This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Microchemical Journal 93 (2009) 73–77

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Microchemical Journal
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / m i c r o c

Honey from Luso region (Portugal): Physicochemical characteristics

and mineral contents
Luís R. Silva a, Romeu Videira b, Andreia P. Monteiro b, Patrícia Valentão a, Paula B. Andrade a,⁎
a
REQUIMTE/Department of Pharmacognosy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Porto University, Rua Aníbal Cunha 164, 4050-047 Porto, Portugal
b
CI & DETS / Departamento de Ambiente, Escola Superior de Tecnologia do Instituto Politécnico de Viseu, Viseu, Portugal

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This work was conducted to evaluate the quality of 38 honey samples from Luso region (Portugal), and to
Received 29 April 2009 study the relation between Eucalyptus pollen and chemical properties of honey. Mean values obtained for
Accepted 3 May 2009 physicochemical parameters were: pH 3.83; 16.65% moisture; 80.7 °Brix sugar; 0.35% ash; 419.6 μS cm− 1
Available online 13 May 2009
electrical conductivity; 21.5 meq/kg free acidity; 9.6 meq/kg lactonic acidity; 31.2 meq/kg total acidity;
9.41 mg/kg HMF and 18.3° Gothe diastase activity. The mineral content was determined by atomic absorption
Keywords:
spectrometry, and in the analysed samples, potassium was the major element, being magnesium the minor
Luso honey
Pollen analysis
one. Mean values obtained were (mg/kg): Ca, 59.88; K, 1150.10; Mg, 35.57; Na, 261.43. Among the overall
Physicochemical analysis determined parameters, only Mg, ash and electrical conductivity were influenced by the presence of Euca-
Mineral content lyptus pollen in the honey samples: the values obtained for Mg, ash and electrical conductivity in multifloral
honey without Eucalyptus were lower than those of either monofloral or multifloral honey with Eucalyptus.
The results obtained for physicochemical characteristics of Luso honey indicate a good quality level, adequate
processing, good maturity and freshness.
Published by Elsevier B.V.

1. Introduction more appreciated than others due to their organoleptic properties or

Honey is the natural sweet product produced by Apis mellifera bees
from nectar of plants (nectar honey), from secretions of livings parts
of plants or excretions of plant-sucking insects of the living part of
plants (honeydew honey). This natural complex foodstuff is produced
in almost every country and largely used as food source. Honey cannot
be considered a complete food by human nutritional standards, but it
offers potential as a dietary supplement [1]. For infants, senior citizens
and invalids, honey can be a more easily digested and more palatable
carbohydrate food than saccharose by itself.
Honey mainly contains simple sugars or monosaccharides (of
which fructose and glucose are the main components (65%)) and 18%
of water, approximately [2]. Proteins, flavour and aroma, phenolic
compounds (phenolic acids and flavonoids), free amino acids,
organics acids, vitamins and minerals constitute minor components
of honeys [2]. Honey commercially available varies greatly in quality
all over the world. This is largely assessed on the basis of colour,
flavour and density. Honey composition is influenced by the plant
species, climate, environmental conditions and the contribution of the
beekeeper [3,4]. In general, monofloral honeys are more expensive
than multifloral ones [5]. In addition, some monofloral honeys are
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 222078934; fax: +351 222003977.
E-mail address: pandrade@ff.up.pt (P.B. Andrade).
their pharmacological attributes [6]. Honey has been reported to
contain about 200 substances and is considered as an important part
of traditional medicine [7]. It has been used in ethnomedicine since
the early humans, and in more recent times its role in the treatment of
burns, gastrointestinal disorders, asthma, infected wounds and skin
ulcers have also been reported [8,9].
Several types of honey are produced in Portugal, where honey
production is a traditional practice well implanted in several regions.
Luso region is located in the centre of Portugal, being one of the most
important region of honey production in this country, due to its
edafoclimatic conditions and plants diversity, were Eucalyptus pollen
predominates. The detailed characterization of the different honey
type's existent in Portugal is important, once it will allow the
establishment of technical specifications, avoiding occurrence of
adulterations. Due to adulteration possibility, honey quality must be
analytically controlled with the aim of guaranteeing its speculation.
On the other hand, as consumers have been incrementing their
interest in monofloral honeys in detriment of multifloral ones [10],
pollen analysis is important for the commercial valorisation of honey.
The work herein was conducted to investigate the quality of 38
different samples of honey proceeding from Luso region. For this
purpose, pollen analysis was performed and physicochemical char-
acteristics (pH, moisture, sugar, ash content, electrical conductivity,
free, lactonic and total acidity, diastase activity and hydroxymethyl-
furfural) and mineral contents (K, Na, Ca and Mg) evaluated.

0026-265X/$ – see front matter. Published by Elsevier B.V.

doi:10.1016/j.microc.2009.05.005
 Author's personal copy

74 L.R. Silva et al. / Microchemical Journal 93 (2009) 73–77

2. Materials and methods 2.3.1. pH

2.1. Sample collection
Honey samples were collected in Luso province (centre region of
Portugal). Sampling area covered the most important production
zones (Table 1). Samples were stored at 0 °C until analysis, which
occurred no longer than one month after extraction from the hives by
beekeepers.
The pH was measured by a pH-meter Consort C831 (USA), with a
precision of ±0.002 pH units. The pH of the honey was measured in
solution of 10 g honey in 75 ml of CO2 free distilled water.
2.3.2. Moisture content
Moisture was determined by refractometry, using an Atago (Japan)
model lT Abbe refractometer. All measurements were performed at
25 °C.

2.2. Pollen analysis 2.3.3. Sugar

Sugar content was determined with a special refractometer with
The botanical origin of the samples was determined using direct reading display, and the results were expressed as °Brix.
techniques described before [11]. For floral identification, 5 g of
diluted honey sample was centrifuged at 10,000 rpm for 15 min, to 2.3.4. Ash
separate the pollens. Samples of separated pollen grains were spread Ash content was measured by calcination, overnight, in furnace at
with the help of a brush on a slide containing a drop of lactophenol. 550 °C, until constant mass.
The slides were examined microscopically at 45×, using a bright-field
microscope (Olympus, Tokyo). 2.3.5. Electrical conductivity
Electrical conductivity of a honey solution at 20% (dry matter basis)
2.3. Physicochemical characteristics in CO2-free deionised distilled water, was measured at 20 °C in a Consort
C831 conductimeter, and the results were expressed as μS cm− 1.
Honey were analysed according to methods previously reported
for pH, moisture, Brix, ash content, electrical conductivity, free, 2.3.6. Free, lactonic and total acidity
lactonic and total acidity, diastase activity, hydroxymethylfurfural Free, lactonic and total acidity were determined as follows, by
determination [12]. Two replicate analyses were performed for each titrimetric method: the addition of 0.05 M NaOH was stopped at pH
sample. 8.50 (free acidity), immediately a volume of 10 ml 0.05 M NaOH was
added and, without delay, back-titrated with 0.05 M HCl to pH 8.30
(lactonic acidity). Total acidity results were obtained by adding free and
Table 1 lactone acidities.
Classification of honey samples.
2.3.7. Diastase activity
Sample Honey type
identification Diastase activity was measured using a buffered soluble starch
H1 Multifloral (Erica, Rubus, Castanea sativa)
solution and honey, which was incubated in the thermostatic bath at
H2 Multifloral (Erica, Rubus, Raphanus raphanistrium) 40 °C. Absorption was followed using a Perkin Elmer 25 UV/VIS
H3 Multifloral (Echium plantagineum, Cytisus scoparius, Rubus) spectrophotometer and a chronometer. Using regression (without
H4 Monofloral (Eucalyptus) using the data point at 0 min), lines were fitted to the absorption data
H5 Multifloral (Eucalyptus, Erica, Rhamnus)
and the diastase number was calculated from the time taken for the
H6 Monofloral (Eucalyptus)
H7 Monofloral (Lavandula stoechas) absorbance to reach 0.235. For samples of low diastase activity, the
H8 Multifloral (Raphanus raphanistrium, Rubus, Echium regression was made on the basis of the last three data points to
plantagineum) improve the linear correlation. In samples of high diastase activity the
H9 Multifloral (Cytisus scoparius, Lavandula stoechas, Rubus) time taken for the absorbance to reach 0.235 was determined with
H10 Monofloral (Eucalyptus)
H11 Monofloral (Eucalyptus)
absorbance at 5 and 10, or 5, 15, and 20 min, depending on the activity.
H12 Monofloral (Eucalyptus) Results were expressed (as Gothe degrees) as ml of 1% starch
H13 Monofloral (Eucalyptus) hydrolysed by enzyme in 1 g of honey, in 1 h.
H14 Multifloral (Echium plantagineum, Cytisus scoparius, Rubus)
H15 Multifloral (Erica, Eucalyptus, Rubus)
2.3.8. Hydroxymethylfurfural content (HMF)
H16 Monofloral (Eucalyptus)
H17 Monofloral (Eucalyptus) The Winkler method was used to determine the HMF content of
H18 Multifloral (Rubus, Erica, Eucalyptus) honey samples: 5 g of each sample was treated with a clarifying agent
H19 Multifloral (Eucalyptus, Trifolium hybridum, Rubus) (Carrez), the volume was completed to 50 ml and the solution was
H20 Multifloral (Erica arborea, Eucalyptus, Castanea sativa) filtered. The absorbance of the filtered solution was measured at 284
H21 Monofloral (Eucalyptus)
H22 Monofloral (Eucalyptus)
and 336 nm against an aliquot treated with NaHSO3.
H23 Monofloral (Eucalyptus)
H24 Monofloral (Eucalyptus) 2.4. Determination of mineral elements
H25 Multifloral (Eucalyptus, Erica, Rhamnus)
H26 Multifloral (Eucalyptus, Rubus, Echium plantagineum)
Ash values were obtained by calcination, at 550 °C, of approxi-
H27 Monofloral (Eucalyptus)
H28 Monofloral (Eucalyptus) mately 5 g honey sample, until constant weight [13]. Five milliliters of
H29 Monofloral (Eucalyptus) nitric acid 0.1 M were added to the resultant ashes, and the mixture
H30 Monofloral (Eucalyptus) was stirred on a heating plate to almost complete dryness. Then, 10 ml
H31 Monofloral (Eucalyptus) of the same acid was added and the mixture was made up to 25 ml
H32 Monofloral (Eucalyptus)
H33 Monofloral (Eucalyptus)
with distilled water. Calcium, potassium, sodium and magnesium
H34 Monofloral (Eucalyptus) were determined by atomic absorption spectrometry (Perkin Elmer
H35 Monofloral (Eucalyptus) AAnalyst 300), using an air/acetylene flame. Quantitative determina-
H36 Multifloral (Eucalyptus, Erica, Rubus) tion of the elements by atomic absorption spectrometry was carried
H37 Monofloral (Cytisus scoparius)
out after calibrating the instrument, using Ca (1 to 5 mg/l), K (0.1 to
H38 Monofloral (Erica)
2 mg/l), Na (0.1 to 2 mg/l), Zn (0.05 to 1 mg/l) and Mg (1 to 10 mg/l)
 Author's personal copy

L.R. Silva et al. / Microchemical Journal 93 (2009) 73–77 75

Table 2
Distribution data for physicochemical parameters in Luso (Portugal) honey samples.

Sample pH Moisture (%) °Brix (%) Ash (%) Electrical conductivity Free Acidity Lactonic acidity (meq/kg) Total acidity HMF Diastase activity (° Gothe)
(μS cm− 1) (meq/kg) (meq/kg) (mg/kg)
H1 3.88 17.04 80.6 0.39 473.5 33.8 8.3 42.0 1.75 23
H2 4.31 15.35 80.6 0.26 318.2 26.1 7.0 33.1 5.90 14
H3 4.34 15.83 80.6 0.25 301.3 22.9 10.5 33.4 11.75 4
H4 3.74 14.82 81.2 0.34 412.0 29.7 9.5 39.2 3.11 6
H5 4.12 15.27 80.2 0.22 263.2 25.1 6.2 31.2 2.45 10
H6 4.23 15.65 80.4 0.35 418.2 26.1 4.2 30.3 6.95 13
H7 4.25 13.52 82.2 0.09 114.7 16.4 4.7 21.1 5.35 5
H8 3.78 13.98 80.8 0.14 168.8 12.9 4.5 17.4 4.35 5
H9 3.83 14.49 81.0 0.34 415.1 38.1 9.0 47.1 14.60 27
H10 3.90 15.71 80.4 0.35 420.3 17.1 11.5 28.6 6.35 16
H11 4.70 14.98 80.6 0.32 385.2 24.0 5.2 29.2 7.22 8
H12 4.16 14.67 80.4 0.35 417.4 20.0 5.3 25.3 5.82 19
H13 4.30 14.30 82.0 0.35 420.1 18.2 6.1 24.4 2.54 16
H14 4.32 17.04 80.6 0.17 206.2 19.9 9.3 29.2 15.54 3
H15 3.82 15.70 79.8 0.36 436.3 25.0 14.3 39.2 8.50 17
H16 4.07 15.60 79.6 0.41 497.4 26.5 10.4 36.9 8.36 15
H17 4.01 15.00 81.6 0.32 391.5 12.6 9.7 22.2 5.09 15
H18 4.11 14.51 81.0 0.27 323.3 10.7 10.7 21.4 9.08 18
H19 3.55 18.90 80.4 0.39 477.5 24.5 11.0 35.5 10.00 27
H20 3.99 18.00 81.0 0.53 636.5 19.5 8.5 28.0 6.38 22
H21 3.57 16.80 82.0 0.38 462.2 19.5 15.0 34.5 9.31 26
H22 3.46 19.00 80.4 0.35 422.0 22.0 11.5 33.5 15.05 29
H23 3.60 19.20 79.6 0.43 517.5 27.5 11.5 39.0 9.10 25
H24 3.46 19.10 79.8 0.41 496.0 20.5 8.5 29.0 12.25 33
H25 3.60 18.00 81.0 0.35 429.5 17.0 8.5 25.5 15.80 21
H26 3.71 19.00 79.8 0.42 506.0 22.5 15.0 37.5 8.10 24
H27 3.60 17.00 82.0 0.36 437.0 19.0 10.0 29.0 5.09 23
H28 3.60 16.90 81.4 0.37 443.5 18.0 10.5 28.5 8.84 23
H29 3.54 17.30 80.2 0.37 446.0 18.5 12.0 30.5 17.23 27
H30 3.79 16.90 81.2 0.31 373.5 10.5 6.5 17.0 14.70 19
H31 3.52 19.40 79.0 0.34 411.0 18.0 8.0 26.0 25.45 7
H32 3.54 16.70 82.0 0.39 474.5 20.0 15.0 35.0 10.26 21
H33 3.64 16.20 81.2 0.39 478.0 20.0 12.5 32.5 4.58 38
H34 3.45 17.60 81.0 0.34 410.0 19.0 12.5 31.5 32.75 11
H35 3.81 17.60 81.0 0.46 555.5 17.0 8.0 25.0 13.85 20
H36 3.94 18.20 80.0 0.46 553.0 35.0 16.5 51.5 2.94 25
H37 3.91 19.70 79.0 0.37 441.0 30.0 11.5 41.5 6.56 28
H38 4.26 17.80 80.3 0.49 594.5 15.5 5.0 20.5 4.63 14
Mean 3.88 16.65 80.7 0.35 419.6 21.5 9.6 31.2 9.41 18.3
SD 0.32 1.71 0.8 0.09 106.9 6.4 3.2 7.8 6.35 8.6
Minimum 3.45 13.52 79.0 0.09 114.7 10.5 4.2 17.0 1.75 3
Maximum 4.70 19.70 82.2 0.53 636.5 38.1 16.5 51.5 32.75 38

SD: standard deviation.

solutions dissolved in 0.1% lanthanum (La). La was utilized as a matrix
modifier in order to overcome the chemical interferences in the air/
acetylene flame. All samples were analysed in triplicate.
2.5. Statistical analysis
The results obtained for the several physicochemical parameters
determined are presented in Table 2. Honey pH is affected by the
conditions during extraction and storage, which also influences
texture, stability and shelf-life. pH is indeed a useful index of possible

Data are represented as mean ± standard deviation. The results

were statistically analysed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) metho-
dology followed by Fisher's PLSD test. Differences were considered
significant for p b 0.05.

3. Results and discussion

Table 1 shows the floral origin of honey samples determined by

microscopy pollen analyses. Data indicate that 63% of honey samples
were monofloral and 37% were multifloral. Eucalyptus sp. was a
predominant source used by honeybees in the Luso region, once Eu-
calyptus pollen was detected in 79% of the total analysed samples.
Furthermore, 92% samples of monofloral honey were from Eucalyptus
sp., 4% were from Erica sp. and 4% from Cytisus scoparius. Multifloral
honeys contained several pollen types with a considerable percentage
of pollen grains from Eucalyptus sp., Erica sp., Rubus sp., Lavandula
stoechas, Castanea sativa and C. scoparius. Fig. 1. Linear regression of ash content (% w/w) and conductivity (μS cm− 1).
 Author's personal copy

76 L.R. Silva et al. / Microchemical Journal 93 (2009) 73–77

Table 3 grow well in alkaline media [14]. The pH values of the analysed honey
Distribution data for cationic mineral content in Luso (Portugal) honey samples. samples ranged from 3.45 to 4.70 (mean value = 3.88). These values
Sample Ca (mg/kg) K (mg/kg) Mg (mg/kg) Na (mg/kg) are in accordance with acceptable range for honey [15] and similar to
H1 10.80 1196.30 36.23 272.25 those obtained with others Portuguese honeys [5].
H2 6.24 1013.50 34.97 209.94 Percent moisture in the analysed honeys ranged from 13.53 to
H3 17.70 436.56 20.66 244.02 19.70 (mean value = 16.65). The water content of honey depends on
H4 85.33 1520.60 34.30 667.39
various factors, like the harvesting season, the degree of maturity
H5 15.07 653.02 28.27 253.76
H6 82.33 397.17 25.04 151.62 reached in the hive and climatic factors. The maximum amount of
H7 13.38 117.55 12.61 95.029 water contained by honey is regulated for safety against fermentation.
H8 48.84 188.98 10.63 100.38 All the samples contained less than 20% water, the maximum amount
H9 134.35 798.48 46.66 225.92 allowed by international and Portuguese legislations [16].
H10 68.40 1016.20 28.69 233.00
H11 19.90 958.25 47.87 534.72
Moisture and sugar content are strictly correlated and anomalous
H12 71.65 670.00 36.91 224.50 values of Brix degrees (directly related with sugar content) may be a
H13 58.65 809.81 35.47 228.59 reliable index of adulteration [13,14]. The analysed samples presented
H14 16.49 1645.00 22.07 90.224 Brix degrees ranging from 79.0 to 82.2 (average = 80.7), which are
H15 16.27 1097.50 41.13 629.27
similar to those from others Portuguese honey samples [5].
H16 54.80 2040.50 44.66 727.78
H17 106.91 1320.20 25.25 181.91 Ash content is a parameter used for the determination of the botanical
H18 79.17 1200.00 25.10 147.35 origin (floral, mix or honeydew) [17]. The results found (0.09–0.53%) are
H19 80.47 891.04 26.36 154.00 within the limit allowed for floral honeys (0.6%), indicating clearness of
H20 49.40 1564.60 70.00 464.01 honey samples and possibly lack of adulterations with molasses [1].
H21 122.45 1115.40 35.86 271.53
The electrical conductivity of honey is closely related to the con-
H22 107.25 1305.70 27.64 195.41
H23 62.68 1813.10 39.74 244.66 centration of mineral salts, organic acids and proteins. This parameter
H24 106.10 1906.70 42.88 266.88 shows great variability according to the floral origin and it is
H25 85.45 718.75 25.25 168.75 important for the differentiation of honeys of different floral origins
H26 37.01 1732.30 45.13 242.21
[18]. The results obtained for the honey samples under study varied
H27 91.65 1274.20 30.69 184.20
H28 104.37 928.76 30.70 138.63 between 114.7 and 636.5 μS cm− 1 (average = 419.6 μS cm− 1). These
H29 50.20 850.00 48.84 256.50 values are below the maximum limit indicated by Portuguese
H30 56.02 977.69 37.00 183.10 legislation for nectar honey (800 μS cm− 1).
H31 53.33 906.38 40.92 236.71 The increase in ash content of the honey samples from Luso region
H32 75.13 1324.60 39.46 175.20
was accompanied by the increase of electrical conductivity, as pre-
H33 68.55 966.25 42.05 430.50
H34 52.55 1303.70 38.19 203.25 viously reported by others [19,20]. This linear relationship is
H35 44.15 1187.50 35.49 169.49 characterised by a correlation coefficient R equal to 0.99 (Fig. 1).
H36 15.96 2590.60 70.41 455.79 Honey acidity is due to the presence of organic acids, mainly
H37 71.41 1600.60 31.97 101.22
gluconic acid, in equilibrium with their corresponding lactones or
H38 35.14 1667.00 36.78 174.45
Mean 59.88 1150.10 35.57 261.43
internal esters, and to inorganic ions, such as phosphate, sulphate and
SD 33.97 513.26 12.21 158.31 chloride [13,21]. The lactonic acidity is considered as the acidity
Minimum 6.24 117.55 10.62 90.22 reserve when the honey becomes alkaline, while the total acidity is
Maximum 134.35 2590.60 70.41 727.79 the sum of free and lactonic acidities [18]. Free acidity was within the
SD: standard deviation. limits of Portuguese and European legislations (below 50 meq/kg),
indicating the absence of undesirable fermentation. Lactonic acidity
ranged were from 4.2 to 16.5 meq/kg (average = 9.6 meq/kg). Total
microbial growth, since most bacteria grow in a neutral and mildly acidity varied between 17.0 and 51.5 meq/kg, with a mean value of
alkaline environment, while yeasts and moulds are capable of 31.2 meq/kg. The results obtained for acidity were in agreement with
developing in an acidic environment (pH = 4.0–4.5) and do not data reported for other Portuguese honeys [1,5] as well as for samples

Fig. 2. Means of ash, electrical conductivity and magnesium values for three different honey groups, considering floral origin, particularly multifloral without Eucalyptus, monofloral
Eucalyptus and multifloral with Eucalyptus.
 Author's personal copy
L.R. Silva et al. / Microchemical Journal 93 (2009) 73–77
from other geographical locations [13,18,22–24]. The variation of total
acidity has been attributed to harvest season [25].
HMF content is widely recognized as parameter of freshness for
honey samples. Several factors influence the formation of HMF, such
as storage conditions (e.g. temperature) and floral sources [18,26]. It is
well known that honey heating results in the formation of HMF, which
is produced during acid-catalysed dehydratation of hexoses, such as
fructose and glucose [27]. The amounts found fell within the European
legislation, corresponding to a high degree of freshness, which was
in agreement with the information provided by the producers: all
samples presented HMF levels below 40 mg/kg of honey, ranging
from 1.75 to 32.75 mg/kg (average = 9.41 mg/kg).
Diastase activity is a parameter used to determine if honey has
been extensively heated during processing, because the enzyme is
susceptible to heating and storage factors. The herein honey samples
exhibited very different values, ranging between 3 and 38° Gothe,
and only six samples presented an inappropriate diastase activity
(Table 2), with values below 8° Gothe [16], suggesting inadequate
storage or processing.
The mineral content is an important index of possible environ-
mental pollution and a potential indicator of geographical origin of
honey [3]. The results of the cationic metals determined in Luso honey
samples are summarized in Table 3. Potassium was quantitatively the
most important mineral, since, in mean, it accounted for 76% of the
total mineral, with an average content of 1150.1 ppm. Studies from
other geographical locations also revealed potassium to be the most
abundant element [17,19,20,28]. Sodium, calcium and magnesium
were present in moderate amounts in the honey samples, with
average contents of 261.43, 59.88 and 35.57 ppm, respectively. Thus,
sodium accounted for 17%, calcium for 4% and magnesium represented
3% of total quantified minerals. The mineral contents are similar to
those described previously [20,29].
To evaluate the possible relationship between floral origin and
chemical contents of honey, the samples were segregated in three
different brands considering the floral pollen analysis, namely:
monofloral Eucalyptus honey, multifloral honey with Eucalyptus and
multifloral honey without Eucalyptus. Significant differences among
the honey brands were performed by variance analysis (ANOVA),
followed by Fisher's PLSD test. Fig. 2 plots the mean and standard
deviation of the chemical parameters that show significant differences
between monofloral Eucalyptus honey and multifloral honey with or
without Eucalyptus. Data of Fig. 2 revealed that the values found for
Mg, ash and electrical conductivity in multifloral honey without Eu-
calyptus are lower than those of monofloral or multifloral honey with
Eucalyptus. Thus, Mg, ash and electrical conductivity are chemical
parameters that can be used to discriminate the monofloral Eucalyp-
tus honey samples from the multifloral, independently to have or not
Eucalyptus pollen. Additionally, the results obtained for the other
parameters analysed in the present work are important to characterise
the properties the honey samples from the Luso Portugal region, but
not to be used to differentiate the floral origin.
4. Conclusions
Honeys from Luso region present a good level of quality, once 32 of
the 38 analysed samples are in agreement with the European honey
directive [30] and Portuguese legislation [16], indicating adequate
processing, good maturity and freshness. Six samples did not fit
within European and Portuguese standards relative to the diastase
activity, reflecting inadequate sample manufacture and/or storage.
Potassium is the most abundant of the determined elements.
Magnesium and ash contents and electrical conductivity may be
used to discriminate the Eucalyptus monofloral from the multifloral
honey samples, independently to have or not Eucalyptus pollen,
suggesting that mineral content is highly dependent on the type of
flower used by bees.
77
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by Programa Apicola 2006. Luís R. Silva is
indebted to Eng. Nelson Miranda and to Eng. Andreia Chasqueira, from
Associação de Apicultores do Litoral Centro (Luso), for supplying
samples.
References
[1] E. Mendes, E. Brojo-Proença, I.M.P.L.V.O. Ferreira, M.A. Ferreira, Quality evaluation
of Portuguese honey, Carbohydr. Polym. 37 (1998) 219–223.
[2] M.L. González-Miret, A. Terrab, D. Hernanz, M.A. Fernández-Recamales, F.J.
Heredia, Multivariate correlation between color and mineral composition of
honeys and by their botanical origin, J. Agric. Food Chem. 53 (2005) 2574–2580.
[3] E. Anklam, A review of the analytical methods to determine the geographical and
botanical origin of honey, Food Chem. 63 (1998) 549–562.
[4] L. Azeredo, M.A.A. Azeredo, S.R. de Souza, V.M.L. Dutra, Protein contents and
physicochemical properties in honey samples of Apis mellifera of different floral
origins, Food Chem. 80 (2003) 249–254.
[5] P.B. Andrade, M.T. Amaral, P. Isabel, J. Carvalho, R. Seabra, A. Cunha, Physicochem-
ical attributes and pollen spectrum of Portuguese heather honeys, Food Chem. 66
(1999) 503–510.
[6] R.C. Martins, V.V. Lopes, P. Valentão, J.C.M.F. Carvalho, P. Isabel, M.T. Amaral, M.T.
Batista, P.B. Andrade, Relevant principal component analysis applied to the
characterisation of Portuguese heather honey, Nat. Prod. Res. 17 (2008)
1560–1582.
[7] J.W. White, Composition of Honey, in: E. Crane (Ed.), Honey: A Comprehensive
Survey, Heinemann, London, 1979, pp. 157–158.
[8] M. Al-Mamary, M. Al-Meeri, M. Al-Habori, Antioxidant activities and total
phenolics of different types of honey, Nutr. Res. 22 (2002) 1041–1047.
[9] F. Orhan, B.E. Sekerel, C.N. Kocabas, C. Sackesen, G. Adalioglu, A. Tuncer,
Complementary and alternative medicine in children with asthma, Ann. Allergy
Asthma Immunol. 90 (2003) 611–615.
[10] A. Terrab, A.G. González, M.J. Díez, F.J. Heredia, Characterization of Moroccan
uniforal honeys using multivariate analysis, Eur. Food Res. Technol. 218 (2003)
88–95.
[11] P. Lutier, B. Vassière, An improved method for pollen analysis of honey, Rev.
Palaeobot. Palynol. 78 (1993) 129–144.
[12] Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC), Official Methods of Analysis,
(15th ed.)Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Inc., Arlington, 1990.
[13] A. Terrab, A.F. Recalames, D. Hernanz, F.J. Heredia, Characterisation of Spanish
thyme honeys by their physicochemical characteristics and mineral contents, Food
Chem. 88 (2004) 537–542.
[14] M.E. Conti, Lazio region (central Italy) honeys: a survey of mineral content and
typical quality parameters, Food Control 11 (2000) 459–463.
[15] S. Bogdanov, Honey quality and International regulatory standards: review by the
International Honey Commission, Bee World 90 (1999) 61–69.
[16] Decreto-lei N° 214/2003 (Portuguese Legislation) 18 September 2003.
[17] J.W. White, Honey Adv. Food Res. 24 (1978) 287–375.
[18] A. Terrab, M.J. Díez, F.J. Heredia, Characterization of Moroccan Monofloral honeys
by their physicochemical characteristics, Food Chem. 79 (2002) 373–379.
[19] J. Serra Bonheví, E. Granados Tarrés, Physicochemical properties, composition and
pollen spectrum of ling heather (Calluna vulgaris (L) Hull) honey produced in
Spain, Apidologie 24 (1993) 586–596.
[20] G. Downey, K. Hussey, J. Kelly, T. Walshe, P. Martin, Preliminary contribution to the
characterisation of artisanal honey produced on the island of Ireland by
palynological and physico-chemical data, Food Chem. 91 (2005) 347–354.
[21] T. Echingo, T. Takenaka, Production of organic acids in honey by honey bees,
J. Agric. Chem. Soc. Jpn 48 (1974) 225–230.
[22] R. Kaushik, V. Joshi, J. Gupta, Total soluble solids, acidity, pH and standard plate
counts in the Indian honey as affected by different treatments and storage
conditions, J. Food Sci. Technol. 30 (1993) 442–443.
[23] C. Pérez-Arquillué, P. Conchello, A. Ariño, T. Juan, A. Herrera, Quality evaluation of
Spanish rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) honey, Food Chem. 51 (1994) 207–210.
[24] L. Costa, M. Albuquerque, L. Trugo, L. Quinteiro, O. Barth, M. Ribeiro, C. De Maria,
Determination of non-volatile compounds of different botanical origin Brazilian
honeys, Food Chem. 65 (1999) 347–352.
[25] G.O. De Rodriguez, B. Sulbarán de Ferrer, A. Ferrer, B. Rodriguez, Characterisation of
honey produced in Venezuela, Food Chem. 84 (2004) 499–502.
[26] B. Fallico, M. Zappala, E. Arena, A. Verzera, Effects of conditioning on HMF content
in Monofloral honeys, Food Chem. 85 (2004) 305–313.
[27] H.D. Belitz, W. Grosch, Food Chemistry, Springer, New York, 1999.
[28] J.L. Rodriguez-Otero, P. Paseiro, J. Simal, A. Cepeda, Mineral content of the honeys
produced in Galicia (North-west Spain), Food Chem. 49 (1994) 169–171.
[29] A. Terrab, M.J. Díez, F.J. Heredia, Palynological, physico-chemical and colour
characterisation of Moroccan honeys: II. Orange (Citrus sp.) honey, Int. J. Food Sci.
Technol. 38 (2003) 387–394.
[30] European Union Directive, Council Directive 2001/110/EC relating to honey
(2002).