| Literature DB >> 33921620 |
Elżbieta Rosiak1, Beata Madras-Majewska2, Dariusz Teper3, Anna Łepecka1, Dorota Zielińska1.
Abstract
The geographical origin of honey affects its composition, which is of key importance for the health-promoting properties and safety of the product. European regulations clearly define the physicochemical requirements for honey that determine the microbiological quality. On the other hand, legislation abolishes microbiological criteria. In the study 40 honey samples originating from two different climatic zones were analyzed. The water content, pH, water activity analysis and the microbiological quality of honey samples have been tested using the reference plate method (total viable count, yeast and molds, lactic acid bacteria, Bacillus spp.). The cluster classification showed that total viable count of bacteria could be used as a measure alternative to the count of Bacillus spp. and 70% of honeys from the tropical climate zone had different microbiological quality than honeys from the temperate climate zone but still under the level 3.0 log cfu/g. The study has revealed that geographical origin of honey may significantly affect the quality and safety of honey. It was considered that water content can be the most informative and handy marker of the microbiological quality of honeys. Analysis of lactic acid bacteria showed temperate climate zone honeys as a source of beneficial bacteria in the diet.Entities:
Keywords: geographical origin; honey; microbiological quality; probiotic; water content
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33921620 PMCID: PMC8072907 DOI: 10.3390/molecules26082361
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Analyzed honey samples according to beekeepers’ declarations.
| Sample No. | Producer Declaration | Sample No. | Producer Declaration |
|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | goldenrod nectar honey | T1 | coffee nectar honey |
| P2 | raspberry nectar honey | T2 | coffee nectar honey |
| P3 | rapeseed nectar honey | T3 | coffee nectar honey |
| P4 | rapeseed nectar honey | T4 | coffee nectar honey |
| P5 | linden nectar honey | T5 | coffee nectar honey |
| P6 | linden nectar honey | T6 | wild forest nectar honey |
| P7 | multiflorous nectar honey | T7 | wild forest nectar honey |
| P8 | multiflorous nectar honey | T8 | wild forest nectar honey |
| P9 | multiflorous nectar honey | T9 | wild forest nectar honey |
| P10 | buckwheat nectar honey | T10 | longan nectar honey |
| P11 | multiflorous nectar honey | T11 | longan nectar honey |
| P12 | dandelion nectar honey | T12 | longan nectar honey |
| P13 | forest nectar honey | T13 | longan nectar honey |
| P14 | multiflorous nectar honey | T14 | longan nectar honey |
| P15 | raspberry nectar honey | T15 | longan nectar honey |
| P16 | buckwheat nectar honey | T16 | longan nectar honey |
| P17 | multiflorous nectar honey | T17 | longan nectar honey |
| P18 | acacia nectar honey | T18 | lychee nectar honey |
| P19 | acacia nectar honey | T19 | lychee nectar honey |
| P20 | forest nectar honey | T20 | lychee nectar honey |
Physicochemical properties of Polish and Thai honey samples.
| Polish and Thai Honey Sample | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| No. | pH ± SD | Water Content | Water |
| P1 | 4.07 ± 0.02 | 20.90 ± 0.04 | 0.566 ± 0.00 |
| P2 | 3.47 ± 0.02 | 17.20 ± 0.05 | 0.544 ± 0.00 |
| P3 | 3.38 ± 0.04 | 22.00 ± 0.01 | 0.549 ± 0.00 |
| P4 | 3.71 ± 0.05 | 16.70 ± 0.05 | 0.503 ± 0.00 |
| P5 | 4.12 ± 0.03 | 19.70 ± 0.00 | 0.521 ± 0.00 |
| P6 | 4.15 ± 0.11 | 16.70 ± 0.02 | 0.533 ± 0.01 |
| P7 | 4.12 ± 0.01 | 18.80 ± 0.02 | 0.526 ± 0.00 |
| P8 | 4.43 ± 0.03 | 20.50 ± 0.00 | 0.543 ± 0.00 |
| P9 | 3.92 ± 0.09 | 18.30 ± 0.10 | 0.547 ± 0.02 |
| P10 | 3.86 ± 0.05 | 19.10 ± 0.06 | 0.559 ± 0.01 |
| P11 | 3.43 ± 0.06 | 19.20 ± 0.08 | 0.538 ± 0.01 |
| P12 | 4.25 ± 0.10 | 16.00 ± 0.10 | 0.501 ± 0.00 |
| P13 | 4.22 ± 0.12 | 16.90 ± 0.09 | 0.525 ± 0.00 |
| P14 | 3.53 ± 0.09 | 15.10 ± 0.10 | 0.516 ± 0.00 |
| P15 | 3.78 ± 0.05 | 19.60 ± 0.00 | 0.532 ± 0.01 |
| P16 | 3.54 ± 0.07 | 20.70 ± 0.09 | 0.578 ± 0.00 |
| P17 | 3.62 ± 0.11 | 19.00 ± 0.05 | 0.537 ± 0.00 |
| P18 | 3.66 ± 0.10 | 17.60 ± 0.05 | 0.513 ± 0.00 |
| P19 | 3.72 ± 0.01 | 17.40 ± 0.80 | 0.558 ± 0.00 |
| P20 | 3.52 ± 0.08 | 16.60 ± 0.20 | 0.505 ± 0.00 |
| Average value | 3.75 ± 0.05 | 18.55 ± 0.05 | 0.535 ± 0.00 |
| Median value | 3.82 ± 0.06 | 18.40 ± 0.09 | 0.534 ± 0.00 |
| T1 | 4.67 ± 0.01 | 21.80 ± 0.07 | 0.594 ± 0.00 |
| T2 | 3.44 ± 0.03 | 21.70 ± 0.19 | 0.643 ± 0.00 |
| T3 | 4.18 ± 0.03 | 17.31 ± 0.11 | 0.572 ± 0.01 |
| T4 | 4.53 ± 0.00 | 21.33 ± 0.09 | 0.621 ± 0.00 |
| T5 | 4.90 ± 0.09 | 21.65 ± 0.03 | 0.629 ± 0.02 |
| T6 | 4.16 ± 0.01 | 17.86 ± 0.16 | 0.575 ± 0.00 |
| T7 | 4.53 ± 0.00 | 20.87 ± 0.12 | 0.633 ± 0.00 |
| T8 | 3.50 ± 0.04 | 17.14 ± 0.10 | 0.567 ± 0.01 |
| T9 | 3.67 ± 0.03 | 25.07 ± 0.16 | 0.656 ± 0.01 |
| T10 | 3.73 ± 0.11 | 24.21 ± 0.18 | 0.673 ± 0.00 |
| T11 | 3.87 ± 0.06 | 21.70 ± 0.22 | 0.608 ± 0.00 |
| T12 | 3.82 ± 0.08 | 26.20 ± 0.31 | 0.657 ± 0.01 |
| T13 | 3.72 ± 0.10 | 23.31 ± 0.24 | 0.647 ± 0.02 |
| T14 | 3.83 ± 0.14 | 22.20 ± 0.15 | 0.596 ± 0.00 |
| T15 | 3.66 ± 0.20 | 20.50 ± 0.11 | 0.592 ± 0.00 |
| T16 | 3.69 ± 0.08 | 17.40 ± 0.09 | 0.582 ± 0.00 |
| T17 | 4.62 ± 0.03 | 16.00 ± 0.09 | 0.577 ± 0.02 |
| T18 | 4.17 ± 0.10 | 17.60 ± 0.10 | 0.553 ± 0.00 |
| T19 | 3.90 ± 0.12 | 19.50 ± 0.04 | 0.602 ± 0.00 |
| T20 | 3.64 ± 0.01 | 26.41 ± 0.20 | 0.612 ± 0.01 |
| Average value | 3.85 ± 0.05 | 21.49 ± 0.11 | 0.605 ± 0.00 |
| Median value | 4.01 ± 0.06 | 20.98 ± 0.13 | 0.609 ± 0.00 |
P—Polish honey samples; T—Thai honey samples. SD-standard deviation.
Figure 1Results of microbiological analyses of Polish and Thai honeys.
Figure 2Water content [%] and the number of yeasts and molds [log cfu/g] in Polish (P) and Thai (T) honeys, in which yeast and molds were detected.
Figure 3Dendrogram of hierarchical cluster analysis of microbiological variables determined by the Ward method in Thai honeys (a) and Polish honeys (b).
Figure 4Dendrogram of hierarchical cluster analysis of Polish and Thai honeys cases determined by the Ward method.