A Review of Different Mechanical Extracting
Methods for Bee Honey Extraction
Gabriel Carl D. Bilkey*
*
Department of Agricultural & Biosystems Engineering, Central Luzon State University
ABSTRACT
Obtaining critical and essential information on
the different available mechanical extracting
methods for honey is of prime interest for people
involved in beekeeping, honey postharvest
handling, and apiculture research as well. A
variety of honey extracting machines that differ
in capacity are available commercially, each
mainly operating on one of the following
working principles,namely:centrifugal (manually-
operated), screw press, & centrifugal (motor-
driven). Established knowledge on the
performance parameters and economic potential
of these equipment is vital as well as its effect to
the nutritional value of the produce. Results in
this article based from existing publications and
information showed that the trend of equipment
development for honey extraction continues to
head towards becoming more efficient and
ergonomic. The review also provided evidence
that small scale beekeepers are viable to invest in
any type of existing honey extracting technology
provided a minimum acceptable rate of return
(MARR) of 7% and a 10 year projected business
lifespan. Furthermore, variance in nutritional
content, mineral content, and change in
physicochemical characteristics of honey samples
were found to be dependent on the mechanical
method of extraction used. Centrifugation process
was revealed to be the prime factor for pollen
loss due to the action exhibited by the centrifugal
and centripetal forces. These forces were not
found to be present on the screw-press extraction
method. Strong correlations found between
pollen content and the above-mentioned
parameters reflect that the decrease in nutritional
content, mineral content, and the change in
physicochemical characteristics of the honey
samples are associated with its decrease in pollen
content.
INTRODUCTION
Rationale
Before mechanical honey extraction
became prominent, the traditional honey
extracting methods were used and include the
use of direct heat or fire. This, however,
damages the quality of the commodity when
applied and produces honey that has reduced
nutritional value and dark color. Using of the
bare hands for manual squeezing of honeycombs
is also a common practice, yet contamination is
inevitable (FAO, Undated).
Apart from these, the overnight dripping
method is also used and is popular in bee-
keeping farms during the honey harvest season.
Over time, mechanization was incorporated.
For better product quality, honey extracting
machines were developed for small scale and
large scale use. These equipment vary in
operating principles and designed capacity, yet
all have the same function and purpose.
Extractors exhibit faster honey extraction, thus
making the duration of the process shorter.
The two commonly existing types of honey
extractors are the screw-press and the centrifugal.
Centrifugal extractor, which is a rotating device
of cylindrical shape that uses centrifugal and
centripetal force to remove the honey from its
cells, are being more popularly used in
beekeeping farms as these don’t disintegrate or
damage the comb, but instead, preserve the
comb for working bees’ use for the following
seasons (Singh et al, 2017). This reduces the
time and effort spent by bees for rebuilding the
cells and increase the time they have for
nectar-gathering and pollinating. On the other
hand, screw press extractors, which are known to
exist in Southeastern Europe since 1849, are
used as a traditional honey press (Mavrofridis,
2017). To date, it has been used on
irregularly-shaped, wild bee combs and
pot-shaped, stingless bee combs.
Like any other equipment, knowledge
concerning the machine’s performance, cost,
ergonomics, as well as its effect to the quality of
the commodity is vital. In this article, published
information regarding mechanical efficiency,
machine capacity, convenience during operation
based on extraction mechanism used and
mobility, and cost of fabrication of the available
mechanical extraction methods for bee honey
will be reviewed. Difference in physicochemical
characteristics, nutritional and mineral content of
honey samples after extracting, based on and
respective of the mechanical extraction method
undergone, will be examined.
Objectives
The general objective of the article is to
synthesize a narrative paper containing reviews
and information on recently developed honey
extracting machines obtained from relevant
published studies. Specifically, the review paper
aims to:
1) Determine the efficiency and capacity of the
different mechanical extraction methods for
honey;
2) Compare the extraction mechanism used and
the portability of each equipment;
3) Determine the fabrication cost of each
equipment and its adaptability to small-scale
bee-keeping farms; and
4) Analyze the cause of the difference on the
physicochemical characteristics, nutritional and
mineral content of the honey samples based on
the extraction methods performed.
Scope
The article is limited on the review of recently
developed centrifugal and screw press types of
honey extracting machines.
Database selected: journals, published
researches, books (Listed on REFERENCES
section)
Criteria for selecting: Related literature
published within five (5) years from present date,
if available.
Literature sources:
- Apple Academic Press, Inc.
- British Journal of Applied Science &
Technology
- British Journal of Economics, Management &
Trade
- CLSU Scientific Journal
- Elsevier, Ltd.
- Exisle Publishing, Ltd.
- Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO)
- French National Institute for Agriculture, Food,
and Environment (INRAE)
- International Journal of Innovative Science,
Engineering & Technology
- Journal of Pollination Ecology
- New York Science Journal
- Nigerian Journal of Technology (NIJOTECH)
- The Open University of Tanzania
- Research Gate (University of the Aegan)
Keywords: honey, bee honey extraction, honey
extracting machines, screw-press extractors,
manually-operated centrifugal extractors, motor-
driven centrifugal extractors
RESULTS & DISCUSSION
Machine Efficiency & Capacity
Manually-operated, screw-press extractor
A screw-type press, or simply called as honey
press, is classified as a manually-operated
equipment which utilizes the mechanical
advantage of the screw and pressure plate and
used for extracting harvested honeycombs. It is
ideal for village level beekeeping farms (Seif,
2017).
A study by Maradun and Sanusi (2013)
evaluating the efficiency of screw-press
extraction method for honey reveals a 70.6%
extraction efficiency as against the 56.33%
extraction efficiency exhibited by manual weight
and sieve method. Results also show that the
average extraction time is comparatively shorter
when using the machine. The figures disclose
that the extraction time when the machine is
used is 6.5 minutes as against the 62.33 minutes
consumed by the manual weight and sieve
method. The machine output capacity obtained
during the machine testing was 42.48 kg/hr. In
each of the trials performed, 5.0 kilograms of
honeycomb was used.
Turning bar
Threaded pressing
shaft
Flat iron bar
Pressing chamber
Discharge outlet
Frame
Figure 1. Sketch of manual screw-press honey
extracting machine (isometric view)
(Source: Maradun & Sanusi, 2013)
Manually-operated, tangential type centrifugal
honey extractor
A manually-operated, centrifugal honey extractor
operates primarily due to the centrifugal force
exerted from human power source. The rotation
caused by the centrifugal action of the machine
forces the honey out of the cells while preserving
the structure of the honeycomb (Babajide et al,
2015). This honey extracting machine can be
classified further into two - the pedal operated
and the hand operated.
In a study by Babajide et al (2015), a
hand-operated, tangential type centrifugal
extractor was designed, constructed, and
evaluated. After the performance test, results
reveal that the equipment has an extraction
efficiency of 83.3 %. The use of the machine also
yielded a shortened extraction time of 44 seconds.
The developed mechanical extraction method
was in full capacity for every trial; two frames
weighing 500 grams each were used during the
evaluation. The output capacity of the machine
revealed to be 6.52 kg/hr.
 hand crank
upper drum
lower drum
honey outlet
frame
Figure 2. Sketch of hand-operated honey
extracting machine (isometric view)
(Source: Babajide et al, 2015)
The study of Akinnuli et al (2016) aimed to
develop a tangential type, centrifugal honey
extractor that functions through pedal operation.
The scope of their study focused primarily on the
designing of the equipment and gathering of data
through performance test. Results of the machine
evaluation reveal an average mechanical
extraction efficiency of 85%. However, the study
also noted that the average time consumed for
extraction was 18.3 minutes. The output capacity
of the machine, after the trials were conducted,
was revealed to be 5.61 kg per batch operation.
The total mass of honey frames used in every
trial was constant at 6.6 kilograms, operating at
full, six-frame capacity.
Figure 3. Sketch of pedal-operated honey
extracting machine (isometric view)
(Source: Akkinuli et al, 2016)
Motor-operated, radial type centrifugal honey
extractor
This type of equipment uses an electric motor as
power source of the generated centrifugal force
for convenient extraction of honey from the comb.
In contrast with the tangential frame arrangement
of the manually-operated, centrifugal extractor,
the frames in this type are arranged in a radial
manner (Onwuameze and Oyejide, 2018). This
arrangement displays efficient space utilization as
against tangential types.
A study authored by Onwuamaeze and Oyejide
(2018) from the International Journal of
Innovative Science, Engineering, & Technology
focused on designing and fabricating a
motor-driven honey extracting machine. To
complete the study, a performance test was also
conducted. The gathered data from the machine
evaluation revealed a 68.16% mechanical
extraction efficiency. The extraction time was
68 seconds. The output capacity of the equipment
was found to be 0.036 kg/sec.
Figure 4. Sketch of motor-driven honey
extracting machine (isometric view)
(Source: Onwuamaeze & Oyejide, 2018)
As aforementioned by Mavrofridis (2017),
manual screw-press extractors are known to be
the first mechanical extraction method for honey
dated back to the 19th century, and according to
the study by Maradun and Sanusi (2013) this is
14.27% more efficient than the conventional
method as the latter results to only 56.33%
efficiency. The screw press method also
showcased a 9.59 times faster extraction
duration than the conventional method based on
the results presented above, thus saving time.
Consequently, the hand-operated, tangential type
honey extractor by Babajide et al (2015)
exhibited a higher extraction efficiency of 83.3%
which served the purpose of the development
while retaining the shape of the honeycomb.
Extraction time was also improved at 44 seconds.
This is 8.86 times faster than the previous
manual screw-press extractor.
On the other hand, the pedal operated honey
extracting machine by Akinnuli et al (2016),
which has a capacity of six frames, or three
times that of the previous equipment, had 85%
average mechanical extraction efficiency. This is
a 1.7% increase from the previous machine.
Extraction time, however, is remarkably longer
at 18.3 minutes.
The motor-operated honey extracting machine
by Onwuamaeze and Oyejide (2018) also had a
six-frame capacity. After the testing and
evaluation, results showed a 68.16% extraction
efficiency during a 68-second extraction time,
which is 16.84% lower than the previous
development. Among the four different
mechanical extraction methods, it turned out to
have the lowest extraction efficiency.
In pursuit of related studies and results to verify
if there are similarities as with the data presented
by Onwuamaeze and Oyejide (2018) in their
study, a published research by Peneyra, De
Guzman, and Pico (2001) of Central Luzon State
University was found to be of relevance. In this
study, the developed radial type, motor-driven
bee honey extractor exhibited a 95.73%
extraction efficiency at 7 minutes. This, the
duration of extraction, may be the factor left
unnoticed by the researchers that resulted to the
machine’s considerably low efficiency when
compared to relevant and previous development.
This may also contributed errors to the
measurement of the machine’s output capacity
during the testing and evaluation.
It is also important to note that the common gap
found in the studies is the method for determining
the potential volume of honey to be extracted.
The efficiency of the machines had been
computed without a clear methodology for
determining the potential volume.
Machine Ergonomics: Extraction Mechanism
& Portability
The following results detail the extraction
mechanisms used in each of the equipment,
clearly indicating the power source utilized.
Portability of the various machines was also
discussed.
Manually-operated, screw-press extractor
The manual screw-press extractor can be
operated without possessing vast technical
knowledge and functions without the use of
electricity. During the operation of the machine,
downward rotating force is to be exerted to the
screw handle for the compression of the
honeycomb. Figure 5 shows how the screw will
be rotated, which corresponds to the downward
moving of the pressure plate.
Figure 5. Sketch of manual screw-press honey
extracting machine mechanism
(Source: Maradun & Sanusi, 2013)
The study of Maradun and Sanusi (2013) shows
that the materials used in fabricating the
equipment are lightweight. The authors also
suggest the limit of the equipment’s use to small
and medium scale bee keeping farms.
Manually-operated, tangential type centrifugal
honey extractor
The study of Babajide et al (2015) produced a
hand-operated honey extracting machine. The
equipment exhibits its independence to the use of
electricity for its operation. It is recommended for
on-site honey extraction.
The equipment works on the expense of human
power through manual hand crank rotation. Gears
are used as means of power transmission from the
human hand to the rotating cylinder while pillow
bearings are used to secure the transmission.
Figure 6 further details this mechanism.
bevel gears
Pillow bearing
driving shaft
handle
wire mesh
Figure 6. Sketch of hand-operated honey
extracting machine mechanism
(Source: Babajide et al, 2015)
The study of Akinnuli et al (2016) developed a
pedal-operated honey extracting machine. The
equipment is stationary and operates in expense
of human effort through continuous cycling. The
development modified the power transmission
system and aimed to divert the power source
from the hands to the feet. Basically, it operates
similar to the working principle of the
hand-operated, tangential type centrifugal honey
extractor, however, the gear assembly is attached
to a vertical pulley assembly and finally to a
sprocket and chain assembly which is connected
to the pedal. Figure 7 illustrates.
Figure 7. Sketch of pedal-operated honey
extracting machine mechanism
(Source: Akkinuli et al, 2016)
Authors claimed in the study that the
pedal-driven mechanism resulted to a fast gain of
momentum during the testing and evaluation.
Motor-operated, radial type centrifugal honey
extractor
The study by Onwuamaeze and Oyejide (2018)
dealt with the construction of a motor-operated
honey extracting machine. The equipment’s
rotating column weighs 5.29 kg, and additional
weight is comprised of the other parts.The
equipment is recommended for use on sheltered
locations with access to electricity.
It operates by batch with the use of an electric
motor. The motor served as substitute for
available human power. The working principle is
similar to the tangential type extractors, however,
notable differences are the power source and the
arrangement of frames, which turned out to be
radial for more efficient space utilization. The
electric motor is attached to the rotating shaft,
which carries the totality of the rotating cylinder,
through the use of belt and pulley. In this case,
gears from the past developments of centrifugal
extractors were replaced. Figure 8 further
illustrates.
Figure 4. Sketch of motor-driven honey
extracting machine mechanism and its
components
(Source: Onwuamaeze & Oyejide, 2018)
Joseph Shigley suggests that men usually exert
151 Newtons up to 222 Newtons for pushing
when using the right hand and 96 to 187
Newtons when the left hand is in use, depending
on the angle of elbow flexion. In operating the
manual screw press extraction, these, at least,
should be applied. When compared to the three
other mechanical methods of extraction
previously mentioned, this may be needing the
greatest effort to be exerted. This is because the
screw and pressure plates don’t gain momentum
unlike the hand crank-operated and pedal
operated extractors. On the other hand, the
motor-driven, radial type extracting machine by
Onwuamaeze and Oyejide (2018) took prime
importance on machine ergonomics. The authors
focused on reduction of effort caused by manual
operation of honey extractors. The developed
equipment relied on electricity for its operation
as a substitute for available human power. Owen
(2015) of the Australian Beekeeping Manual
also agrees that the use of a centrifugal extractor,
whether cranked or electric, is convenient and
less labor-intensive, however, of greater cost.
Claims pertaining to the mobility of the machines,
on the other hand, seemed to lack specific data as
most of the weight of the machines were not
included in the published studies.
Cost of Fabrication & Viability
The individual cost of fabricating the different
honey extracting machines ranged from 143 -
243.75 USD. In local Nigerian currency, the cost
of the machine produced by Babajide et al (2015)
totaled 21,450. The studies of Maradun and
Sanusi (2013) & Akkinuli et al (2016) summed
up to 29,000 and 48,750, respectively. All are
expressed in Nigerian naira.
The study of Onwuamaeze and Oyejide (2018)
didn’t include any figures regarding the total cost
of the developed equipment. The authors claimed
that the machine components were obtained
locally for material cost reduction.
The individual cost of fabricating the different
honey extracting machines mentioned above
range from 143 - 243.75 USD. As stated by
Owen (2015), the use of extractors come at a cost,
yet results to less labor-intensive extracting
process. A study conducted by Olatubosun et al
(2016) in Nigeria, which is classified as a
developing country like the Philippines, answered
the query concerning the economic profitability
of small scale beekeeping farms in the country
and the viability of technologies involved in
beekeeping. Results show that at minimum
acceptable rate of return (MARR) of 7% and 10
year project lifespan, small scale beekeeping for
honey production is profitable. Technologies
involved such as combination of different hive
types and extracting machines and methodologies
were also studied. The extracting equipment
involved were centrifugal extractors and honey
presses. The other methodologies for extraction
include the manual squeezing, floating extraction,
and stone press technologies. All of these were
concluded viable. Therefore, even small scale
beekeepers can invest on extracting machinery
for honey provided conditions of 7% MARR and
10 year projected business lifespan are met. In
line with this, the cost of fabricating the
equipment is justified.
Method of Mechanical Extraction Performed:
Variation on Physicochemical Characteristics,
Nutrient & Mineral Content
A study by Kadri et al (2016) and its results
concentrating on the differences between
physicochemical characteristics, nutrient, and
mineral content of honey when subject to two
different mechanical extraction methods is
discussed below. The experimental units used in
the study were comprised of Africanized Apis
mellifera bee honeycombs housed in Langstroth
hives.
Screw-Press Method
The physicochemical parameters measured
include moisture, pH, total acidity, ash, and dry
matter for both mechanical extraction methods.
The moisture content of honey samples obtained
from pressed honeycombs ranged from 18.98 -
19.05%. Results further show that the pH, percent
dry matter, and percent ash of the extracted
samples ranged from 4.19 - 4.33, 86.90 - 88.14%,
and 0.22 - 0.23%, respectively.
The nutrient analysis included measurements of
total carbohydrates, total lipids, total proteins,
and ascorbic acid. The total carbohydrate count
ranged from 822.65 - 838.95 g/kg. Furthermore,
lipids, ascorbic acid, and protein content ranged
from 1.04 - 1.31%, 288.82 - 324.58 mg/kg, and
0.23 - 0.25%,respectively.
Significant difference were found on mineral
content of samples extracted with the two
different mechanical methods. The macro mineral
(K, Mg, Ca) content of honey obtained from
pressed process revealed to be 1,026.57 -
1,046.71 mg/kg, 96.02 - 96.62 mg/kg, and 326.25
- 327.48 mg/kg. On the other hand, micro
minerals (Na, Zn, Fe, Li, Cu) were found to be
20.19 - 20.32 mg/kg, 1.70 - 1.73 mg/kg, 18.34 -
18.72 mg/kg, 0.29 - 0.31 mg/kg, and 0.41 - 0.43
mg/kg, consecutively ordered.
Centrifugal Method
As per the centrifugal method of extraction,
results of the physicochemical analysis of the
centrifuged samples are as follows.The range
of % MC, % ash, pH, and % dry matter of the
extracted honey samples are 17.67 - 17.98 %,
0.15 - 0.17%, 4.06 - 4.15, and 79.98 - 81.12%.
Nutrient analysis of the samples extracted using
the centrifugal extraction method reveals the
following results. The total carbohydrates, total
proteins, total lipids, and ascorbic acid count
ranges 682.34 - 745.13 g/kg, 0.15 - 0.16%, 0.83 -
0.89%, and 220.81 - 271.39 mg/kg, consecutively
ordered.
The macro- and micro- mineral content of the
honey samples extracted through centrifugation
process is obtained through mineral analysis. It is
of prime interest to note the following figures as
against the results obtained from the pressed
process. The K, Mg and Ca content of the honey
samples were 956.98 - 970.59, 85.67 - 86.79,
and 263.67 - 264.67. On the other hand, Na, Zn,
Fe, and Cu content were 9.69 - 9.83, 1.41 - 1.43,
7.23 - 7.89, and 0.41 - 0.43. All figures are
expressed in mg/kg.
After being subject to two different mechanical
extraction processes, characterization and
comparison of the samples’ physicochemical
characteristics, nutrient content, and mineral
content were performed. The data gathered from
honey samples extracted through pressed process
exhibit superiority compared to those that
undergone centrifugal process (p<0.05).
From the results stated above, considerable
difference were observed between the moisture
content, pH, ash content, and dry matter of
pressed and centrifuged samples. This sig-
nificance is also seen on the nutritional content of
honey when the total carbohydrate, total lipid,
total protein, and ascorbic acid content of the
samples were quantified. Looking further, it can
be noticed that the potassium (K), magnesium
(Mg), calcium (Ca), and sodium (Na) contents
of the pressed samples surpassed those of the
centrifuged samples by 7%, 12%, 23%, and
108%, respectively. Iron (Fe) as well as zinc (Zn)
were also higher by 45% and 21%, respectively.
It is also interesting to note that the copper (Cu)
content of the samples didn’t differ on the two
processes undergone, while the micro mineral
lithium (Li) was only found on the pressed
honey.
The study was able to identify the effects of using
the two extraction methodologies on honeycomb
samples. The results have been clearly presented,
however, the prime cause for the significance
wasn’t identified. The study used honeycombs of
the same age, same species of pollinator, and
came from the same source of flora to ensure that
this wont be, at least to the best of knowledge of
the researchers, the cause of the erroneous
findings.
As the behavior between pollen content and
physicochemical parameters, nutrient content,
and mineral content were being observed in the
study, strong and positive correlations were
found. In a study published by Lutier and
Vaissiere (2020), pollen in honey can be removed
through centrifugation, although filtration was
recognized in this study as the first step for pollen
removal. The removal of pollen in the honey
samples that underwent centrifugal extraction
may have been caused by the centrifugal and
centripetal forces present during the process, and
this removal of pollen, based on the strong
correlation of pollen content and the parameters
observed, was associated to be the driving factor
of the decrease in various nutritional & mineral
contents of honey samples as well as the change
in its physicochemical parameters.
It is also important to note that the pollen loss
event during the centrifugation process might not
be the loss through the thrusting out of pollen but
probably through pollen breakdown. Further
research is suggested by Jones (2014) to see if
fragile pollen grains (e.g. cotton pollen grains)
break during centrifugation process as these
fragile ones may be the cause of sudden decrease
in pollen count from the centrifuged honey
samples.
CONCLUSION
After writing the article, a review on different
mechanical extracting methods for bee honey was
synthesized based on study objectives, namely:
1) determination of mechanical efficiency and
capacity; 2) convenience in operation based on
extraction mechanism used and machine mobility;
3) determination of the cost of fabrication and its
viability to small-scale bee-keeping farms; and 4)
variation on physicochemical characteristics,
nutrient content & mineral content of the samples
based on the mechanical extraction method
performed.
Key findings of the study were summarized, and
study gaps such as the method of computing the
honeycomb’s potential honey content, as well as
the possible sources of error encountered during
the equipment’s evaluation, were also identified,
highlighted, and discussed. It is also seen that
testing and evaluation done in the various studies
involved should be improved and performed with
precision as these data are of prime importance.
Some of the knowledge gaps on the cited
literature such as the viability of purchasing
honey extracting machines for small-scale
bee-keeping farms and the unidentified cause of
the decrease in nutritional value of honey based
on the mechanical extraction method used, were
also bridged by supplying the needed information
sourced from existing relevant publications.
REFERENCES
Akinnuli, B.O., Awopetu, O.O., Ikubanni, P.P.,
and Agboola, O.O. (2016). Development of
Pedal Operated Honey Extractor. British
Journal of Applied Science & Technology.
Retrieved at https://www.scholar.google.com
Babajide, N.A., Ogunlade, C.A., Oke, A.M., and
Aremu, D.O. (2015). Development and
Evaluation of Honey Extracting Machine.
New York Science Journal 2015. Retrieved
at http://www.science pub.net/network
FAO. (Undated). Chapter 6 - Colony
manipulation: honey and beeswax harvesting
and extraction. Retrieved at www.fao.org
Jones, G.D. (2014). Pollen Analyses for
Pollination Research, Acetolysis. Journal of
Pollination Ecology (pp. 203-217). Retrieved
at https://www.pollinationecology.org
Kadri, S.M., Zaluski, R., and Orsi, R.D.O.
(2017). Nutritional and mineral contents of
honey extracted by centrifugation and
pressed processes. Elsevier, Ltd. Retrieved at
https://www.elsevier.com/ locate/foodchem
Lutier, P.M. and Vaissiere, B.E. (2020). An
improved method for pollen analysis of honey.
French National Institute for Agriculture,
Food, and Environment (INRAE). Retrieved
at https://www.researchgate.net
Mavrofridis, G. (2017). Traditional wax and
honey presses of southeastern Europe.
University of the Aegean. Retrieved at
https://www.researchgate.net
Maradun, U.M. and Sanusi, U.M. (2013). Technical
Note: Comparative Effects of Screw Press for
Honey Extraction for Small Scale Honey
Processing. Nigerian Journal of Technology.
Retrieved at https://www.researchgate.net
Olatubosun, T., Oluwale, A., and Ilori, M.
(2016). Economic Evaluation of Smallholder
Honey Production Technologies in
Southwestern Nigeria. British Journal of
Economics, Management & Trade. Retrieved
at https://www.researchgate.net
Onwuamaeze, I.P. and Oyejide, J.O. (2018).
Design and Construction of Honey Extractor.
International Journal of Innovative Science,
Engineering & Technology. Retrieved at
https://www.ijiset.com
Owen, R. (2015). The Australian Beekeeping
Manual. Exisle Publishing. Retrieved at
https://www . books.google.com
Peneyra, R.G., De Guzman, B., and Pico, E. Jr.
(2001). Radial type motor driven bee honey
extractor. CLSU Scientific Journal (Philippines).
Retrieved at https://scholar.google.com
Seif, S.S. (2017). Development and Improvement
of Processing and packaging of Honey and
Beeswax as Source of Household Income for
Mama na Nyuki Group in Busunzu Village,
Kibondo District, Tanzania. Retrieved at
https://repository.out.ac.tz
Singh, V., Verma, D.K., and Chauhan, D. (2017).
Engineering Interventions in Foods and
Plants:Beekeping Technology and Honey
Processing - Emerging Entrepreneurship for
Rural Areas. Retrieved at https://www.books.
google.com
APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1. Test results for screw press honey extracting machine.
(Source: Maradun and Sanusi, 2013)

S/no W(i) (kg) Extracted (kg) Extracted (L) Cake (kg) Time (min) Method %Eff.

1 5.0 2.82 1.95 2.12 60 *WS 56.4

2 5.0 2.81 1.94 2.11 65 *WS 56.2
3 5.0 2.82 1.95 2.13 62 *WS 56.4
Mea n 5.0 2.816 1.946 2.12 62.33 56.33
4 5.0 3.54 2.45 1.44 6.0 *SP 70.8
5 5.0 3.52 2.43 1.43 7.0 *SP 70.4
6 5.0 3.53 2.44 1.45 6.5 *SP 70.6
Mea n 5.0 3.53 2.44 1.44 6.5 70.6

Appendix Table 2. Test results for manually-operated, tangential type centrifugal honey extracting machine.
(Source: Babajide et al, 2015)

Run Whb (g) Whe (g) Wha (g) Tt (s) Eff (%) Capacity (kg/hr)

1 500 375 125 52 75 5. 34

2 500 395 104 46 79.2 6.04
3 500 456 44 32 91.2 8.68
4 500 420 0 39 84 7.12
5 500 435 65 51 87 5.44
Ave 500 416 83.6 44 83.3 6.52
S. D. - 32 31.8 8.5 6.4 1.40

Appendix Table 3. Test results for pedal-operated, tangential type centrifugal honey extracting machine.
(Source: Akinnuli et al, 2016)

S/No Parameter First working condition Second working condition Third working condition Average

1 Density of honey (kg/m3) 1402.7 1402.7 1402.7 1402.7

2 Total mass of honey frame (kg) 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6
3 Speed of the frame basket (rpm) 250 260 270 260
4 Time taken for operation (min) 20 20 15 18.3
5 Volume of honey extracted (m3) 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004
6 Mass of honey extracted (kg) 5.61 5.61 5.61 5.61

Appendix Table 4. Test results for motor-operated, radial type centrifugal honey extracting machine.
(Source: Onwuameze and Oyejide, 2018)

Designed Parameter Values Obtained

Efficiency 68.16%
Throughput capacity 0.0360 kg/sec
Volume of rotating cylinder (m3) 13.9E-5m3
Mass of rotating cylinder (kg) 1.1
Weight of rotating cylinder (N) 10.8
Mass of rotating column (kg) 5.29kg
Weight of rotating column (N) 207.6
Volume of net (m3) 0.00327
Weight of honey (N) 273.3

Appendix Table 5. Physicochemical parameter analyses of wild honey samples extracted by centrifugation and pressed processes.
(Source: Kadri et al, 2017)

Process Moisture(%) pH Total acidity (meq/kg) Ash(%) Dry matter (%)

Centrifuged 17.76 ± 0.11b 4.11 ± 0.03b 16.13 ± 0.05b 0.16 ± 0.01b 80.56 ± 0.41b
Range 17.67–17.98 4.06–4.15 16.10–16.23 0.15–0.17 79.98–81.12
Pressed 19.01 ± 0.03a 4.26 ± 0.06a 17.22 ± 0.06a 0.23 ± 0.01a 87.51 ± 0.54a
Range 18.98–19.05 4.19–4.33 17.12–17.24 0.22–0.23 86.90–88.14

Appendix Table 6. Nutritional parameter analyses of wild honey samples extracted by centrifugation and pressed processes.
(Source: Kadri et al, 2017)

Process Total carbohydrates (g/kg) Total lipids (%) Total proteins (%) Ascorbic acid (mg/kg)

Centrifuged 698.41 ± 23.28b 0.85 ± 0.03b 0.15 ± 0.01b 252.57 ± 20.17b

Range 682.34–745.13 0.83–0.89 0.15–0.16 220.81–271.39
Pressed 831.35 ± 6.64a 1.13 ± 0.12a 0.24 ± 0.01a 310.24 ± 13.88a
Range 822.65–838.95 1.04–1.31 0.23–0.25 288.82–324.58

Appendix Table 7. Macro-mineral and micro-mineral content (mg/ kg) of wild honey samples extracted by centrifugation and pressing.
(Source: Kadri et al, 2017)

Process K Ca Mg Na Fe Zn Cu Li

Centrifuged 967.72 ± 5.37b 264.11 ± 0.34b 86.26 ± 0.37b 9.70 ± 0.06b 7.55 ± 0.22b 1.42 ± 0.08b 0.42 ± 0.02a N.D.
Range 956.98 –970.59 263.67–264.67 85.67–86.79 9.69–9.83 7.23–7.89 1.41–1.43 0.41–0.43 N.D.
Pressed 1038.53 ± 8.29a 326.90 ± 0.43a 96.60 ± 0.51a 20.24 ± 0.04a 18.55 ± 0.13a 1.72 ± 0.01a 0.42 ± 0.01a 0.30 ± 0.01
Range 1026.57–1046.71 326.25–327.48 96.02–96.62 20.19–20.32 18.34–18.72 1.70–1.73 0.41–0.43 0.29–0.31