| Literature DB >> 32410907 |
Katharine V S Hodel1, Bruna A S Machado1, Nathália R Santos2, Renata G Costa2, Jose A Menezes-Filho2, Marcelo A Umsza-Guez3,1.
Abstract
Brazilian raw propolis samples (brown, green, red, and yellow) were investigated to evaluate the content of three elements of nutritional value (Cu, K, and Se) and three toxic metals (As, Cd, and Pb). The propolis samples (n = 19) were obtained from different regions of Brazil and analysed by atomic absorption spectrometry after microwave-assisted digestion. A descriptive analysis of the variables was carried out, and nonparametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis or Mann-Whitney) were performed to verify the differences in metal contents. The elemental concentrations of the Brazilian propolis were in the following ranges: As < 0.048-8.47 μg·g-1, Pb < 0.006-0.72 μg·g-1, Cu 0.57-11.60 μg·g-1, Se < 0.041-0.54 μg·g-1, and K 0.23-7.94 mg·g-1; Cd was below LOD (0.008 μg·g-1) in all samples, except one. Seven samples exceeded the limits defined for As or Pb by the Brazilian regulation.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32410907 PMCID: PMC7204097 DOI: 10.1155/2020/4395496
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Characteristics of the 19 raw propolis samples evaluated.
| Sample code | Origins (state/region) | Botanical sources | References | Type | Harvest year | Weight (mg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P01 | Bahia (northeast) |
| Pedrazzi et al. [ | Green | 2015 | 205.4 |
| P02 | Minas Gerais (southeast) |
| Pedrazzi et al. [ | Green | 2014 | 233.5 |
| P03 | Paraná (southern) |
| Pedrazzi et al. [ | Green | 2014 | 230.6 |
| P04 | Minas Gerais (southeast) |
| Pedrazzi et al. [ | Green | 2014 | 204.4 |
| P05 | Sergipe (northeast) |
| Piccinelli et al. [ | Red | 2014 | 202.8 |
| P06 | Alagoas (northeast) |
| Piccinelli et al. [ | Red | 2014 | 221.2 |
| P07 | Bahia (northeast) |
| Piccinelli et al. [ | Red | 2015 | 214.7 |
| P08 | Alagoas (northeast) |
| Piccinelli et al. [ | Red | 2016 | 208.8 |
| P09 | Santa Catarina (southern) |
| Heimbach et al. [ | Brown | 2012 | 213.9 |
| P10 | Santa Catarina (southern) |
| Heimbach et al. [ | Brown | 2014 | 240.1 |
| P11 | Bahia (northeast) |
| Park et al. [ | Brown | 2015 | 205.4 |
| P12 | Santa Catarina (southern) |
| Heimbach et al. [ | Brown | 2014 | 211.9 |
| P13 | Santa Catarina (southern) |
| Heimbach et al. [ | Brown | 2013 | 231.2 |
| P14 | Santa Catarina (southern) |
| Heimbach et al. [ | Brown | 2014 | 211.7 |
| P15 | Santa Catarina (southern) |
| Heimbach et al. [ | Brown | 2014 | 231.2 |
| P16 | Rio Grande do Sul (southern) |
| Heimbach et al. [ | Brown | 2014 | 205.4 |
| P17 | Santa Catarina (southern) |
| Heimbach et al. [ | Brown | 2014 | 210.5 |
| P18 | Paraná (southern) |
| Heimbach et al. [ | Brown | 2013 | 227.7 |
| P19 | Mato Grosso do Sul (central-west) | Unknown | Salatino and Salatino [ | Yellow | 2016 | 212.8 |
Performance characteristics of the analytical method.
| Metal | Parameters | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LOD | LOQ | Accuracy (%) | Precision (%) | |
| As | 0.048 | 0.145 | 88.7 | 4.24 |
| Cd | 0.008 | 0.022 | 93.6 | 3.05 |
| Pb | 0.006 | 0.017 | 99.8 | 9.42 |
| Se | 0.041 | 0.119 | 88.1 | 1.95 |
| Cu | 0.016 mg·g−1 | 0.049 mg·g−1 | 94.3 | 0.89 |
| K | 0.011 mg·g−1 | 0.031 mg·g−1 | 102.6 | 5.78 |
Average concentrations of metals in the 19 raw propolis samples analysed.
| Sample code | As ( | Cd ( | Pb ( | Se ( | Cu (mg·g−1) | K (mg·g−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P01 | <0.048 | <0.008 | 0.11 | 0.30 | 3.58 | 0.95 |
| P02 | <0.048 | <0.008 | <0.006 | <0.041 | 7.22 | 3.90 |
| P03 | 0.07 | <0.008 | <0.006 | 0.43 | 6.82 | 2.35 |
| P04 | <0.048 | <0.008 | <0.006 | 0.54 | 6.98 | 2.96 |
| P05 | 0.30 | <0.008 | 0.03 | <0.041 | 2.10 | 0.37 |
| P06 | <0.048 | <0.008 | 0.13 | <0.041 | 2.00 | 0.32 |
| P07 | <0.048 | <0.008 | 0.38 | <0.041 | 1.57 | 0.23 |
| P08 | 0.05 | <0.008 | 0.72 | <0.041 | 1.11 | 0.43 |
| P09 | <0.048 | <0.008 | 0.27 | <0.041 | 7.76 | 1.46 |
| P10 | 8.47 | 0.030 | 0.25 | <0.041 | 11.60 | 1.32 |
| P11 | <0.048 | <0.008 | 0.07 | 0.39 | 4.26 | 0.77 |
| P12 | <0.048 | <0.008 | 0.66 | 0.31 | 4.20 | 2.16 |
| P13 | 4.79 | <0.008 | 0.20 | 0.29 | 5.29 | 0.68 |
| P14 | <0.048 | <0.008 | 0.55 | 0.34 | 2.65 | 0.28 |
| P15 | <0.048 | <0.008 | 0.11 | 0.24 | 2.75 | 0.59 |
| P16 | <0.048 | <0.008 | 0.63 | 0.19 | 2.58 | 0.39 |
| P17 | <0.048 | <0.008 | <0.006 | 0.36 | 4.46 | 4.98 |
| P18 | <0.048 | <0.008 | 0.04 | 0.29 | 1.44 | 1.63 |
| P19 | <0.048 | <0.008 | <0.006 | <0.041 | 0.57 | 7.94 |
Figure 1Principal component analysis for 19 propolis samples: (a) graph of scores; (b) graph of loadings for principal component 1; (c) graph of loadings for principal component 2.
Statistics of metal contents in the raw propolis samples according to color types (n = 18). The K–W test was estimated at a significance level of 0.05.
| Statistics | Propolis color |
| As ( | Pb ( | Se ( | Cu (mg·g−1) | K (mg·g−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | Brown | 10 | <0.048 | 0.23 | 0.29 | 4.23 | 1.04 |
| Green | 4 | <0.048 | 0.01 | 0.36 | 6.90 | 2.65 | |
| Red | 4 | <0.048 | 0.25 | <0.04 | 1.78 | 0.34 | |
|
| |||||||
| Minimum | Brown | <0.048 | <0.006 | <0.041 | 1.44 | 0.28 | |
| Green | <0.048 | <0.006 | <0.041 | 3.58 | 0.95 | ||
| Red | <0.048 | 0.03 | <0.041 | 1.11 | 0.23 | ||
|
| |||||||
| Maximum | Brown | 8.47 | 0.66 | 0.39 | 11.60 | 4.98 | |
| Green | 0.07 | 0.11 | 0.54 | 7.22 | 3.90 | ||
| Red | 0.3 | 0.72 | 0.01 | 2.10 | 0.43 | ||
Estimated value of provisional tolerable weekly intake (PTWI), considering the daily consumption of 1 g of raw propolis and an adult body weight of 60 kg.
| Metal | Sample | PTWI ( | FAO/WHO ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| As | P10 | 0.99 | 15 |
| Pb | P08 | 0.08 | 25 |