Quality of honeys from different botanical origins

Maria Cecília Evangelista Vasconcelos Schiassi; Vanessa Rios de Souza; Amanda Maria Teixeira Lago; Gabriel Ribeiro Carvalho; Paula Nogueira Curi; Angélica Sousa Guimarães; Fabiana Queiroz

doi:10.1007/s13197-020-04884-7

. 2020 Nov 6;58(11):4167–4177. doi: 10.1007/s13197-020-04884-7

Quality of honeys from different botanical origins

Maria Cecília Evangelista Vasconcelos Schiassi ^1,^✉, Vanessa Rios de Souza ¹, Amanda Maria Teixeira Lago ¹, Gabriel Ribeiro Carvalho ¹, Paula Nogueira Curi ², Angélica Sousa Guimarães ¹, Fabiana Queiroz ¹

PMCID: PMC8405766 PMID: 34538901

Graphic abstract

Botanical origin is one of the principal factors influencing the composition and quality of honey. This study aimed to evaluate different single-flower (assa-peixe, coffee, eucalyptus, laranjeira, and vassourinha), polyfloral (silvestre), extrafloral (sugarcane), and honeydew (bracatinga) honeys with regard to their chemical, physicochemical, and physical properties; rheological behavior; bioactive compounds; and antioxidant activity. In addition, we assessed their sensory characteristics using the acceptance test and the check-all-that-apply test (CATA). All honeys were compliant with current legislation and presented Newtonian behavior. The honeys of assa-peixe, laranjeira, and coffee presented the highest viscosity, sugarcane honey showed the highest antioxidant activity, and the bracatinga honey had the highest phenolic compound content. With respect to sensory characteristics, floral honeys presented higher acceptability than did honeydew and extrafloral honeys, because honey from honeydew was negatively influenced by its bitter, alcoholic, and astringent taste and extrafloral honey by its burnt smell. These findings indicate that the botanical origin directly influences the characteristics of honeys and can be considered a factor for their differentiation.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s13197-020-04884-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Keywords: Antioxidant, CATA, Honey, Rheology, Sensory analysis

Introduction

Honey is a natural, sweet product obtained from nectar collected from flowers (floral honeys) and secretions from living parts of plants or excretions produced by sap-sucking insects (honeydew honeys). Typically, the bees mix the collected plant compounds with salivary gland secretions and store the mixed product in the honeycomb for maturation (Zheng et al. 2019). In Brazil, bees also produce sugarcane honey, an extrafloral honey produced from sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) sap that is secreted from cane straw after being cut (Barth 2004). The quality, composition, color, and sensory characteristics of honey depend mainly on the bee species involved in its production, source (floral, extrafloral, and/or honeydew), geographical origin, climatic conditions, processing, and storage (Silva et al. 2016a).

Honeys of floral origin and coming from the nectar of flowers of a single plant species are called monofloral honeys. These include assa-peixe (Vernonia polysphaera), coffee (Coffea spp.), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), laranjeira (Citrus sinensis) and vassourinha (Baccharis spp.). Honeys originating from multiple floral sources are called polyfloral honeys, such as the silvestre honey (Kadri et al. 2016), and their compositions are affected by the floral sources. Honeydew honeys such as bracatinga (Mimosa scabrella Bentham) honey are produced from honeydew and have become well-known and valued by consumers and the food industry (Azevedo et al. 2017). In addition to these honeys, there are extrafloral (sugar cane) honeys, which are characterized by their dark color and high sucrose content (Barth 2004).

Honey produced by honeybees Apis spp. is the most popular and is commercially available honey worldwide. It is considered a healthy food with high nutritional value and presents a variety of beneficial biological activities (Zheng et al. 2019). Brazil has a high potential for the production of honey, since it has diverse flora, varied climatic conditions, and wide territorial extension, all of which facilitate round-the-year production of honeys with different compositions and characteristics.

The global honey production in 2017 was approximately 1,860,712 t. In the same year, China was responsible for 29% of this production and topped the list of countries with the highest production followed by the European Union (12%), Turkey (6%) and Argentina (4%). Brazil produced approximately 42,000 t and was 12th in the world ranking (FAO 2019).

The Brazilian state Minas Gerais is the third largest honey producer in the country and had a production of 4900 t in 2016. The data indicate that its share in national production grew from 10 to 12.39% between 2002 and 2016. This number is growing because its native vegetation and climatic conditions allow the production of high-quality honey, making apiculture a highlight of the agribusiness in this region (IBGE 2016).

In this scenario, a variety of honey samples with different characteristics and compositions have been identified throughout Brazil. As the composition directly influences the final properties of honey, it is considered a quality indicator and determinant of honey acceptability. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the composition of the honeys available in the market. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the chemical, physicochemical, and physical properties; rheological behavior; bioactive compounds; antioxidant activity; and sensory characteristics of different single-flower (assa-peixe, coffee, eucalyptus, laranjeira, and vassourinha), polyfloral (silvestre), extrafloral (sugarcane), and honeydew (bracatinga) honeys produced in the state of Minas Gerais.

Materials and methods

Honey samples

The honeys of assa-peixe (Vernonia polysphaera), bracatinga (Mimosa scabrella Bentham), coffee (Coffea spp.), sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), laranjeira (Citrus sinensis) silvestre, and vassourinha (Baccharis spp.) were obtained, in three different batches, from an apiary located in the municipality of São Lourenço, Minas Gerais (MG), Brazil. As reported by the manufacturer, all honeys were collected (vintage of 2018), centrifuged, filtered, packed in 300 g transparent polyethylene tubes, then stored under environmental conditions. The authenticity of the botanical origin of honeys can be confirmed, since the products are inspected and registered in accordance with the current regulations (BRASIL 2000).

Chemical, physicochemical and physical analysis

Moisture content was determined using a portable refractometer (RT 280 model, Instrutherm, São Paulo, SP, Brazil) (AOAC 2012) and the refractive index was determined and converted into moisture content using the reference table (Chataway); the results were expressed as a percentage. The ash content was evaluated by the gravimetric method, following incineration of the samples in a muffle furnace heated to 600 °C (AOAC 2012).

Electrical conductivity in solutions of honey samples diluted in deionized water at 20% (w/v) was measured at 20 °C using a conductivity meter (NT-CVM model, Novatecnica, São Paulo, SP, Brazil), and the results were expressed in µS/cm (Bogdanov 2009). Water activity was measured in Aqualab (CX2 T model, Decagon Devices Inc., Pullman, USA) at 25 ± 0.3 °C.

The determination of pH, acidity (free, lactonic, and total), and soluble solids was performed according to methodology described by AOAC (2012). Total acidity was obtained by summing free and lactonic acidity. For free acidity analysis, 10 g of sample was weighed and diluted in 75 mL of water, the free acidity was then determined by titration with 0.05 N NaOH until the solution reached a pH of 8.5. The lactonic acidity was obtained by adding 10 mL of 0.05 N NaOH to the previous solution and then titrating with 0.05 N HCl until the pH returned to 8.3.

Reducing sugars, totals and apparent sucrose were determined based on the method proposed by Somogyi-Nelson (Maldonade et al. 2013). Absorbance was measured using a spectrophotometer (VIS 325–1000 nm, Biospectro SP-22 model, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil) at a wavelength of 510 nm, and the results were expressed as a percentage (%).

Quantitative analysis of hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF)—White's reaction and determination of diastatic activity were performed according to the recommendation of the Harmonized Methods of the European Honey Commission (Bogdanov 2009). For HMF analysis, 5 g of honey was dissolved in 25 mL of distilled water, mixed with clarifying agent (Carrez I and Carrez II), and filtered. The absorbance readings were obtained using a spectrophotometer at 284 and 336 nm, and the results were expressed in mg of HMF/kg of honey. For the analysis of diastatic activity, a buffered solution of soluble starch and honey were incubated at 40 °C in a thermostatic bath. Subsequently, 0.5 mL was removed from this mixture every 5 min, and sample absorption at 660 nm was monitored until the absorbance value was less than 0.235. The result was expressed using the Gothe scale.

The color was analyzed using an instrumental colorimeter (CM5 model, Konica Minolta Spectrophotometer, São Paulo, SP, Brazil), operating on the CIELab color system. The parameters L* (luminosity; values ranging from 0 for pure black surfaces to 100 for pure white surfaces), C* (saturation), and h° (hue) were evaluated.

Rheological behavior

Rheological behavior was determined at 20 °C in a Brookfield concentric cylinder rotational rheometer (DV III Ultra Brookfield model, Brookfield Engineering Laboratories, Stoughton, USA) using the SCA-29 spindle. For the stabilization of temperature, a Brookfield thermostatic bath (EX 200 model, Brookfield Engineering Laboratories) was coupled to the jacketed cylinder. Each sample was submitted to an increasing deformation rate ramp (0–30 s⁻¹) over a course of 6 min, and a total of 18 points were recorded. Newton's Law (Eq. 1), Power Law (Eq. 2), and Herschel-Bulkley (Eq. 3) models were adjusted for the experimental data.

σ = μ \dot{γ}

σ = k {\dot{γ}}^{n}

σ = σ_{o} + k {\dot{γ}}^{n}

where σ is the shear stress (Pa), $μ$ is the Newtonian viscosity (Pa·s), $\dot{γ}$ is the shear rate (s⁻¹), $k$ is the consistency index (Pa·sⁿ), n is the flow behavior index (dimensionless), and $σ_{0}$ is the yield stress (Pa).

Antioxidant activity and total phenolic compounds

The extracts for the antioxidant activity and phenolic compounds analyses were prepared based on the method developed by Larrauri et al. (1997). The total phenolic content was estimated according to the Folin-Ciocalteu method (Waterhouse 2002), and the absorbance at 750 nm was measured using a spectrophotometer (VIS 325–1000 nm, Biospectro SP-22 model, São Paulo, SP, Brazil). The results were expressed as mg of gallic acid equivalents per 100 g fresh weight (mg GAEs/100 g f.w.).

The ABTS (2,2′-azino-bis-(3-ethylbenzenothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) method was performed as described by Re et al. (1999). Briefly, spectrophotometric readings were obtained at a wavelength of 734 nm and the results expressed in micromoles of Trolox-equivalent per gram fresh weight (μM TEs/g f.w.). The DPPH (2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl) free radical scavenging capacity was evaluated based on the method of Brand-Williams et al. (1995). Absorbance readings were obtained at 515 nm using a spectrophotometer and the results expressed in EC₅₀ (g f.w./g DPPH).

Sensory analysis

A total of 100 untrained tasters, who claimed to consume honey regularly, were randomly recruited (71 women and 29 men; age range, 18–60 years). Each participant evaluated eight honey samples in 2 sessions (4 samples per session). Samples (approximately 15 mL) were offered in 50 mL disposable plastic cups, coded with 3-digit numbers and presented in a random order. The 9-point hedonic scale (1 = extremely disliked; 9 = extremely liked) was used to evaluate the attributes color, smell, taste, consistency, and overall liking (Stone et al. 2012).

Following the acceptance test, the check-all-that-apply (CATA) test was conducted. Herein, consumers were instructed to indicate which attributes best described each sample in relation to the appearance, smell, taste and consistency attributes in this order (Meyners and Castura 2014). The following terms were used for each parameter: (I) appearance (yellow, brown, translucent, bright, opaque, and presence of bubbles), (II) smell (sweet, floral, burned, caramelized, herbs, propolis, and molasses), (III) taste (sweet taste, bitter taste, fruity, floral, alcoholic, propolis, rapadura, herbs, wax, refreshing, and astringent), and (IV) consistency (creamy, liquid, viscous, velvety, consistent, and smooth). These terms were selected by a focus group including a team of tasters experienced in sensory evaluations. The project was approved by the local Ethics Committee (No. 2.551.551).

Statistical analysis

Results were evaluated by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a mean test (Tukey, p ≤ 0.05). Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was applied to the chemical, physicochemical, and physical properties in order to facilitate data visualization. The data were arranged in an array of i lines (8 samples) and j columns (19 parameters) and standardized (correlation matrix). The data from the mean test and the PCA were analyzed using the software SensoMaker v. 1.91 (UFLA, Lavras, MG, Brasil, 2017).

The rheological models were adjusted for the experimental data of the flow curves using the Statistical Analysis System statistical package (SAS University Edition, Cary, USA, 2016), the graph was plotted using the SigmaPlot 11.0 software (Systat Software Inc., California, USA, 2008).

For a better understanding and visualization of the sensory acceptance of the samples, the data were evaluated by multivariate analysis using the three-way internal preference map obtained by PARAFAC (Nunes et al. 2011) with the Sensomaker v. 1.91 software. A three-way array was arranged from stacked matrices (consumer x samples) of the acceptance attributes. Each individual acceptance matrix of the consumer acceptance attributes was standardized (correlation matrix).

In the CATA data analysis, the citation frequency of each attribute was determined by counting the citation frequency of each attribute for each sample to obtain a contingency matrix. To verify significant differences between samples for each attribute, Cochran's Q test was applied with the aid of the R Core Team software (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2018). Then, using Sensomaker version 1.8, the correspondence analysis (CA) was calculated for the matrix containing the citation frequency of the attributes that showed significant differences in the Cochran Q test, in order to determine the spatial configuration of attributes as well as the samples (Meyners and Castura 2014).

Results and discussion

Physicochemical and physical analysis

Table 1 shows the mean values for the chemical, physicochemical, and physical properties, as well as the color values determined for the different honeys. The samples differed from each other (p ≤ 0.05) for all evaluated attributes. The parameters used as reference for honey quality indices were based on the Technical Regulation of Honey Identity and Quality (BRASIL 2000) and in International Law (Codex Alimentarius 2001).

Table 1.

Chemical, physicochemical and physical properties of the different honeys

Analysis	Single-flower honeys						Polyfloral honey	Honeydew honey	Extrafloral honey
Chemical	Legislation	Assa-Peixe	Coffee	Eucalyptus	Laranjeira	Vassourinha	Silvestre	Bracatinga	Sugarcane
Moisture¹	≤ 20	16.13 ± 0.23^c	17.00 ± 0.60^bc	18.40 ± 0.35^a	16.13 ± 0.23^c	18.40 ± 0.35^a	18.20 ± 0.35^a	18.20 ± 0.35^a	17.53 ± 0.50^ab
Ash²	≤ 0.6	0.04 ± 0.02^d	0.09 ± 0.02^d	0.33 ± 0.02^b	0.05 ± 0.00^d	0.27 ± 0.03^c	0.34 ± 0.02^b	0.37 ± 0.03^b	0.59 ± 0.02^a
Physicochemical
Electric conductivity³	≤ 800	271.27 ± 1.20^g	402.80 ± 0.20^f	873.23 ± 1.00^b	235.13 ± 0.75^h	539.73 ± 2.14^e	767.57 ± 2.39^c	728.37 ± 2.65^d	1512.67 ± 2.52^a
pH	–	4.02 ± 0.00^g	4.14 ± 0.00^f	4.44 ± 0.00^c	4.39 ± 0.00^d	3.98 ± 0.00^h	4.19 ± 0.00^e	5.14 ± 0.00^a	4.60 ± 0.00^b
Free acidity¹ (FA)	≤ 50	14.31 ± 0.26^e	16.30 ± 0.13^d	17.23 ± 0.53^d	9.14 ± 0.13^g	29.55 ± 0.40^b	22.26 ± 0.80^c	10.65 ± 0.74^f	42.40 ± 0.27^a
Lactone acidity (LA)	–	8.00 ± 0.50^b	13.50 ± 0.50^a	7.83 ± 0.38^b	4.17 ± 0.38^d	2.75 ± 0.25^e	3.75 ± 0.25^de	5.92 ± 0.38^c	6.42 ± 0.52^c
Total acidity (TA)	–	22.31 ± 0.67^e	29.80 ± 0.45^c	25.06 ± 0.91^d	13.31 ± 0.51^g	32.30 ± 0.57^b	26.01 ± 0.95^d	16.57 ± 0.94^f	48.82 ± 0.78^a
Soluble solids (SS)	–	81.83 ± 0.29^a	81.00 ± 0.50^ab	79.67 ± 0.29^c	81.83 ± 0.29^a	79.50 ± 0.50^c	79.83 ± 0.29^c	79.83 ± 0.29^c	80.50 ± 0.50^bc
Aw	–	0.55 ± 0.00^ef	0.56 ± 0.00^cd	0.58 ± 0.00^b	0.54 ± 0.00^f	0.60 ± 0.00^a	0.55 ± 0.00^de	0.58 ± 0.00^b	0.56 ± 0.00^c
Total sugar	–	73.53 ± 0.24^a	69.24 ± 0.72^de	71.38 ± 0.88^bc	70.92 ± 0.90^bcd	68.55 ± 0.42^e	70.40 ± 0.98^cde	71.22 ± 0.92^bcd	72.67 ± 0.57^ab
Reducing sugar¹	≥ 65	68.90 ± 0.69^a	66.70 ± 0.41^b	67.06 ± 0.48^ab	65.96 ± 0.89^b	66.26 ± 0.50^b	66.99 ± 0.98^ab	65.98 ± 0.81^b	68.77 ± 0.70^a
Sucrose¹	≤ 5–6	4.40 ± 0.53^a	2.41 ± 0.35^bc	4.10 ± 0.58^ab	4.71 ± 0.60^a	2.18 ± 0.17^c	3.24 ± 0.50^abc	4.98 ± 1.42^a	3.71 ± 0.24^abc
Hydroxymethylfurfural¹	≤ 40	3.27 ± 0.24^f	16.04 ± 0.65^d	18.45 ± 1.05^d	8.55 ± 0.84^e	22.98 ± 1.34^c	26.84 ± 1.12^b	10.48 ± 1.07^e	35.36 ± 0.55^a
Diastase activity¹	≥ 8	8.57 ± 0.00^e	8.57 ± 0.00^e	10.00 ± 0.00^d	12.00 ± 0.00^c	10.00 ± 0.00^d	15.00 ± 0.00^b	20.00 ± 0.00^a	20.00 ± 0.00^a
Physical
L^*	–	10.11 ± 0.55^d	17.59 ± 0.58^a	10.93 ± 0.29^cd	10.90 ± 0.41^cd	11.66 ± 0.22^c	14.23 ± 0.29^b	8.46 ± 0.30^e	14.46 ± 0.02^b
C^*	–	3.69 ± 0.19^e	6.24 ± 0.17^b	6.64 ± 0.17^b	2.25 ± 0.28^f	7.30 ± 0.29^a	7.62 ± 0.26^a	5.40 ± 0.29^c	4.58 ± 0.13^d
h°	–	125.14 ± 0.87^a	104.34 ± 0.85^bc	105.04 ± 0.76^b	123.06 ± 0.84^a	95.13 ± 0.78^d	92.53 ± 0.88^e	72.57 ± 0.86^e	60.05 ± 0.94^f

Open in a new tab

Mean value ± standard deviation based of honey weight; n = 3. Means followed by the same lowercase letters in the line do not differ by the Tukey test (p > 0.05). Moisture (%), Ash (%), Electric conductivity (µS/cm), Free acidity, Lactone acidity, Total acidity (meq/kg), Soluble solids (ºBrix), Total reducing sugar, Total sugar, Sucrose (%); Hydroxymethylfurfural (mg/kg) and Diastase activity (°Gothe)

¹Legislation: Brasil (2000) and Codex Alimentarius (2001);

²Legislation: Brasil (2000);

³Legislation: Codex Alimentarius (2001)

The honeys presented moisture content ranging from 16.13 (assa-peixe and laranjeira) to 18.40% (eucalyptus and vassourinha) (Table 1), suggesting that they had good maturation and are within the maximum allowed limit by legislation (BRASIL 2000; Codex Alimentarius 2001). Bracatinga, eucalyptus, silvestre, and vassourinha honeys did not differ statistically. Similar results have been reported by Bergamo et al. (2018) for bracatinga honeydew honeys (15.20–18.40%) and floral honeys (16.00–19.98%). The variation in moisture content observed among the samples is due to environmental factors and the degree of maturity reached in the hive (Kahraman et al. 2010).

Ash content depends on the composition of the honey and is a direct measure of the inorganic residue after carbonization (Estevinho et al. 2012). In the analyzed samples, ash content ranged from 0.04 (assa-peixe) to 0.59% (sugarcane). Previously, Ribeiro et al. (2014) also reported the ash content in assa-peixe (0.04%), eucalyptus (0.33%), laranjeira (0.05%), and silvestre (0.34%) honeys. In comparison, the ash content observed in this study was lower in assa-peixe honey (0.19%), higher in eucalyptus honey (0.12%), and similar comparable in laranjeira (0.09%) and silvestre (0.30%) honeys. This variation is mainly related to the soil in which the nectar-producing plant is cultivated and the properties of the material collected by bees during foraging (Finola et al. 2007).

For the electrical conductivity values, a wide variation was observed among the analyzed samples (Table 1), presenting results between 235.13 (laranjeira) and 1512.67 µS/cm (sugarcane). According to the Codex Alimentarius (2001), floral honeys must have electrical conductivity values ≤ 800 µS/cm, and in our study, only eucalyptus honey did not meet this criterion. Salvador et al. (2019) state that in addition to this variation being mainly due to botanical origin, it can also be due to the degree of dilution. Thus, according to the authors, adulteration of honey cannot be ruled out, since the addition of syrups prepared using water with high electrical conductivity can produce the same effect. A wide range of electrical conductivity in honeys of different floral origins has also been reported by Mendonça et al. (2008), who found a variation ranging from 227.30 to 1851.30 μS/cm.

In this study, the pH of the samples ranged from 3.98 (vassourinha) to 5.14 (bracatinga). These values are close to those found by Bergamo et al. (2018) when evaluating Brazilian honeys, where they reported pH variation between 3.80 and 5.29. Conditions during extraction and storage may affect honey pH, thereby influencing the stability, texture, and the product shelf life (Terrab et al. 2004). As described by Saxena et al. (2010), honey is usually acidic in nature, regardless of its geographical origin. Although there is no indication of pH in Brazilian legislation, it is considered an important parameter because it is an auxiliary variable indicating quality variation, such as fermentative processes or adulteration.

In the analyzed samples, the free acidity ranged from 9.14 (laranjeira) to 42.40 meq/kg (sugarcane); lactonic acidity, from 2.75 (vassourinha) to 13.50 meq/kg (coffee); and total acidity, from 13.30 (laranjeira) to 48.82 meq/kg (sugarcane). In this study, all samples presented levels below those established by the legislation, which indicates an absence of undesirable fermentation. Silva et al. (2009) reported similar results for free acidity (6.40–38.10 meq/kg), lactonic acidity (3.20–16.50 meq/kg), and total acidity (7.80–51.50 meq/kg) in honeys from the Luso region.

For soluble solids the samples ranged from 79.50 (vassourinha) to 81.83°Brix (assa-peixe and laranjeira), which is similar to those found by Saxena et al. (2010), who determined values between 76.20 and 80.40°Brix in Indian honeys. According to Sousa et al. (2016) honeys produced by Apis mellifera bees have a soluble solids content above 75°Brix. In this study, all samples presented superior results.

In honeys, the water activity (aw) ranged from 0.54 (laranjeira) to 0.60 (vassourinha). These values were very close to those of other Brazilian honeys (from 0.53 to 0.67) evaluated by Ribeiro et al. (2014). According to Escriche et al. (2017), an aw value of 0.60 indicates that these honeys have less free-state water and are, therefore, more stable with regards to microbial growth, as well as enzymatic and chemical reactions.

Total sugars ranged from 68.55 (vassourinha) to 73.53% (assa-peixe), reducing sugars from 65.96 (laranjeira) to 68.90% (assa-peixe), and sucrose from 2.18 (vassourinha) to 4.98% (bracatinga). In all samples, the values for reducing sugars and sucrose were within the standards established by legislation. The results for total and reducing sugars were similar to those reported by Mendonça et al. (2018) for honeys produced by Apis mellifera from the Brazilian cerrado (total sugars, 64.20–73.10%; reducing sugars, 60.90–71.50%). The results for sucrose were similar to those reported by Gomes et al. (2010) (3.40–6.70%).

Hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) content ranged from 3.27 (assa-peixe) to 35.36 mg/kg (sugarcane). In general, the samples showed low HMF content, with values within the range established by the legislation, indicating that almost all honeys were fresh. The temperature, heating time, and storage conditions are all factors that can influence the HMF content. In addition, this parameter is indicative of freshness of honeys as it tends to increase during processing and/or aging of the product (Kadri et al. 2016).

In all honeys, the diastatic activity ranged from 8.57 (assa-peixe and coffee) to 20.00°Gothe (bracatinga and sugarcane). Thus, all samples fall within the minimum level required by legislation, since they showed levels above 8.00°Gothe. As shown in Table 1, honeydew (bracatinga) and extrafloral (sugarcane) honeys did not show significant differences (p ≥ 0.05) and presented the highest diastatic activity values (20.00°Gothe).

The honeys analyzed presented L* values ranging from 8.46 (bracatinga) to 17.59 (coffee); C*, from 2.25 (laranjeira) to 7.62 (silvestre); and h°, from 60.05 (sugarcane) to 125.14 (assa-peixe). Coffee honey obtained the highest L* value, presenting a lighter color intensity, in relation to the other botanical origins, however, the sugarcane honey obtained the lowest value for the h° angle, characterizing it as more of an orange. Regarding parameter C*, silvestre honeys (7.62) and vassourinha (7.30) differed from the others (p ≤ 0.05) and are more opaque. For the h° angle, there was no significant difference (p ≥ 0.05) between the assa-peixe (125.14) and laranjeira (123.06) honeys, as both were characterized by a more yellow color.

Rheological behavior

Among the models used to describe the rheological behavior of the honeys, Newton's Law model (µ, viscosidade Newtoniana-Pa·s) presented the best adjustments for the experimental data, with a high coefficient of determination (R² ≥ 0.9991) and a low root mean square error (RMSE ≤ 0.8892). Silva et al. (2016b) noted in their study of Brazilian honeys from different states and literature that the rheological behavior of honeys is characterized as Newtonian at a temperature of 20 °C or above.

There was a significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) among the samples in relation to the µ values (Pa·s). Assa-peixe (27.21 ± 1.36 Pa·s) and laranjeira (25.42 ± 2.17 Pa·s) honeys, followed by coffee (19.65 ± 1.39 Pa·s), presented the highest viscosities, while sugarcane (15.23 ± 0.16 Pa·s), bracatinga (12.44 ± 0.29 Pa·s), eucalyptus (11.13 ± 0.55 Pa·s), and silvestre (10.05 ± 0.28 Pa·s) represented intermediate viscosities. Finally, vassourinha (7.48 ± 0.09 Pa·s) honeys demonstrated the lowest viscosities. The variation in viscosity among types of honeys occurs as a result of the natural variation in the composition of the final products, and are especially influenced by the moisture content because water can dilute food matrices (Oroian 2012; Escriche et al. 2017). PCA revealed that this behavior was representative of the data because the samples with a low moisture content presented the highest values for µ, and those with high moisture content, the lowest (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 — Principal Component Analysis (PCA) for the parameters chemical, physicochemical and physical of the different honeys. Soluble Solids (SS); Water activity (aw); Newtonian viscosity (μ); Hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF)

Figure 2 represents the relationship between viscosity (Pa·s) and shear rate (s⁻¹) for the tested honeys at 20 °C. The rheogram shows the linear trend of viscosity (regardless of the application time of shear stress and shear rate) for a given temperature, and the typical behavior of Newtonian fluids. Studies point to values between 7.80 and 37.80 (Pa·s) in Brazilian honeys (Silva et al. 2016b).

Fig. 2 — Relation between viscosity and shear rate of the different honeys described by the Newton Law model at 20 °C

Figure 1 presents the Principal Component Analysis (PCA), with the samples and attributes evaluated in the spatial distribution, facilitating visualization of the results. Through the visual analysis of the PCA, supported by the cluster analysis (data not shown), it can be seen that the honeys evaluated are quite distinct from each other, forming only two groups of two samples each, which are: silvestre honey and eucalyptus honeys (G1) and honey assa-peixe and laranjeira (G2). The rest have characteristics so variable that they are all grouped together.

Although the spatial distribution obtained is not clear with regards to which characteristics led to the greatest or least similarity between the honeys, it can be seen by the PCA (Fig. 1) and Table 1 that the vassourinha honey stands out for its higher C* (more opaque) and greater water activity. This honey, together with G1 (silvestre e eucalyptus) also stands out for its higher moisture. The bracatinga honey stood out for its lower value of L*, being generally darker than the other samples of honey. This honey also stood out for presenting an intermediate lactonic acidity compared with the others. In G2 (assa-peixe and laranjeira), it can be seen that the honeys are similar because they have a higher content of soluble solids and sucrose and higher values for the h° angle (more yellowish hue) (Fig. 1 and Table 1). In addition, both samples stand out from the others with higher viscosity values (Figs. 1, 2). Sugarcane honey, which clearly showed the greatest distinction among honeys, stood out for having a higher ash content, electrical conductivity, free and total acidity, total reducing sugar, HMF, and diastatic activity.

Antioxidant capacity and total phenolics

The mean values and standard deviation for antioxidant activity (ABTS and DPPH) and total phenolic compounds are presented in Table 2. Results show significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) among the honeys analyzed.

Table 2.

Antioxidant capacity (ABTS and DPPH) and total phenolic content of the different honeys

Samples	ABTS (μM TEs/g f. w.)	DPPH EC₅₀ (g f.w./g DPPH)	Total phenolics (mg GAEs/100 g f. w.)
Single-flower honeys
Assa-Peixe	24.06 ± 0.12^e	1834.25 ± 0.57^a	102.46 ± 1.51^d
Coffee	26.44 ± 0.40^ab	1698.97 ± 0.99^g	110.44 ± 1.83^c
Eucalyptus	25.00 ± 0.10^cd	1794.24 ± 1.10^c	78.58 ± 1.21^f
Laranjeira	24.33 ± 0.09^de	1801.45 ± 0.64^b	95.58 ± 0.84^e
Vassourinha	26.46 ± 0.12^ab	1693.97 ± 1.87^f	103.14 ± 1.01^d
Polyfloral honey
Silvestre	25.15 ± 0.13^c	1746.43 ± 0.65^d	109.95 ± 1.43^c
Honeydew honey
Bracatinga	26.21 ± 0.01^b	1701.12 ± 1.13^e	129.25 ± 1.24^a
Extrafloral honey
Sugarcane	27.02 ± 0.55^a	1001.60 ± 1.95^h	118.24 ± 1.40^b

Open in a new tab

Mean value ± standard deviation based of honey weight; n = 3. f.w. (fresh weight). Means followed by the same lowercase letters in the column do not differ by the Tukey test (p > 0.05)

The descending order for both ABTS and DPPH was similar, following the arrangement described: Sugarcane > Vassourinha > Coffee > Bracatinga > Silvestre > Eucalyptus > Laranjeira > Assa-peixe.

Phenolic compounds showed variation among samples, with values between 78.58 (eucalyptus) and 129.25 mg GAEs/100 g (bracatinga). In relation to bracatinga honeydew honey, Bergamo et al. (2018) evaluated several samples of this type of honey and reported a maximum phenolic content of 130.77 mg GAEs/100 g, a result similar to that found in this study. Can et al. (2015) evaluated different floral honeys and reported a variation among the samples of 16.02 a 105.46 mg GAEs/100 g; the variation was similar to that observed in our study.

According to Gauthier et al. (2016), the botanical origin of honey, seasons, and environmental factors may have influenced the variation in the antioxidant and phenolic content of the samples.

Sensory analysis

Table 3 presents the mean values of the results of the evaluated sensory characteristics. The samples differed from each other (p ≤ 0.05) for all evaluated attributes except for the consistency parameter. A three-way internal preference map, representing the choices of all consumers for all attributes evaluated, is presented in Fig. 3a. A two-factor PARAFAC model was chosen due to its CORCONDIA value (85.09%). To correlate the samples with the attributes that differed statistically in CATA, a correspondence analysis was performed (Fig. 3b), and the results showed the discrimination of samples based on the evaluated attributes.

Table 3.

Sensory analysis of the different honeys

Samples	Color	Smell	Taste	Consistency	Overall liking
Single-flower honeys
Assa-Peixe	6.30 ± 1.76^b	6.92 ± 1.40^ab	6.45 ± 1.88^a	7.13 ± 1.50ª	6.61 ± 1.48^ab
Coffee	6.99 ± 1.55ª	7.01 ± 1.41^ab	6.99 ± 1.86^a	7.32 ± 1.43ª	6.98 ± 1.46^a
Eucalyptus	7.29 ± 1.28ª	7.31 ± 1.29^a	7.10 ± 1.74ª	6.99 ± 1.50ª	7.15 ± 1.37^a
Laranjeira	6.07 ± 1.72^b	6.51 ± 1.48^bc	6.48 ± 1.89^a	7.27 ± 1.34ª	6.61 ± 1.60^ab
Vassourinha	7.02 ± 1.47ª	6.81 ± 1.43^ab	6.54 ± 1.92^a	6.84 ± 1.56ª	6.61 ± 1.71^ab
Polyfloral honey
Silvestre	7.38 ± 1.30ª	7.20 ± 1.36^a	6.43 ± 1.91^ab	7.37 ± 1.25ª	6.73 ± 1.67^ab
Honeydew honey
Bracatinga	7.21 ± 1.56ª	6.41 ± 1.63^bc	4.67 ± 2.33^c	6.82 ± 1.56ª	5.61 ± 1.91^c
Extrafloral honey
Sugarcane	6.28 ± 1.99^b	6.04 ± 1.79^c	5.59 ± 2.16^b	7.20 ± 1.36ª	6.21 ± 1.67^bc

Open in a new tab

Mean value ± standard deviation based of honey weight; n = 100. Means followed by the same lowercase letters in the column do not differ by the Tukey test (p > 0.05)

Fig. 3 — Three Way Internal Preference Map for color, smell, taste, consistency and overall liking (a) and correspondence analysis for check-all-that-apply (CATA) (b) of the different honeys. Legend: 1: yellow, 2: brown; 3: translucent; 4: bright; 5: sweet smell; 6: floral smell; 7: burned smell; 8: caramelized smell; 9: herbs smell; 10: propolis smell; 11: molasses smell; 12: sweet taste; 13: bitter taste; 14: fruity taste; 15: floral taste; 16: alcoholic taste; 17: propolis taste; 18: rapaduta taste; 19: herbs taste; 20: astringent taste; 21: liquid; 22: viscous; 23: velvety; 24: consistent

Due to the great variability between the physical, chemical, and physicochemical properties, it was expected that the honeys would present different sensorial characteristics and, consequently, acceptability. Regarding sensory acceptance, although all samples showed good sensory acceptance, with average scores varying between the hedonic terms “liked slightly” and “liked very much”, a significant difference was observed between all parameters evaluated, with the exception of consistency (Table 3). According to Table 3 and Fig. 3a, it was observed that the best acceptance and consumer preference were for floral honeys (assa-peixe, coffee, eucalyptus, silvestre, and vassourinha). Laranjeira honey had intermediate acceptance, while bracatinga and sugarcane honey were the least accepted by the tasters.

Regarding the CATA, Cochran’s Q test detected significant difference among samples (p ≤ 0.05) except for appearance (opaque and presence of air bubbles), taste (wax and refreshing), and consistency (creamy and smooth) attributes, which showed no significant differences (p ≥ 0.05).

The correspondence analysis performed for the significant attributes of CATA (Fig. 3) and the cluster analysis (data not shown) revealed that the samples formed three distinct groups: sugarcane honey and coffee (G1), silvestre and vassourinha honeys (G2), and eucalyptus and assa-peixe honey (G3). The bracatinga honey, which was among the least accepted honeys, stood out for presenting a bitter, alcoholic and astringent taste (13, 16 and 20), thus these attributes can be related to undesirable characteristics by consumers. Sugarcane honey, which also had the least acceptance and resembled coffee honey, was among the most accepted. The attributes that characterized this group are burned and molasses smells, and rapadura taste (7, 11 and 18), which cannot be safely related to desirable or undesirable characteristics of honey. Laranjeira honey, which had intermediate acceptance, stood out for its floral and herbal smell and taste attributes. G2 and G3 contained the most accepted honeys. In G2, vassourinha honey was characterized by the attributes of a caramelized, and a sweet smell, while silvestre honey was characterized by a propolis smell and taste. Both had common characteristics such as a bright, velvety appearance with a liquid consistency. The G3 group was characterized by the attributes of a translucent, yellow color, sweet, fruity taste, with a consistent and viscous appearance.

Conclusion

All honeys complied with current legislation when the limits for physicochemical parameters were established. As for the color parameter, sugarcane honey was characterized as having a more orange color when compared to the others. All honeys exhibited Newtonian rheological behavior, with assa-peixe, laranjeira and coffee monoflower honeys exhibiting the highest viscosity, thus confirming the influence of moisture on this parameter. Sugarcane honey stood out for being among the honeys with the highest antioxidant activity, while bracatinga honey stood out in relation to phenolic compound content. Regarding the sensory analysis, floral honeys presented higher acceptability compared to the others honeys. From the CATA test data, it was possible to identify the attributes that may have negatively influenced the acceptance of honeydew (bitter, alcoholic, and astringent tastes) and extrafloral (burned smell) honeys. Therefore, the characteristics of honey are directly influenced by the botanical origins of each type, to the point of contributing to their differentiation.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 24 kb)^{(23.5KB, docx)}

Acknowledgements

This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior–Brasil (CAPES)–Finance Code 001. The authors wish to thank the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico–Brasil (CNPq), and the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais–Brasil (FAPEMIG) for their financial report.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

AOAC . Official methods of analysis of AOAC international. 19. Gaithersburg: AOAC International; 2012. [Google Scholar]
Azevedo MS, Seraglio SKT, Rocha G, et al. Free amino acid determination by GC-MS combined with a chemometric approach for geographical classification of bracatinga honeydew honey (Mimosa scabrella Bentham) Food Control. 2017;78:383–392. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.03.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Barth OM. Melissopalynology in Brazil: a review of pollen analysis of honeys, propolis and pollen loads of bees. Scientia Agricola. 2004;61:342–350. doi: 10.1590/s0103-90162004000300018. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Bergamo G, Seraglio SKT, Gonzaga LV, et al. Physicochemical characteristics of bracatinga honeydew honey and blossom honey produced in the state of Santa Catarina: an approach to honey differentiation. Food Res Int. 2018;116:745–754. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2018.09.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Bogdanov S. Harmonised methods of the European honey commission. 3. Bremen: IHC; 2009. [Google Scholar]
Brand-Williams W, Cuvelier ME, Berset C. Use of free radical method to evaluate antioxidant activity. LWT Food Sci Technol. 1995;28:25–30. doi: 10.1016/S0023-6438(95)80008-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
BRASIL. Ministério da agricultura e abastecimento (2000) Instrução Normativa n.^o11, de 20 de outubro de 2000. Regulamento Técnico de Identidade e Qualidade do Mel. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF, 23 out. 2000. https://www.cidasc.sc.gov.br/inspecao/files/2012/08/IN-11-de-2000.pdf. Accessed 10 Jun 2019
Can Z, Yildiz O, Sahin H, et al. 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]
Codex Alimentarius (2001) CODEX standard for honey—codex stan 12–1981. https://www.fao.org/input/download/standards/310/cxs_012e.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2019
Da Silva PM, Gauche C, Gonzaga LV, et al. Honey: chemical composition, stability and authenticity. Food Chem. 2016;196:309–323. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.09.051. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Da Silva VM, De Carvalho LA, De Oliveira NL, et al. Rheological and thermal properties of selected Brazilian honeys from various floral origins. J Texture Stud. 2016;47:208–219. doi: 10.1111/jtxs.12174. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Escriche I, Tanleque-alberto F, Visquert M, Oroian M. Physicochemical and rheological characterization of honey from Mozambique. LWT Food Sci Technol. 2017;86:108–115. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2017.07.053. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Estevinho LM, Rodrigues S, Pereira AP, Feás X. Portuguese bee pollen: palynological study, nutritional and microbiological evaluation. Int J Food Sci Technol. 2012;47:429–435. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2011.02859.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
FAO (2019) Production of honey, natural in world. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QL/visualize. Accessed 3 Jul 2019
Finola MS, Lasagno MC, Marioli JM. Microbiological and chemical characterization of honeys from central Argentina. Food Chem. 2007;100:1649–1653. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.12.046. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Gauthier M, Aras P, Jumarie C, Boily M. Low dietary levels of Al, Pb and Cd may affect the non-enzymatic antioxidant capacity in caged honey bees (Apis mellifera) Chemosphere. 2016;144:848–854. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.09.057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Gomes S, Dias LG, Moreira LL, et al. Physicochemical, microbiological and antimicrobial properties of commercial honeys from Portugal. Food Chem Toxicol. 2010;48:544–548. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2009.11.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
IBGE. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (2016) Perfil da Pecuária Municipal. https://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/economia/ppm/2016/default_xls_perfil.shtm. Accessed 3 Jul 2019
Kadri SM, Zaluski R, Pereira Lima GP, et al. Characterization of coffea arabica monofloral honey from Espírito Santo, Brazil. Food Chem. 2016;203:252–257. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.02.074. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Kahraman T, Buyukunal SK, Vural A, Altunatmaz SS. Physico-chemical properties in honey from different regions of Turkey. Food Chem. 2010;123:41–44. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.03.123. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Larrauri JA, Rupérez P, Saura-Calixto F. Effect of drying temperature on the stability of polyphenols and antioxidant activity of red grape pomace peels. J Agric Food Chem. 1997;45:1390–1393. doi: 10.1021/jf960282f. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Maldonade IR, Carvalho PGB, Ferreira NA, Moulin BSF. Protocolo para determinação de açucares redutores pelo método de Somogyi-Nelson. Brasília: Embrapa Hortaliças; 2013. [Google Scholar]
Mendonça K, Marchini LC, de Souza BA, et al. Caracterização físico-química de amostras de méis produzidas por Apis mellifera L. em fragmento de cerrado no município de Itirapina, São Paulo. Ciência Rural. 2008;38:1748–1753. doi: 10.1590/s0103-84782008000600040. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Meyners M, Castura JC. Check-all-that apply questions. In: Varela P, Ares G, editors. Novel techniques in sensory characterization and consumer profiling. 1. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2014. pp. 271–306. [Google Scholar]
Nunes CA, Pinheiro ACM, Bastos SC. Evaluating consumer acceptance tests by three-way internal preference mapping obtained by parallel factor analysis (PARAFAC) J Sens Stud. 2011;26:167–174. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-459X.2011.00333.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Oroian M. Physicochemical and rheological properties of romanian honeys. Food Biophys. 2012;7:296–307. doi: 10.1007/s11483-012-9268-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Re R, Pellegrini N, Proteggente A, et al. Antioxidant activity applying an improved ABTS radical. Free Radical Biol Med. 1999;26:1231–1237. doi: 10.1016/S0891-5849(98)00315-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
de Ribeiro ORR, Mársico ET, da Carneiro SC, et al. Classification of Brazilian honeys by physical and chemical analytical methods and low field nuclear magnetic resonance (LF 1H NMR) LWT Food Sci Technol. 2014;55:90–95. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2013.08.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Salvador L, Guijarro M, Rubio D, et al. Exploratory monitoring of the quality and authenticity of commercial honey in ecuador. Foods. 2019;8:E105. doi: 10.3390/foods8030105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Saxena S, Gautam S, Sharma A. Physical, biochemical and antioxidant properties of some Indian honeys. Food Chem. 2010;118:391–397. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2009.05.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Silva LR, Videira R, Monteiro AP, et al. Honey from Luso region (Portugal): physicochemical characteristics and mineral contents. Microchem J. 2009;93:73–77. doi: 10.1016/j.microc.2009.05.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
de Sousa JMB, de Souza EL, Marques G, et al. Sugar profile, physicochemical and sensory aspects of monofloral honeys produced by different stingless bee species in Brazilian semi-arid region. LWT Food Sci Technol. 2016;65:645–651. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2015.08.058. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Stone H, Bleibaum R, Thomas HA. Sensory evaluation practices. 4. New York: Academic Press; 2012. [Google Scholar]
Terrab A, Recamales AF, Hernanz D, Heredia FJ. Characterisation of Spanish thyme honeys by their physicochemical characteristics and mineral contents. Food Chem. 2004;88:537–542. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2004.01.068. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Waterhouse AL. Determination of total phenolics. In: Brand Wiley., editor. Current protocol in food analytical chemistry. New York: Wiley; 2002. [Google Scholar]
Zheng Y, Wu M, Han F, et al. Evaluation of total antioxidant activity of different floral sources of honeys using crosslinked hydrogels. Int J Electrochem Sci. 2019;14:1479–1487. doi: 10.20964/2019.02.71. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 24 kb)^{(23.5KB, docx)}

[CR1] AOAC . Official methods of analysis of AOAC international. 19. Gaithersburg: AOAC International; 2012. [Google Scholar]

[CR2] Azevedo MS, Seraglio SKT, Rocha G, et al. Free amino acid determination by GC-MS combined with a chemometric approach for geographical classification of bracatinga honeydew honey (Mimosa scabrella Bentham) Food Control. 2017;78:383–392. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.03.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[CR3] Barth OM. Melissopalynology in Brazil: a review of pollen analysis of honeys, propolis and pollen loads of bees. Scientia Agricola. 2004;61:342–350. doi: 10.1590/s0103-90162004000300018. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[CR4] Bergamo G, Seraglio SKT, Gonzaga LV, et al. Physicochemical characteristics of bracatinga honeydew honey and blossom honey produced in the state of Santa Catarina: an approach to honey differentiation. Food Res Int. 2018;116:745–754. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2018.09.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR5] Bogdanov S. Harmonised methods of the European honey commission. 3. Bremen: IHC; 2009. [Google Scholar]

[CR6] Brand-Williams W, Cuvelier ME, Berset C. Use of free radical method to evaluate antioxidant activity. LWT Food Sci Technol. 1995;28:25–30. doi: 10.1016/S0023-6438(95)80008-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[CR7] BRASIL. Ministério da agricultura e abastecimento (2000) Instrução Normativa n.^o11, de 20 de outubro de 2000. Regulamento Técnico de Identidade e Qualidade do Mel. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF, 23 out. 2000. https://www.cidasc.sc.gov.br/inspecao/files/2012/08/IN-11-de-2000.pdf. Accessed 10 Jun 2019

[CR8] Can Z, Yildiz O, Sahin H, et al. 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]

[CR9] Codex Alimentarius (2001) CODEX standard for honey—codex stan 12–1981. https://www.fao.org/input/download/standards/310/cxs_012e.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2019

[CR10] Da Silva PM, Gauche C, Gonzaga LV, et al. Honey: chemical composition, stability and authenticity. Food Chem. 2016;196:309–323. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.09.051. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR11] Da Silva VM, De Carvalho LA, De Oliveira NL, et al. Rheological and thermal properties of selected Brazilian honeys from various floral origins. J Texture Stud. 2016;47:208–219. doi: 10.1111/jtxs.12174. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[CR12] Escriche I, Tanleque-alberto F, Visquert M, Oroian M. Physicochemical and rheological characterization of honey from Mozambique. LWT Food Sci Technol. 2017;86:108–115. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2017.07.053. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[CR13] Estevinho LM, Rodrigues S, Pereira AP, Feás X. Portuguese bee pollen: palynological study, nutritional and microbiological evaluation. Int J Food Sci Technol. 2012;47:429–435. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2011.02859.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[CR14] FAO (2019) Production of honey, natural in world. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QL/visualize. Accessed 3 Jul 2019

[CR15] Finola MS, Lasagno MC, Marioli JM. Microbiological and chemical characterization of honeys from central Argentina. Food Chem. 2007;100:1649–1653. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.12.046. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[CR16] Gauthier M, Aras P, Jumarie C, Boily M. Low dietary levels of Al, Pb and Cd may affect the non-enzymatic antioxidant capacity in caged honey bees (Apis mellifera) Chemosphere. 2016;144:848–854. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.09.057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR17] Gomes S, Dias LG, Moreira LL, et al. Physicochemical, microbiological and antimicrobial properties of commercial honeys from Portugal. Food Chem Toxicol. 2010;48:544–548. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2009.11.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR18] IBGE. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (2016) Perfil da Pecuária Municipal. https://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/economia/ppm/2016/default_xls_perfil.shtm. Accessed 3 Jul 2019

[CR19] Kadri SM, Zaluski R, Pereira Lima GP, et al. Characterization of coffea arabica monofloral honey from Espírito Santo, Brazil. Food Chem. 2016;203:252–257. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.02.074. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR20] Kahraman T, Buyukunal SK, Vural A, Altunatmaz SS. Physico-chemical properties in honey from different regions of Turkey. Food Chem. 2010;123:41–44. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.03.123. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[CR21] Larrauri JA, Rupérez P, Saura-Calixto F. Effect of drying temperature on the stability of polyphenols and antioxidant activity of red grape pomace peels. J Agric Food Chem. 1997;45:1390–1393. doi: 10.1021/jf960282f. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[CR22] Maldonade IR, Carvalho PGB, Ferreira NA, Moulin BSF. Protocolo para determinação de açucares redutores pelo método de Somogyi-Nelson. Brasília: Embrapa Hortaliças; 2013. [Google Scholar]

[CR23] Mendonça K, Marchini LC, de Souza BA, et al. Caracterização físico-química de amostras de méis produzidas por Apis mellifera L. em fragmento de cerrado no município de Itirapina, São Paulo. Ciência Rural. 2008;38:1748–1753. doi: 10.1590/s0103-84782008000600040. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[CR24] Meyners M, Castura JC. Check-all-that apply questions. In: Varela P, Ares G, editors. Novel techniques in sensory characterization and consumer profiling. 1. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2014. pp. 271–306. [Google Scholar]

[CR25] Nunes CA, Pinheiro ACM, Bastos SC. Evaluating consumer acceptance tests by three-way internal preference mapping obtained by parallel factor analysis (PARAFAC) J Sens Stud. 2011;26:167–174. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-459X.2011.00333.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[CR26] Oroian M. Physicochemical and rheological properties of romanian honeys. Food Biophys. 2012;7:296–307. doi: 10.1007/s11483-012-9268-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[CR27] Re R, Pellegrini N, Proteggente A, et al. Antioxidant activity applying an improved ABTS radical. Free Radical Biol Med. 1999;26:1231–1237. doi: 10.1016/S0891-5849(98)00315-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR28] de Ribeiro ORR, Mársico ET, da Carneiro SC, et al. Classification of Brazilian honeys by physical and chemical analytical methods and low field nuclear magnetic resonance (LF 1H NMR) LWT Food Sci Technol. 2014;55:90–95. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2013.08.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[CR29] Salvador L, Guijarro M, Rubio D, et al. Exploratory monitoring of the quality and authenticity of commercial honey in ecuador. Foods. 2019;8:E105. doi: 10.3390/foods8030105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR30] Saxena S, Gautam S, Sharma A. Physical, biochemical and antioxidant properties of some Indian honeys. Food Chem. 2010;118:391–397. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2009.05.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[CR31] Silva LR, Videira R, Monteiro AP, et al. Honey from Luso region (Portugal): physicochemical characteristics and mineral contents. Microchem J. 2009;93:73–77. doi: 10.1016/j.microc.2009.05.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[CR32] de Sousa JMB, de Souza EL, Marques G, et al. Sugar profile, physicochemical and sensory aspects of monofloral honeys produced by different stingless bee species in Brazilian semi-arid region. LWT Food Sci Technol. 2016;65:645–651. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2015.08.058. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[CR33] Stone H, Bleibaum R, Thomas HA. Sensory evaluation practices. 4. New York: Academic Press; 2012. [Google Scholar]

[CR34] Terrab A, Recamales AF, Hernanz D, Heredia FJ. Characterisation of Spanish thyme honeys by their physicochemical characteristics and mineral contents. Food Chem. 2004;88:537–542. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2004.01.068. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[CR35] Waterhouse AL. Determination of total phenolics. In: Brand Wiley., editor. Current protocol in food analytical chemistry. New York: Wiley; 2002. [Google Scholar]

[CR36] Zheng Y, Wu M, Han F, et al. Evaluation of total antioxidant activity of different floral sources of honeys using crosslinked hydrogels. Int J Electrochem Sci. 2019;14:1479–1487. doi: 10.20964/2019.02.71. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Quality of honeys from different botanical origins

Maria Cecília Evangelista Vasconcelos Schiassi

Vanessa Rios de Souza

Amanda Maria Teixeira Lago

Gabriel Ribeiro Carvalho

Paula Nogueira Curi

Angélica Sousa Guimarães

Fabiana Queiroz

Graphic abstract

Electronic supplementary material

Introduction

Materials and methods

Honey samples

Chemical, physicochemical and physical analysis

Rheological behavior

Antioxidant activity and total phenolic compounds

Sensory analysis

Statistical analysis

Results and discussion

Physicochemical and physical analysis

Table 1.

Rheological behavior

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Antioxidant capacity and total phenolics

Table 2.

Sensory analysis

Table 3.

Fig. 3.

Conclusion

Electronic supplementary material

Acknowledgements

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Footnotes

References

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases