| Literature DB >> 23938192 |
Mohammed Moniruzzaman1, Siti Amrah Sulaiman1, Md Ibrahim Khalil1, Siew Hua Gan2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the physical, biochemical and antioxidant properties of four Malaysian monofloral types of honey (gelam, longan, rubber tree and sourwood honeys) compared to manuka honey. Several physical parameters of honey, such as pH, moisture content, electrical conductivity (EC), total dissolved solids (TDS), color intensity, total sugar and sucrose content, were measured. A number of biochemical and antioxidant tests were performed to determine the antioxidant properties of the honey samples. Hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) levels were determined using high performance liquid chromatography.Entities:
Keywords: Antioxidants; Gelam; Longan; Rubber tree honey; Sourwood
Year: 2013 PMID: 23938192 PMCID: PMC3771408 DOI: 10.1186/1752-153X-7-138
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Chem Cent J ISSN: 1752-153X Impact factor: 4.215
Floral type and source of the investigated Malaysian honeys
| Gelam honey | Monofloral ( | Gelam tree ( |
| Longan honey | Monofloral ( | Longan tree ( |
| Rubber tree honey | Monofloral ( | Rubber tree ( |
| Sourwood honey | Monofloral ( | Sourwood tree or Appalachian Lily tree |
Physical parameters (pH, moisture, sucrose, electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids content and color characteristics) of various Malaysian honeys
| Gelam | 3.83 ± 0.06b | 17.93 ± 0.23b | 0.74 ± 0.011b | 368.33 ± 5.86b | 585.33 ± 5.51d |
| Longan | 3.83 ± 0.06b | 18.59 ± 0.12a | 0.48 ± 0.005d | 242.33 ± 3.21d | 660.67 ± 3.06c |
| Rubber Tree | 3.83 ± 0.06b | 19.06 ± 0.20a | 0.41 ± 0.001e | 206.67 ± 0.58e | 204.67 ± 5.03e |
| Sourwood | 3.90 ± 0.00b | 17.86 ± 0.40b | 0.79 ± 0.009a | 394.33 ± 4.62a | 713.67 ± 5.51b |
| Manuka | 4.10 ± 0.00a | 11.59 ± 0.12c | 0.53 ± 0.002c | 262.67 ± 0.58c | 805.00 ± 13.45a |
| Mean ± SD | 3.90 ± 0.12 | 17.01 ± 3.07 | 0.59 ± 0.17 | 294.87 ± 81.96 | 593.87 ± 231.81 |
Means are compared by using One way ANOVA-Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons. In each column, values with different letters (superscripts “a-e”) indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
Reducing and non-reducing sugar content of Malaysian honeys
| Gelam | 64.93 ± 1.22a | 62.17 ± 0.73a | 2.77 ± 1.47a |
| Longan | 56.67 ± 1.22c | 54.78 ± 0.51d | 1.89 ± 0.71a |
| Rubber Tree | 62.27 ± 0.46b | 60.61 ± 0.25b | 1.66 ± 0.71a |
| Sourwood | 55.33 ± 1.22c | 52.17 ± 0.44e | 3.17 ± 0.79a |
| Manuka | 60.93 ± 0.46b | 58.61 ± 0.42c | 2.32 ± 0.66a |
| 60.03 ± 3.98 | 57.67 ± 4.14 | 2.36 ± 0.62 |
Means were compared using a one way ANOVA with post hoc multiple comparisons. In each column, values with different letters (superscripts “a-e”) indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 1Color characteristics of different Malaysian honeys.
Figure 2HMF concentrations found in different Malaysian honeys. Results are expressed as Mean + SD. The different letters indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 3Total phenolic and flavonoids content of Malaysian honeys. Results are expressed as Mean + SD. The different letters indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 4Percentage of inhibition of DPPH radical scavenging activity at different concentrations.
Biochemical and antioxidant properties of Malaysian honeys
| Gelam | 325.79 ± 1.55d | 261.33 ± 1.33c | 3.14 ± 0.01c |
| Longan | 426.38 ± 0.49c | 184.96 ± 0.64d | 2.94 ± 0.02d |
| Rubber Tree | 209.78 ± 1.20e | 184.75 ± 0.98d | 2.14 ± 0.02e |
| Sourwood | 653.75 ± 0.71a | 498.56 ± 0.64b | 5.59 ± 0.01a |
| Manuka | 648.25 ± 0.90b | 564.91 ± 1.33a | 5.04 ± 0.02b |
| 452.79 ± 196.51 | 338.90 ± 0.35 | 3.77 ± 1.47 |
Means were compared by using one-way ANOVA with post hoc multiple comparisons. In each column, values with different letters (superscripts “a-e”) indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 5Ascorbic acid and AEAC contents of different Malaysian honeys. Results are expressed as Mean + SD. The different letters indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05).
Correlation matrix showing the interrelation among phenolics, flavonoids, DPPH scavenging, FRAP, ascorbic acid, proline content, ABS and protein levels
| Phenolics | 1.000 | 0.958** | 0.789* | 0.761* | 0.158 | 0.419 | 0.837** | 0.647* |
| Flavonoids | 0.958** | 1.000 | 0.607* | 0.782* | 0.103 | 0.443 | 0.735* | 0.659* |
| DPPH | 0.789** | 0.607* | 1.000 | 0.671* | 0.542* | 0.479 | 0.938** | 0.590* |
| FRAP | 0.761* | 0.782* | 0.671* | 1.000 | 0.216 | 0.900** | 0.873** | 0.960** |
| Ascorbic acid | 0.158 | 0.103 | 0.542* | 0.216 | 1.000 | 0.229 | 0.468 | 0.151 |
| Proline | 0.419 | 0.443 | 0.479 | 0.900** | 0.229 | 1.000 | 0.701* | 0.947** |
| ABS450 | 0.837** | 0.735* | 0.938** | 0.873** | 0.468 | 0.701* | 1.000 | 0.783* |
| Protein | 0.647* | 0.659* | 0.590* | 0.960** | 0.151 | 0.947** | 0.783* | 1.000 |
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).