Introduction
Honey is the natural sweet substance produced by honeybees from the nectar of blossoms or from secretions of
living parts of plants or excretions which honeybees (Apis mellifera, Apis mellifica) collect, transform and combine with
specific substances of their own, store and leave in the honey comb to ripen
and mature (3).
Chemical composition of the honey
shows differences depanding on many factors. The most important of these
factors is the natural combination of the nectar and secretion. Also climatic
conditions and the capability of the bees in making honey are the effective
factors on the composition (15). Table 1 shows chemical parameters regarding
the Turkish Food Codex Honey Communi-cating.
Water content in the honeys is important only for determining the quality and
fermentation. Temperature and humidity where honey is stored, processing
methods of the honey and air circulation can cause in the moisture content of
honey (15). The water content of honey should be less than 20 %. If it is
higher than this, it is readily susceptible to fermentation by osmophilic
yeasts (11,16).
Table 1. Chemical parameters detected for
honeys (4,5,7,8).
Tablo 1. Ballar için belirlenmiş kimyasal özellikler (4,5,7,8).
Chemical parameters Range/s
|
Humidity
|
≤ 20 %
|
|
Total
acidity
|
≤ 50
meq/kg
|
|
Diastase
activity
|
8 ≤
|
|
HMF
|
≤ 40
mg/kg
|
|
Invert
sugar
|
Flower
honey: 60 % ≤
|
Pine honey:
45 % ≤
|
|
Sucrose
|
Flower honey: ≤ 5 %
|
Pine honey:
≤ 10 %
|
|
Ash
|
Flower honey: ≤ 0.6 %
|
Pine honey: ≤ 1.2%
|
|
Commercial
glucose
|
Should not
be found
|
|
Starch
|
Should not
be found
|
Basic composition of the honey is carbohydrate. From
these fructose and glucose are most commenly found. The composition of
disaccharides depends largely on the plants from which the honey is derived
(11,21,30). In a very few honeys such as brassica napus rape, chicory (Cichorium intybus) and blue curl (loch)
glucose is found more than fructose. In all of the other honeys, fructose
content is more than glucose. These two sugars represent 69 % - 78 % of
carbohydrates in honey. The amount of sucrose in honey differs according to the
maturity degree and nectar compound of the honey. Unripened honeys that are
very early harvested, contain too much sucrose. Depending on the latter, a
trick comes to mind as the sucrose is more than the amount stated in the honey
standard (11,29,30,).
Honey is rich regarding the enzymes. Honey enzymes, as
an indicator are representing the quality of the honey. The most prominent
enzymes in honey are α-glucosidase (invertase or saccharose), α- and
β-amylases (diastase), glucose oxidase, catalase and acid phosphatase
(11).
5-hydroxymethyl-2-furaldehyde (HMF) on of the important
quality criteria in honey, is formed by dehydration of fructose and glucose
(19). During the storage HMF is forming in different rates from the hexose
sugar depending on the honey pH and heat in acid eficacy (14). High HMF content
(40mg/kg or more) indicates whether the honey is heated and/or sucrose,
hydralysed with acid or cornflower syrup is added to the honey (20). It is
reported that if honey is kept 25
°C for one year, in 60 °C for three days, HMF
forming is in the level of 3.0 mg/100g (19).
Honey is the most trickery animal product because of its
processing ways and compound. According to the Turkish Standards 3036 (3),
tricky honey is the honey that had lost its general feature because of some
foreign substances such as water, milk, starch, mellas syrup, flour, glue,
plaster, chalk, gelatin, gel, colour and aroma substances are added. Especially
well-sugared honey obtained as a result of bees feeding up with mellas syrup,
hold an important position in tricky honey (12,15,24).
Determination of the chemical qualities of the honey are important regarding
the protection of public health and consumer rights. The present study was
conducted in order to determine the suitability of the strained honey presented
for consumption in Ankara chemically regarding the Turkish Food Codex Honey
Communicating.
Materials and Methods
In this study, 35 strained flower honey and 35 strained
pine honey, total 70 strained honey samples from different districk markets in
Ankara were collected to use as materials. The samples were put in glass jars
in approximately 300g each.
Moisture content was measured using a refractometer (2)
and free acidity was determined by the titrimetric method. Diastase measures
held by the starch hydrolysis activity of diastase enzyme. Hydroxy-methylfurfural
was determined by spectrophotometric method. Invert sugar determination was
done in basic condition within the titration of Zinc (II) solution against
methylene blue indicator. Sucrose determination was done by the titration as
methylene blue indicator against reduced sugar solution. Founded total sugar
percentage was reduced within the invert sugar percentage and then multiplied
by 0.95 rotating factor. The presence of commercial glucose was detected by
iodine and/or fiche method (3). Ash percentage was determined by calcination in
a furnace (6). Starch determination was performed by iodine method (15). Pollen
analyse was done by microscopic inspection (27).
Results and Discussions
Table 2 and Table 3 shows the chemical results of 35 strained flower
honey samples and 35 strained pine honey samples, total 70 strained honey
samples.
Except the values given in Table 3 starch was found
in the 7 of the flower honey samples. 8 flower honey samples gave possitive reaction
by iodine method and 6 flower honey samples gave positive reaction by fiche
method during commercial glucose determination. No pollen was seen in 2 flower
honey samples and rhododendron pollens were seen in 2 flower honey samples.
Only one of the samples which was a pine honey contained starch.
Commercial glucose analysed with Iode and Fiche methods and only one pine honey
sample showed to contain commercial glucose with Fiche method.
In this study, diastase activity was found lower than the results
reported by White (30), Velioğlu and Köse (28) and Devillers et al. (13); but
higher than the results reported by Tolon (25) and showed similarity with
Aydoğan et al. (9), Tosun (26) and Şahinler et al. (22). In a previous study by
Şahinler et al. (22) 44 % out of 50 honey samples examined, were not reported
to be suitable regarding the Turkish Honey Codex. The present study, in
accordance with the study reported by Şahinler et al. (22) showed similarities.
Enzymes, like diastase, play an important role in the biological value of
honey. Exposure to high temperatures and long storage periods inactivate
diastase. In the present study as in 14 honey samples diastase activities were
recorded very low besides HMF counts were very high showed that these honey samples were treated with
high temperature. Besides, as these samples displayed commercially available
glucose, except one, coincided that these samples were tricky honeys.
In our study, HMF values were higher than all the other sources published by
many scientists (1,9,13,22,25,26,28). This difference may be from the
commercial glucose content in the 40 % of floral honey samples and 2.86 % of
pine honey samples, total 21.43 % of the samples, not only the HMF amounts were
high but also diastase activity was low, showed that these honey samples had
high temperature applications.
Sucrose values detected in the present study was higher than reported by
White et al. (29), Tetik (24), Balcı (10), Velioğlu and Köse (28), Aydoğan et
al. (9), Şahinler et al.(22) and Devillers et al. (13); however was in
association with Kurt and Yamankaradeniz (17), Tolon (25) and Tosun (26). This
difference indicates that honeys contain sugar, bees were fed with sugar
solution insted of nectars, early harvesting before honey ripenned in the
honeycomb and false acacia (Robina
pseudoacacia), alfalfa (Medicago
sativa), (Banksia menziesii)
flower honeys, honeysuckle (Hedsaryum), redgum (Eucalyptus camadulensis), leather wood (Eucryphia lucida, Eucryphia milliganii) origin honeys and orange
honeys have been mixed.
Commercial glucose was determined in 14 flower honey ( 40 %) samples and
in 1 pine honey sample (2.86 %) that were analysed. Tetik (24), Kurt and
Yamankaradeniz (17) and Tolon (25) didn’t report commercial glucose in any of
the honey samples they examined. Tosun (26) has reported that 7 out of 30
samples (23.3 %) contain commercial glucose. The ratios of commercial glucose
were found in our study are higher than found by Tosun (26). Regarding the
Turkish Food Codex Honey Communicating (4,5,7,8), commercial glucose should not
be included in honey. That’s why 15 (21.43 %) honey samples which contain
commercial glucose are adulterate.
Seven of the floral honey samples (20 %) and 1 pine honey sample (2.86 %)
contained starch. In the study done by Tetik (24), Aydoğan et al. (9) and Tosun
(26) no starch was reported in the samples they analysed. According to the
Turkish Food Codex Honey Communicating (4,5,7,8), there should be no starch in
honey. In consideration samples containing starch is not suitable with the
Turkish Food Codex Honey Communicating and should be included in tricky honeys.
Ash values examined in this study was higher than the values reported by
White (2), Kurt and Yamankaradeniz (17) and Velioğlu and Köse (28) and shows
similarity with the values reported by Tetik (24), Şengonca and Temiz (23),
Tolon (25) and Ojeda de Rodriguez et al. (18). These differences depend on
either the composition of nectars from various botanical origin or honeydew
honey mixed into floral honeys.
In the present study, pollen analyse was not performed for determination
of flower varieties, which were the sources of honey as botanic, however
performed for determination of presence of pollen and poisonous pollen in
honeys. In the present study poisonous rhododendron pollens were detected in 2
(5.71 %) of floral honeys. Besides in the 2 (5.71 %) samples, no pollen has
been seen. In previous studies dealing with the detection of pollen and
poisonous pollen presence, Aydoğan et al. (9) did not record poisonous pollen.
Tetik (24) had reported poisonous pollens prominently in Blacksea region honeys
and in other honeys with a few specialized pollens. In the present research the
reason why pollen was not included in 2 honey samples, considered that these
honeys may be filtered or were not natural or were tricky.
As a result, it was considered that the commercially available honeys
presented in Ankara for consumption had various qualities, some parts including
diastase activity below the limits HMF counts much alow the limits that were
important signified factors regarding the biological importance and including
poisonous pollens. Commercial glucose and starch can not be contained in a
honey sample according to the regulations and both were found especially in
floral honeys. Due to the analysis held 80 % of floral honey samples and 31.43 % of pine honey samples were not
acceptable by the regulations of Turkish Food Codex Honey Communicating. These
honey samples included significantly high levels of sucrose which would be
caused by the bee feeding with corn and mellas syrup. The beekeepers producing
strained honeys that consumed in Ankara, should be well educated. It’s a
necessity to control the honeys from farm to table both for the prevention of public health hazards
and in the name of consumer rights.
References
10.
Balcı F (1978): Ankara’da üretilen ballarla Ankara piyasasında satılan balların fiziki,
kimyevi ve biyolojik özellikleri üzerinde araştırmalar. Gıda
Tarım ve Hayvancılık Bakanlığı Mesleki Yayınlar Serisi. Ankara.
11.
Belitz
H-D, Grosch W (1999): Food Chemistry. 2nd Edition, 821-828.
12. Birer S, Yücecan S (1984): Balın beslenmemizdeki yeri
ve kullanılması. J Nutr Diet, 13, 113-123.
13. Devillers J, Morlot M, Pham-Delègue MH, Dorè JC (2004): Classification of monofloral honeys based on their quality control data.
Food Chem, 86, 305-312.
14. Güven M (1995): Balın Analitik Özelliklerinin Safiyetinin
Değerlendirilmesinde Kullanımı. Lisans
Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Kimya-Metalurji Fakültesi, İstanbul.
15.
Keskin H (1982): Besin Kimyası. 4. Baskı. Cilt II,
101-117.
16. Krell R (1996):
Value-Added Products From Beekeping.
FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin No.124.
17. Kurt A, Yamankaradeniz R (1982): Erzurum ili
merkezinde tüketilen süzme ballar üzerinde bir araştırma. Gıda, 3, 115-120.
19. Orak H (1986): Yurdumuzun Değişik Yore Ballarının Bileşimi
ve Kristallenme Nedenlerinin Araştırılması. Doktora Tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi, İstanbul.
20.
Pandolfe WD (1992): Honey Analysis. Encyclopedia of Food Science and
Technology, A Wiley-Interscience
Publication, Canada.
1417-1421.
21. Shambaugh P, Worthıngton V, Herbert JH (1990): Differential
effects of honey, sucrose, and fructose on blood sugar levels. J Manip
Physiol Ther, 13, 322-325.
23. Şengonca M, Temiz İ (1981): İzmir ve çevresinde
üretilen bazı balların yapı özellikleri üzerinde bir araştırma. Ege
Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi. Ofset Ünitesi.
24. Tetik İ (1968):
Yerli, Tabii, Süzme Ballarımızın
Besleyici Değeri ve Gıda Tüzüğü Yönünden Kimyasal Bileşimleri Üzerine Araştırmalar.
Doktora Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri
Enstitüsü, Ankara.
27. Ungan A (1950): Besin Kimyası Analiz Metodları. Refik Saydam Merkez Hıfzısıhha Enstitüsü
Yayınları, No:17, 149-158.
28. Velioğlu S, Köse G (1988): Ülkemizde üretilen
ayçiçeği ballarının standarda (TS 3036) uygunluğu üzerinde bir araştırma. J Nutr Diet, 17, 285-293.
29. White JW (1980):
Hydroxymethylfurfural content of honey as an indicator of its adulteration with
invert sugars. Bee World, 61(1),
29-37.
30. White JW, Riethof ML, Subers MH, Kushnir J (1962): Composition of american honeys.
Tech Bull U.S. Dep Agric, 1261-124 A.A. 655/53.
Geliş tarihi : 30.09.2004 / Kabul tarihi: 18.07.2005
Address for correspondance
Ankara Üniv Vet Fak Derg, 53, 1-4, 2006
