Literature DB >> 16787698

The effect of different propolis harvest methods on its lead contents determined by ET AAS and UV-visS.

A Sales1, A Alvarez, M Rodriguez Areal, L Maldonado, P Marchisio, M Rodríguez, E Bedascarrasbure.   

Abstract

Argentinean propolis is exported to different countries, specially Japan. The market demands propolis quality control according to international standards. The analytical determination of some metals, as lead in food, is very important for their high toxicity even in low concentrations and because of their harmful effects on health. Flavonoids, the main bioactive compounds of propolis, tend to chelate metals as lead, which becomes one of the main polluting agents of propolis. The lead found in propolis may come from the atmosphere or it may be incorporated in the harvest, extraction and processing methods. The aim of this work is to evaluate lead level on Argentinean propolis determined by electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometry (ET AAS) and UV-vis spectrophotometry (UV-visS) methods, as well as the effect of harvest methods on those contents. A randomized test with three different treatments of collection was made to evaluate the effect of harvest methods. These procedures were: separating wedges (traditional), netting plastic meshes and stamping out plastic meshes. By means of the analysis of variance technique for multiple comparisons (ANOVA) it was possible to conclude that there are significant differences between scraped and mesh methods (stamped out and mosquito netting meshes). The results obtained in the present test would allow us to conclude that mesh methods are more advisable than scraped ones in order to obtain innocuous and safe propolis with minor lead contents. A statistical comparison of lead determination by both, ET AAS and UV-visS methods, demonstrated that there is not a significant difference in the results achieved with the two analytical techniques employed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16787698     DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.05.026

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Hazard Mater        ISSN: 0304-3894            Impact factor:   10.588


  5 in total

1.  Element content of propolis collected from different areas of South Spain.

Authors:  J Serra Bonvehí; F J Orantes Bermejo
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2012-11-28       Impact factor: 2.513

2.  Influence of Geographic Origin and Plant Source on Physicochemical Properties, Mineral Content, and Antioxidant and Antibacterial Activities of Moroccan Propolis.

Authors:  Naoual El Menyiy; Meryem Bakour; Asmae El Ghouizi; Soukaina El Guendouz; Badiaa Lyoussi
Journal:  Int J Food Sci       Date:  2021-03-19

Review 3.  Antifungal Agents in Wood Protection-A Review.

Authors:  Magdalena Woźniak
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2022-09-27       Impact factor: 4.927

4.  Determination of the Mineral Composition and Toxic Element Contents of Propolis by Near Infrared Spectroscopy.

Authors:  M Inmaculada González-Martín; Olga Escuredo; Isabel Revilla; Ana M Vivar-Quintana; M Carmen Coello; Carlos Palacios Riocerezo; Guillermo Wells Moncada
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2015-11-03       Impact factor: 3.576

5.  A MEMS-Based Multi-Parameter Integrated Chip and Its Portable System for Water Quality Detection.

Authors:  Ziyue Wu; Jiaqi Wang; Chao Bian; Jianhua Tong; Shanhong Xia
Journal:  Micromachines (Basel)       Date:  2020-01-05       Impact factor: 2.891

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.