.95 34.49 ± 22.50 7.76 ± 7.14
Chestnut 35.77 ± 8.26 31.35 ± 9.44 8.50 ± 2.51
Acacia 25.76 ± 10.16 22.23 ± 7.82 3.65 ± 1.96
Lime 74.10 65.15 16.63
Pine 28.06 38.70 9.75
TH1 Multifloral (Malaysia) Apis dorsata Folin–Ciocalteu method with LC-MS/MS Gallic acid, Caffeic acid, Chrysin, Cinnamic acid, Hydroxycinnamic acid, Kaempferol, p-coumaric acid 13.942 ± 1.37 N/A ND ND TPC with DPPH %
r = 0.584		 [20]
TH2 Multifloral (Malaysia) Gallic acid, Caffeic acid, Syringic acid, Catechine, Apigenin, Chrysin, Cinnamic acid, Hydroxycinnamic acid, quercetin-3-O-rutinosid 18.393 ± 2.41
KH1 Unifloral (Malaysia) Trigona Folin–Ciocalteu method with LC-MS/MS Gallic acid, Caffeic acid, Syringic acid, Apigenin, Chrysin, Cinnamic acid, Hydroxycinnamic acid, Kaempferol, p-coumaric acid, quercetin-3-O-rutinosid 22.809 ± 0.79 N/A ND ND TPC with DPPH %
r = 0.607		 [20]
KH2 Multifloral (Malaysia) Gallic acid, Caffeic acid, Caffeic acid, Syringic acid, Catechine, Apigenin, Chrysin, Cinnamic acid, Hydroxycinnamic acid, Kaempferol, p-coumaric acid, quercetin-3-O-rutinosid, Hydroxybenzoic acid 23.528 ± 0.06
Open in a new tab

LC: liquid chromatography, RP: reversed phase, HPLC: high performance liquid chromatography, MS: mass spectroscopy, DAD: diode-array detection, UV-VIS: ultraviolet/visible light detector, N/A: not available, ND: not determined.

Lianda et al. [34] investigated Brazilian honey and found multifloral honey to have the highest TPC value (78.2 ± 2.7 mg/g GAE) and the lowest IC50 value (10.81 ± 0.50 mg/mL). IC50 corresponds to the sample concentration needed to scavenge 50% of DPPH· radicals. Therefore, low IC50 is equivalent to a high scavenging power. However, based on FRAP assay, orange blossom 1 honey had the highest FRAP value (438.69 ± 2.78 mol Fe(II)/100 g). Nevertheless, analyses showed a strong correlation between TPC and DPPHIC50 (r = −0.8918) and FRAP assay (r = 0.9258).

In a study by Can et al. [35], the total phenolic content of Turkish honey was strongly correlated with a FRAP assay (r = 0.81, p < 0.05). Chestnut and oak honey had the highest FRAP values, followed by heather, pine, and Jerusalem tea honey.

Similarly, Nascimento et al. [36] also found a strong correlation between TPC and DPPHIC50 activity (r = −0.7582) and FRAP assay (r = 0.8594) in Brazilian honey. In addition, they found abundant gallic acid, a phenolic compound with antioxidant properties in Japanese grape, mastic, and wildflower honey that influenced the FRAP values (r = 0.5202).

Khalil et al. [37] compared Malaysian honey with Manuka honey from New Zealand and discovered that TPC was highly correlated with DPPH % inhibition (r = 0.976, p < 0.01) and FRAP assay (r = 0.965, p < 0.01), showing Tualang honey as the richest in phenolic compounds and highest in radical scavenging activities. The strong correlation of TPC in both assays was also observed in all samples of Kosovo honey [38]. Honey samples from the forest had the highest TPC, DPPH (%), and FRAP values and the correlation with these two assays were (DPPH; r = 0.931, p < 0.01) and (FRAP; r = 0.878, p < 0.01).

However, not all studies showed a strong relationship with the assays. For example, Šarić et al. [39] only discovered a strong correlation in TPC of multifloral honey from Croatia with the FRAP value (r = 0.8325). While the relationship with DPPHIC50 was unfavorable (r = 0.5791) and insignificant. Ranneh [20] also found no significant correlation between TPC and DPPH and ABTS parameters in Tualang and Kelulut honey.

Despite this, most results suggest that phenolic compounds are partially responsible for honey’s antioxidant properties.

5. Flavonoid Content and Antioxidant Activity

Flavonoids are known to be polyphenolic compounds comprising two phenyl rings linked by a propane bridge, resulting in a characteristic 15-carbon (C6-C3-C6) flavan skeleton [40]. They can be regarded as a class of phenolic compounds having a low molecular weight and are widely distributed in the plant kingdom. In higher plants, they represent one of the most distinctive compound groups. In most angiosperm families, nearly all flavonoids are easily detected as flower pigments. Flavonoids can be found naturally in all parts of plants and were discovered to be the major colouring component of the flowering plants [41]. Anthocyanins, flavonols, flavan-3-ols, flavanones, flavones, and isoflavones are some of the main groups of flavonoids.

Honey can be distinguished by its composition, such as the presence of flavonoid compounds. In various plant species, flavonoids are the dominant class of secondary metabolites and occur in various tissues and organs [42]. Antioxidant properties are also controlled by the subgroup of flavonoid compounds found in honey. Each subgroup has different degrees of unsaturation and oxidation of the carbon ring, depending on the location of the C ring attached to the B-ring [43]. The flavonoid subgroups found in honey are mostly flavonols, flavanone, and flavones.

To estimate the flavonoid content in honey, the calorimetric method using aluminium chloride is widely applied [11,20,36,37,39,44,45]. There may be slight modifications from the original procedure but the underlying principle is the same. Flavonoid reacts with aluminium chloride to form a stable acid complex which is detected using spectrophotometer [46]. Then, flavonoids are individually identified and quantified using a chromatographic approach, such as UPLC [11], HPLC [36,37,44], or LC [20].

Table 3 shows the flavonoid content with antioxidant activities in various types of honey. The most common flavonoids detected from different honey samples were gallic acid and caffeic acid. Similarly to TPC, the relationship between TFC and the antioxidant assays mostly showed a moderate to strong correlation. For example, based on DPPH % radical scavenging activity (RSA), there was strong relationship between TFC and DPPH (% RSA). Meanwhile, the lowest (r = 0.888, p < 0.001) was recorded by Khalil et al. [37].

Table 3.

The flavonoid compounds and antioxidant activities of honeys.

Botanical Origin Bee Species Method Flavonoid (mg/g) TFC DPPH FRAP Relationship Reference
IC50
(mg/mL)		 % Inhibition
Eucalyptus Apis mellifera Colorimetric method with RP-HPLC-UV/VIS Myricetin, quercetin 0.75 ± 0.5
(mg/g)		 65.09 ± 35.5 N/D 1.34 ± 0.4
(μmol ET/g)		 TFC with DPPHIC50:
r = correlated, p < 0.05
TFC with FRAP:
r = 0.8435, p < 0.05		 [36]
Mastic Quercetin 2.1 ± 1.1 62.2 ± 29.7 1.8 ± 0.5
Japanese grape Quercetin 0.2 ± 0.7 179.12 ± 101.8 0.33 ± 0.6
Quitoco Quercetin 0.0 ± 0.6 180.0 ± 82.8 0.4 ± 0.3
Wild flower
(Brazil)		 N/D N/D 0.40 86.04
Polyfloral
(Brazil)		 Myricetin, quercetin 1.2 ± 0.7 82.6 ± 37.6 1.2 ± 0.5
Juazeiro Meliponini subnitida Colorimetric method with HPLC-UV Myricetin, quercetin, catechin, rutin, kaempferol, hesperetin, naringenin, chrysin 4.2 ± 0.6
(mg GAE/100 g)		 N/D 46.9 ± 1.9 N/D TFC with DPPH %
r = 0.9377, p < 0.01		 [44]
Meliponini scutellaris 4.4 ± 0.2 29.5 ± 3.4
Malicia Meliponini subnitida 4.1 ± 0.4 23.3 ± 1.4
Meliponini scutellaris 4.0 ± 0.4 11.2 ± 1.3
Velame Branco Meliponini subnitida 2.6 ± 0.6 40.1 ± 3.2
Meliponini scutellaris 1.9 ± 0.1 27.5 ± 0.5
Jurema Branca Meliponini subnitida 2.4 ± 0.1 22.7 ± 1.6
Meliponini scutellaris 2.1 ± 0.5 24.6 ± 0.4
Gelam
(Malaysia)		 Apis dorsata Colorimetric method with HPLC-DAD Catechin, naringenin, luteolin, kaempferol, apigenin. 0.02531 ± 0.00037
(mg CEQ/g)		 14.36 ± 0.83 N/A 0.64428 ± 0.00953
(μM Fe(II)/g)		 TFC with DPPH %
r = 0.888, p < 0.01
TFC with FRAP:
r = 0.899, p < 0.01		 [37]
Manuka
(Malaysia)		 Apis mellifera Catechin 0.03455 ± 0.00045 4.71 ± 0.36 1.29534 ± 0.01035
Borneo tropical
(Malaysia)		 Apis cerana Catechin 0.01152 ± 0.00027 17.51 ± 0.51 0.49204 ± 0.01125
Tualang 2
(Malaysia)		 Apis dorsata Catechin, kaempferol 0.02052 ± 0.00021 8.60 ± 0.66 0.70691 ± 0.00728
Tualang 3
(Malaysia)		 Apis dorsata Catechin, Kaempferol 0.02173 ± 0.00043 6.94 ± 0.08 0.65173 ± 0.0088
Tualang 4
(Malaysia)		 Apis dorsata Catechin, naringenin 0.02531 ± 0.00037 5.24 ± 0.40 0.89215 ± 0.00497
(
Multifloral 1
(Omani)		 Apis mellifera Colorimetric method N/D 0.925
(mg/g)		 144.5
(mg/mL)		 N/A N/D TFC with DPPH:
r = −0.616		 [45]
Tualang
(Malaysia)		 Apis dorsata Colorimetric method with UPLC-MS/MS Pinobanksin-3-O-propionate, Pinobanksin-3-O-butyrate, Quercetin 18.511 ± 2.803
(mg/g)		 48.896 N/A 52.386 ± 5.192
(mg TE/100 g)		 TFC with DPPH %
r = 0.9276, p > 0.05
TFC with FRAP:
r = 0.991, p < 0.05		 [11]
Gelam
(Malaysia)		 32.886 ± 0.780 15.681 82.529± 5.032
Acacia
(Malaysia)		 30.741 ± 2.886 29.846 82.386 ± 5.930
Multiflora
(Bednja, Croatia)		 N/D Colorimetric method N/D 28.05 ± 0.47
(mg/g)		 11.94 ± 0.71 N/A 398.02 ± 36.87
(mM of Fe(II) in 10% honey solution.		 TFC with DPPHIC50:
r = 0.4272
TFC with FRAP:
r = 0.7062		 [39]
TH1 Multifloral
(Malaysia)		 Apis dorsata Colorimetric method with LC-ESI-MS/MS Chrysin, Kaempferol, 64.72 ± 11.4
(mg CE/kg)		 N/A ND ND TFC with DPPH %
r = 0.922, p < 0.01		 [20]
TH2 Multifloral
(Malaysia)		 Catechin, Apigenin, Chrysin, quercetin-3-O-rutinosid 18.393 ± 2.41
KH1 Unifloral
(Malaysia)		 Trigona Apigenin, Chrysin, Kaempferol, quercetin-3-O-rutinosid 22.809 ± 0.79
(mg CE/kg)		 TFC with DPPH %
r = 0.936, p < 0.01
KH2 Multifloral
(Malaysia)		 Catechin, Apigenin, Chrysin, Kaempferol, quercetin-3-O-rutinosid, 23.528 ± 0.06
(mg CE/kg)
Open in a new tab

RP: reversed phase, HPLC: high performance liquid chromatography, UV-VIS: ultraviolet/visible light detector, DAD: diode-array detection, UPLC; ultra-performance liquid chromatography, MS: mass spectroscopy, LC: liquid chromatography, ESI: electrospray ionization.

Sousa et al. [47] found a stronger relationship between these two variables in Brazilian honey (r = 0.9377, p < 0.01). Monofloral honey from Jandaira, Brazil, had the highest RSA (46.9 ± 1.9% RSA), with a TFC content of 4.2 ± 0.6 mg GAE/100 g.

A-Farsi [45] investigated Omani honey and found a TFC relationship with DPPHIC50 at r = −0.616. However, Saric et al. [39] observed contradictory results when using two different assays. The correlation between TFC and FRAP assays was higher (r = 0.7062), signaling a flavonoid compound attribution towards the FRAP analysis. However, when evaluating TFC and DPPHIC50, the relationship was positive, with a relationship coefficient of 0.4272.

Nascimento et al. [36] stated that there was a relationship between TFC and DPPHIC50, without stating whether it was positive or negative. However, the authors reported a strong relationship between TFC and FRAP values (r = 0.8435, p < 0.005), with Mastic honey being quantified with the highest values of both of these variables.

In the case of Ranneh et al. [20], they observed a significant relationship between TFC of Kelulut (Trigona) and Tualang (Apis dorsata) honey with DPPH % (r = 0.922 and r = 0.936, respectively, p < 0.01), but not with ABTS assay. Kelulut honey had the highest TFC, with 101.5 ± 11.4 mgCE/kg. Overall, the authors concluded that Kelulut honey has a stronger antioxidant capacity than Tualang honey.

6. Conclusions

This review paper has established correlations between vitamin, total phenolic, and flavonoid contents with the antioxidant activities in vitro. Data on the relationship between vitamins and antioxidant activities are scarce, but based on the available reports, vitamins do not contribute to honey’s antioxidant capacity. Although vitamins are well-known antioxidant molecules, their presence in minute amounts could not provide a substantial contribution towards honey’s antioxidant activity. On the other hand, total phenolic and flavonoid contents are associated with antioxidant activities in vitro. The phenolic compounds are influenced by several factors, including geographical location, botanical origin, type of phenolic compounds, storage duration, and processing method. In addition, because there is no standardized method for measuring honey’s antioxidant activity, comparisons between studies are difficult, especially when the expressed units are different (i.e., TPC content and FRAP values). Thus, it is recommended to establish a standard to measure honey’s antioxidant capacity, in order to obtain reliable data that can be compared across various studies. This review focused on in vitro antioxidant studies. Naturally, there are limitations to these results, as it does not consider the physiological parameters that can be observed in in vivo settings. The bioavailability and the synergistic/antagonistic effect between these compounds in humans are still vague. However, the strong correlation seen in this review provides fundamental information that phenolic compounds in honey do have positive effects on antioxidant activity. The in vitro studies are increasing rapidly and the in vivo studies are also catching up. More clinical research should instead be done to validate honey as an alternative medicine based on its antioxidant potential.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.Z.; methodology, N.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, N.Z., P.J.C., N.N.M.T., N.S.S.A.; writing—review and editing, N.Z., S.M.M., N.I. and A.Z.J.; supervision, N.Z.; project administration, N.Z.; funding acquisition, N.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Malaysian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, International Collaboration Fund (ICF) Project No. IF0720A1249 and The APC was funded by Universiti Putra Malaysia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Abou-Shaara H. The origin of honey bees, life: A viewpoint. [(accessed on 29 April 2021)];Artic. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 2015 3:239–241. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305721731. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Pasupuleti V.R., Sammugam L., Ramesh N., Gan S.H. Honey, Propolis, and Royal Jelly: A Comprehensive Review of Their Biological Actions and Health Benefits. Oxid. Med. Cell. Longev. 2017;2017:1–21. doi: 10.1155/2017/1259510. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Birben E., Sahiner U.M., Sackesen C., Erzurum S., Kalayci O. Oxidative stress and antioxidant defense. World Allergy Organ. J. 2012;1:9–19. doi: 10.1097/WOX.0b013e3182439613. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.James O.O., Mesubi M.A., Usman L.A., Yeye S.O., Ajanaku K.O., Ogunniran K.O., Ajani O.O., Siyanbola T.O. Physical characterisation of some honey samples from North-central Nigeria. Int. J. Phys. Sci. 2009;4:464–470. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Cheung Y., Meenu M., Yu X., Xu B. Phenolic acids and flavonoids profiles of commercial honey from different floral sources and geographic sources. Int. J. Food Prop. 2019;22:290–308. doi: 10.1080/10942912.2019.1579835. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Khalil M.I., Sulaiman S.A., Boukraa L. Antioxidant Properties of Honey and Its Role in Preventing Health Disorder. Open Nutraceuticals J. 2010;3:6–16. doi: 10.2174/18763960010030100006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Nayik G.A., Suhag Y., Majid I., Nanda V. Discrimination of high altitude Indian honey by chemometric approach according to their antioxidant properties and macro minerals. J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci. 2018;17:200–207. doi: 10.1016/j.jssas.2016.04.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Maurya S., Kushwaha A.K., Singh S., Singh G. An overview on antioxidative potential of honey from different flora and geographical origins. Indian J. Nat. Prod. Resour. 2014;5:9–19. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Beretta G., Granata P., Ferrero M., Orioli M., Facino R.M. Standardization of antioxidant properties of honey by a combination of spectrophotometric/fluorimetric assays and chemometrics. Anal. Chim. Acta. 2004;533:185–191. doi: 10.1016/j.aca.2004.11.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ahn M.R., Kumazawa S., Usui Y., Nakamura J., Matsuka M., Zhu F., Nakayama T. Antioxidant activity and constituents of propolis collected in various areas of China. Food Chem. 2007;101:1383–1392. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.03.045. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Chua L.S., Rahaman N.L.A., Adnan N.A., Eddie Tan T.T. Antioxidant activity of three honey samples in relation with their biochemical components. J. Anal. Methods Chem. 2013;2013:1–8. doi: 10.1155/2013/313798. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Baroni M.V., Podio N.S., Badini R.G., Inga M., Ostera H.A., Cagnoni M., Gautier E.A., García P.P., Hoogewerff J., Wunderlin D.A. Linking soil, water, and honey composition to assess the geographical origin of Argentinean honey by multielemental and isotopic analyses. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2015;63:4638–4645. doi: 10.1021/jf5060112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Li S., Chen G., Zhang C., Wu M., Wu S., Liu Q. Research progress of natural antioxidants in foods for the treatment of diseases. Food Sci. Hum. Wellness. 2010;3:110–116. doi: 10.1016/j.fshw.2014.11.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Nielsen S.S. Food Analysis. 4th ed. Springer; New York, NY, USA: 2010. Vitamin Analysis; pp. 181–199. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Combarros-Fuertes P., Estevinho L.M., Dias L.G., Castro J.M., Tomás-Barberán F.A., Tornadijo M.E., Fresno-Baro J.M. Bioactive Components and Antioxidant and Antibacterial Activities of Different Varieties of Honey: A Screening Prior to Clinical Application. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2019;67:688–698. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.8b05436. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Aazza S., Lyoussi B., Antunes D., Miguel M.G. Physicochemical characterization and antioxidant activity of commercial portuguese honeys. J. Food Sci. 2013;78:1159–1165. doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.12201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Alvarez-Suarez J.M., Giampieri F., Brenciani A., Mazzoni L., Gasparrini M., González-Paramás A.M., Santos-Buelga C., Morroni G., Simoni S., Forbes-Hernández T.Y., et al. Apis mellifera vs. Melipona beecheii Cuban polifloral honeys: A comparison based on their physicochemical parameters, chemical composition and biological properties. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2018;87:272–279. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2017.08.079. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Perna A., Intaglietta I., Simonetti A., Gambacorta E. A comparative study on phenolic profile, vitamin C content and antioxidant activity of Italian honeys of different botanical origin. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2013;48:1899–1908. doi: 10.1111/ijfs.12169. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Kishore R.K., Halim A.S., Syazana M.N., Sirajudeen K.N.S. Tualang honey has higher phenolic content and greater radical scavenging activity compared with other honey sources. Nutr. Res. 2011;31:322–325. doi: 10.1016/j.nutres.2011.03.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kishore R.K., Halim A.S., Syazana M.N., Sirajudeen K.N.S. Malaysian stingless bee and Tualang honeys: A comparative characterization of total antioxidant capacity and phenolic profile using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2018;89:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2017.10.020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kaygusuz H., Tezcan F., Erim F.B., Yildiz O., Sahin H., Can Z., Kolayli S. Characterization of Anatolian honeys based on minerals, bioactive components and principal component analysis. LWT Food Sci. Technol.. 2016;68:273–279. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2015.12.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ferreira I.C., Aires E., Barreira J.C., Estevinho L.M. Antioxidant activity of Portuguese honey samples: Different contributions of the entire honey and phenolic extract. Food Chem. 2009;114:1438–1443. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.11.028. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kesić A., Mazalović M., Crnkić A., Ćatović B., Hadžidedic Š., Dragošević G. The influence of L-ascorbic acid content on total antioxidant activity of bee-honey. [(accessed on 29 April 2021)];Eur. J. Sci. Res. 2009 32:96–102. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259226307_The_influence_of_L-ascorbic_acid_content_on_total_antioxidant_activity_of_bee-honey. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Nagai T., Kai N., Tanoue Y., Suzuki N. Chemical properties of commercially available honey species and the functional properties of caramelization and Maillard reaction products derived from these honey species. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2018;55:586–597. doi: 10.1007/s13197-017-2968-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Dumbrava D.G., Bordean D.M., Raba D.N., Druga M., Moldovan C., Popa M.V. Antioxidant Properties and Other Physicochemical Characteristics of Some Honey Varieties from West Romanian Area; Proceedings of the 13th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference of Modern Management of Mine Producing, Geology and Environmental Protection (SGEM 2013); Albena, Bulgaria. 16–22 June 2013; [(accessed on 29 April 2021)]. pp. 101–108. Available online: http://toc.proceedings.com/19963webtoc.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Islam A., Khalil I., Islam N., Moniruzzaman M., Mottalib A., Sulaiman S.A., Gan S.H. Physicochemical and antioxidant properties of Bangladeshi honeys stored for more than one year. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2012;12:1–10. doi: 10.1186/1472-6882-12-177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Karabagias I.K., Maia M., Karabagias V.K., Gatzias I., Badeka A.V. Characterization of eucalyptus, chestnut and heather honeys from Portugal using multi-parameter analysis and chemo-calculus. Foods. 2018;7:194. doi: 10.3390/foods7120194. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Karabagias I.K., Karabournioti S., Karabagias V.K., Badeka A.V. Palynological, physico-chemical and bioactivity parameters determination, of a less common Greek honeydew honey: ‘dryomelo’. Food Control. 2020;109:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2019.106940. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Agus A., Agussalim N., Umami N., Budisatria I.G.S. Evaluation of antioxidant activity, phenolic, flavonoid and Vitamin C content of several honeys produced by the Indonesian stingless bee: Tetragonula laeviceps. [(accessed on 29 April 2021)];Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 2019 31:1–8. Available online: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd31/10/aguss31152.html. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bundit T., Anothai T., Pattaramart P., Roongpet T., Chuleeporn S. Comparison of antioxidant contents of Thai Honeys to Manuka Honey. [(accessed on 29 April 2021)];Malays. J. Nutr. 2016 22:413–420. Available online: https://nutriweb.org.my/mjn/publication/22-4/i.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Cosme P., Rodríguez A.B., Espino J., Garrido M. Plant phenolics: Bioavailability as a key determinant of their potential health-promoting applications. Antioxidants. 2020;9:1263. doi: 10.3390/antiox9121263. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Cianciosi D., Forbes-Hernández T.Y., Afrin S., Gasparrini M., Reboredo-Rodriguez P., Manna P.P., Zhang J., Bravo Lamas L., Martínez Flórez S., Agudo Toyos P., et al. Phenolic compounds in honey and their associated health benefits: A review. Molecules. 2018;23:2322. doi: 10.3390/molecules23092322. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Khoddami A., Wilkes M.A., Roberts T.H. Techniques for analysis of plant phenolic compounds. Molecules. 2013;18:2328–2375. doi: 10.3390/molecules18022328. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Lianda R.L., Sant’Ana L.D.O., Echevarria A., Castro R.N. Antioxidant activity and phenolic composition of Brazilian honeys and their extracts. J. Braz. Chem. Soc. 2012;23:618–627. doi: 10.1590/S0103-50532012000400006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.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]
  • 36.do Nascimento K.S., Sattler J.A.G., Macedo L.F.L., González C.V.S., de Melo I.L.P., da Silva Araújo E., Granato D., Sattler A., de Almeida-Muradian L.B. Phenolic compounds, antioxidant capacity and physicochemical properties of Brazilian Apis mellifera honeys. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2017;91:85–94. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2018.01.016. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Khalil M.I., Alam N., Moniruzzaman M., Sulaiman S.A., Gan S.H. Phenolic Acid Composition and Antioxidant Properties of Malaysian Honeys. J. Food Sci. 2011;76:921–928. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2011.02282.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Ibrahimi H., Hajdari A. Phenolic and flavonoid content, and antioxidant activity of honey from Kosovo. J. Apic. Res. 2020;59:452–457. doi: 10.1080/00218839.2020.1714194. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Šarić G., Marković K., Major N., Krpan M., Uršulin-Trstenjak N., Hruškar M., Vahčić N. Changes of antioxidant activity and phenolic content in acacia and multifloral honey during storage. Food Technol. Biotechnol. 2012;50:434–441. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Neilson A.P., Goodrich K.M., Ferruzzi M.G. Nutrition in the Prevention and Treatment of Disease. 4th ed. Elsevier Inc.; San Diego, CA, USA: 2017. Bioavailability and metabolism of bioactive compounds from foods; pp. 301–320. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Kumar S., Pandey A.K. Chemistry and Biological Activities of Flavonoids: An Overview. Sci. World J. 2013:1–16. doi: 10.1155/2013/162750. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Kumar V., Suman U., Yadav S.K. Flavonoid secondary metabolite: Biosynthesis and role in growth and development in plants. Recent Trends Tech. Plant. Metab. Eng. 2018:19–45. doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-2251-8_2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Panche A.N., Diwan A.D., Chandra S.R. Flavonoids: An overview. J. Nutr. Sci. 2016;5:1–15. doi: 10.1017/jns.2016.41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Sousa J.M., De Souza E.L., Marques G., Meireles B., de Magalhães Cordeiro Â.T., Gullón B., Pintado M.M., Magnani M. Polyphenolic profile and antioxidant and antibacterial activities of monofloral honeys produced by Meliponini in the Brazilian semiarid region. Food Res. Int. 2016;84:61–68. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2016.03.012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Al-Farsi M., Al-Amri A., Al-Hadhrami A., Al-Belushi S. Color, flavonoids, phenolics and antioxidants of Omani honey. Heliyon. 2018;4:00874. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00874. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Mabry T.J., Markham K.R., Thomas M.B. The Systematic Identification of Flavonoids. Springer; New York, NY, USA: 1970. The Ultraviolet Spectra of Flavones and Flavonols; p. 51. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Dutra R.P., Abreu B.V.D.B., Cunha M.S., Batista M.C.A., Torres L.M.B., Nascimento F.R.F., Ribeiro M.N.S., Guerra R.N.M. Phenolic acids, hydrolyzable tannins, and antioxidant activity of geopropolis from the stingless bee melipona fasciculata smith. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014;62:2549–2557. doi: 10.1021/jf404875v. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Molecules are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES