| Literature DB >> 28239099 |
Samira Nair1, Boumedienne Meddah2, Abdelkader Aoues3.
Abstract
A pollen analysis of Algerian honey was conducted on a total of 10 honey samples. The samples were prepared using the methodology described by Louveaux et al., that was then further adapted by Ohe et al. The samples were subsequently observed using light microscopy. A total of 36 pollen taxa were discovered and could be identified in the analyzed honey samples. Seventy percent of the studied samples belonged to the group ofmonofloral honeys represented by Eucalyptus globulus, Thymus vulgaris, Citrus sp. and Lavandula angustifolia. Multifloral honeys comprised 30% of the honey samples, with pollen grains of Lavandula stoechas (28.49%) standing out as the most prevalent. Based on cluster analysis, two different groups of honey were observed according to different pollen types found in the samples. The identified pollen spectrum of honey confirmed their botanical origin.Entities:
Keywords: Algerian honey; botanical origin; cluster analysis; pollen analysis; pollen spectrum
Year: 2013 PMID: 28239099 PMCID: PMC5302229 DOI: 10.3390/foods2010083
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Figure 1Somatorium of the pollen frequency of the identified plant species in ten samples of Algerian honeys.
Pollen content in the honey samples (%).
| Pollen Taxa/Family | Samples | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Meneour | Guetna | Makda | Hacine | Freguig | Ain fares | Bouguirat | Sidi ali | Sirat | Hadjadj | |
| (S1) | (S2) | (S3) | (S4) | (S5) | (S6) | (S7) | (S8) | (S9) | (S10) | |
| 15.6 | ||||||||||
| 14 | ||||||||||
| 9.37 | 8.99 | |||||||||
| 7.02 | 7.5 | |||||||||
| 10.1 | ||||||||||
| 15.62 | ||||||||||
| 1.5 | ||||||||||
| 46 | 45 | 62.5 | ||||||||
| 2.5 | ||||||||||
| 3.08 | ||||||||||
| 12 | 6.98 | 12 | 5 | |||||||
| 86.2 | 52.4 | 80.22 | ||||||||
| 18 | ||||||||||
| 15 | 20 | 22.96 | 9.88 | 0.57 | ||||||
| 14.84 | ||||||||||
| 1.98 | ||||||||||
| 60.33 | ||||||||||
| 21 | 35.98 | |||||||||
| 0.43 | 1.19 | |||||||||
| 0.78 | ||||||||||
| 0.18 | ||||||||||
| 3.5 | ||||||||||
| 2.26 | 1.76 | 3.5 | ||||||||
| 11.98 | 15 | 15 | 5.97 | 7.78 | ||||||
| 6.5 | 1.95 | 0.11 | ||||||||
| 5.98 | 9.26 | 0.14 | ||||||||
| 4.44 | ||||||||||
| 5 | ||||||||||
| 2.05 | ||||||||||
| 3.02 | ||||||||||
| 1.02 | ||||||||||
| 18.95 | 2.51 | |||||||||
| 0.59 | ||||||||||
| 9 | 9.52 | 10.44 | ||||||||
| 7.03 | ||||||||||
| 57.91 | ||||||||||
Figure 2Dendrogram of cluster analysis.