Content uploaded by Serkan Kemal Büyükünal
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Serkan Kemal Büyükünal on Nov 21, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Physico-chemical properties in honey from different regions of Turkey
Tolga Kahraman
a
, Serkan Kemal Buyukunal
b
, Aydın Vural
c,*
, Sema Sandıkcı Altunatmaz
d
a
Department of Food Hygiene and Technology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
b
Manager of Food Department of Uyum Markets, Istanbul, Turkey
c
Department of Food Hygiene and Technology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Dicle University, Diyarbakir, Turkey
d
The Food Technology Programme of Vocational High School, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
article info
Article history:
Received 29 November 2009
Received in revised form 15 February 2010
Accepted 29 March 2010
Keywords:
Honey
Physico-chemical properties
HMF
Diastase activity
abstract
The present study was undertaken to determine the physico-chemical parameters of honey samples
obtained from retailers in Marmara Region (Site 1) and East Anatolia (Site 2) of Turkey. The 70 samples
were analysed for parameters including moisture, total acidity, diastase activity, hydroxymethylfurfural
(HMF), invert sugar, sucrose, ash, commercial glucose and starch. 10 of 70 (14.3%) honey samples were of
unacceptable quality based on recommended criteria of moisture (3 of 70, 4.29%), diastase activity (3 of
70, 4.29%), HMF (2 of 70, 2.86%), invert sugar (4 of 70, 5.71%) and sucrose (2 of 70, 2.86%) by Turkish Food
Codex and European Commission Regulation. The results of study indicated that 85.7% of honey samples
were at good quality. It is important that the essential precautions should be taken to ensure standardi-
sation and rationalisation of beekeeping techniques, manufacturing procedures and storing processes to
improve honey quality.
Crown Copyright Ó2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In Turkey, thanks to geographical and climatic conditions that
provide a suitable environment for apiculture, honey production
has been well developed. The beekeeping that has been sustained
in Turkey for thousands of years is an important agricultural activ-
ity. According to the State Institute Statistics (SIS, 1997), there are
about 2,984.000 hives in Turkey that the total production of honey
is estimated at 80,000 tons and makes a contribution of 5.7% to the
total world honey production (Tuzen, Silici, Mendil, & Soylak, 2007).
Honey is defined as the natural sweet substance produced by
honey bees from nectar of blossoms or from secretions of living
parts of plants or excretions of plant sucking insects on the living
part of plants, which honey bees collect, transform and combine
with specific substances of their own, store and leave in the honey
comb to ripen and mature (Mendes, Brojo, Ferreira, & Ferreira,
1998).
Honey is a very important energy food and is used as an ingre-
dient in hundreds of manufactured foods, mainly in cereal-based
products, for its sweetness, colour, flavour, caramelisation and vis-
cosity (Rodriguez, Ferrer, Ferrer, & Rodriguez, 2004). Honey con-
tains approximately 80% carbohydrates (35% glucose, 40%
fructose, and 5% sucrose) and 20% water, serving as an excellent
source of energy. Also, it contains more than 180 substances,
including amino acids, vitamins, minerals, enzymes, organic acids
phenol compounds. Its pH is approximately 4.0 (Ouchemoukh,
Louaileche, & Schweitzer, 2007). The composition depends highly
on the type of flowers utilised by the bee as well as climatic condi-
tions (Abu-Tarboush, Al-Kahtani, & El-Sarrage, 1993). The physical
properties and chemical composition of honey from different
sources have been published by many scientists (Mendes et al.,
1998; Ouchemoukh et al., 2007; Przybylowski & Wilczynska,
2001; Singh & Bath, 1997; Unal & Kuplulu, 2006; Yilmaz & Yavuz,
1999).
The purpose of this study was undertaken to study physico-
chemical quality of honey purchased in two different region of
Turkey.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Sample collection
The total numbers of 70 honey samples were obtained from
retailers in Marmara Region (Site 1; Istanbul, Bursa, Balikesir,
Canakkale, Bilecik, Sakarya, Yalova) and East Anatolia Region (Site
2; Kars, Erzurum, Ardahan, Agri, Igdir) of Turkey (Fig. 1). All sam-
ples were collected in their original packages and were transferred
to the laboratory and kept at 4–5 °C until analysis.
2.2. Physico-chemical analysis
Samples were analysed for moisture, total acidity, diastase
activity, hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF), invert sugar, sucrose, ash
0308-8146/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright Ó2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.03.123
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 412 2488020; fax: +90 412 2488021.
E-mail address: avural@dicle.edu.tr (A. Vural).
Food Chemistry 123 (2010) 41–44
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Food Chemistry
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodchem
and commercial glucose according to AOAC (2000) Methods No.
969.38, 962.19, 958.09, 980.23, 920.183, 925.46, 920.181 and
959.12, respectively. Determination of starch was performed by io-
dine method (TS 2419, 2001). All analyses were performed in
triplicate.
2.3. Statistical analysis
To compare the physico-chemical analysis of Site 1 and Site 2,
Multiple Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) and discriminant analysis
using partial least-squares (PLS) regression (DPLS) was performed.
3. Results and discussion
The means of physico-chemical results detected in honey sam-
ples are given in Table 1. Overall, 60 of 70 (85.7%) samples were of
acceptable quality whilst 10 of samples were of unacceptable qual-
ity based on Turkish Food Codex (TFC, 2005) and European Com-
mission Regulation (EU, 2002). A number of studies have been
examined on physico-chemical quality of honey throughout the
world (Table 2).
The moisture content of honey is highly important factor con-
tributing to its stability against fermentation and granulation dur-
ing storage (Singh & Bath, 1997). In this study, 4.29% (3/70) of
samples were in an unacceptable range. The moisture content of
samples in permitted levels was found in the range of 13.6–
19.4%. Similar (Al-Khalifa & Al-Arify, 1999; Duman Aydin, Sezer,
& Oral, 2008; Nanda, Sarkara, Sharma, & Bawa, 2003) and higher
(Guler, 2005; Przybylowski & Wilczynska, 2001; Rodriguez et al.,
2004) results were detected in previous studies. The different
moisture content of honey depends on harvest season, the degree
of maturity reached in the hive and moisture content of original
plant (Finola, Lasagno, & Marioli, 2007). The present study also
demonstrated that the mean in Site 1 was lower than Site 2 and
significant differences were found (p< 0.001). These may be due
to the climatic factors and storage conditions.
The acidity of honey is due to the presence of organic acids, par-
ticularly the gluconic acid, in equilibrium with their lactones or es-
ters and inorganic ions such as phosphate and chloride (Al-Khalifa
& Al-Arify, 1999). The mean value of total acidity was found 24.1
with the range of 6.94 to 29.6 meq/kg. Similar results were de-
tected by Yilmaz and Kufrevioglu (2000) and Ozcan, Arslan, and
Ceylan (2006). In previous studies, low levels of total acidity were
reported in Turkey and in Argentina by Yilmaz and Yavuz (1999)
and Finola et al. (2007), respectively. On the other hand, higher re-
sults were reported by Esti, Panfili, Marconi, and Trivisonno (1997),
Costa et al. (1999) and Cantarelli, Pellerano, Marchevsky, and Cam-
iña (2008). Differences between the findings obtained from several
studies and our findings may be caused to differences in geograph-
Fig. 1. Location of honey sampling points in Marmara and East Anatolia.
Table 1
The results of physico-chemical analysis of flower honey samples (n= 70).
Parameters Site 1 (n= 40) Site 2 (n= 30) FTotal Satisfactory limit by TFC and EU Unacceptable samples (%) (Site 1/Site 2)
Moisture (%) 15.3 ± 0.24
b
16.9 ± 0.28
a
18.5
***
16.0 ± 0.20 At most 20 4.28% (1/2)
Total acidity (meq/kg) 23.9 ± 0.82 24.4 ± 0.95 0.14 24.1 ± 0.61 At most 50 ND
Diastase activity (%) 9.89 ± 0.47 9.70 ± 0.55 0.07 9.80 ± 0.35 At least 8 4.28% (1/2)
HMF (mg/kg) 31.8 ± 1.20 30.5 ± 1.38 0.56 31.2 ± 0.90 At most 40 2.85% (1/1)
Invert sugar (%) 72.2 ± 0.71 71.6 ± 0.82 0.25 71.9 ± 0.53 At least 60 5.71% (2/2)
Sucrose (%) 3.81 ± 0.16 3.80 ± 0.18 0.003 3.80 ± 0.11 At most 5 2.85% (1/1)
Ash (%) 0.29 ± 0.01 0.28 ± 0.01 0.02 0.28 ± 0.01 At most 0.6 ND
Glucose ND ND ND ND Not be found ND
Starch ND ND ND ND Not be found ND
a,b
Means with different letters in a same line are significantly different from one another (***P< 0.001).
ND not detected.
TFC Turkish Food Codex (TFC) (2005).
EU European Commission Regulation (2002).
42 T. Kahraman et al. / Food Chemistry 123 (2010) 41–44
ical condition, harvesting procedure and storage condition. In the
present study, the acidity of samples were found with the mean
of 23.9 meg/kg in Site 1 and 24.4 meg/kg in Site 2 (p> 0.05).
The diastase activity and the HMF content are widely recogni-
sed as parameters indicating the freshness of honey (Mendes
et al., 1998; Terrab, Diez, & Heredia, 2002). It is seen that 3
(4.28%) of samples exceeded the limit value. The mean of diastase
activity was 9.80 in all samples. Devillers, Morlot, Pham-Delegue,
and Dore (2004), Cantarelli et al. (2008), Sahinler and Gul (2004)
and Esti et al. (1997) reported that the diastase activity had a mean
of 22.4%, 19.7%, 17.9% and 39.1%, respectively. In contrary, lower
values were found by Al-Khalifa and Al-Arify (1999) and Duman
Aydin et al. (2008). In the present study, diastase levels in honeys
from Site 1 and Site 2 were in the range of 5.0–17.9%. Samples from
Site 1 had higher values than those from Site 2, but differences
were not significant. HMF levels were high and diastase levels were
low, showing that these honeys had been slightly heat processed
(Unal & Kuplulu, 2006). The mean of HMF was found 31.2 mg/kg
with the range of 7.68 to 52.6 mg/kg. Significantly lower levels
than the data presented here were reported for honeys from France
(3.28 mg/kg, Devillers et al., 2004), Italy (7.80 mg/kg, Esti et al.,
1997) and Turkey (25.9 mg/kg, Akyuz, Bakirci, Ayar, & Tuncturk,
1995). Mendes et al. (1998) reported HMF levels in the range of
1.7–471 mg/kg. No differences were found in HMF levels between
the two sites of origin (p> 0.05). The variation in the activity of
diastases and HMF may be related to source of honey as well as cli-
mate of region (Singh & Bath, 1997).
Glucose, fructose and sucrose are the major constituents of hon-
ey. In this study, the combined levels of these sugars varied from
51.2% to 79.1%. 4 of samples were higher than the permitted levels.
Our findings showed approximately similarity with the results of
Yilmaz and Yavuz (1999), Przybylowski and Wilczynska (2001),
Erdogan, Dodologlu, and Zengin (2004) and Ouchemoukh et al.
(2007). In this study, means belong to Site 1 (72.2%) was found less
high than Site 2 (71.6%) (p> 0.05).
The level of sucrose differs according to the maturity degree and
origin of the nectar compound of the honey. Cantarelli et al. (2008)
reported sucrose content in honey samples at the average of 4.05%.
In another study, sucrose was detected between 2.21% and 5.52%
(Rodriguez et al., 2004). Our findings showed approximately simi-
larity with these results. Higher (Duman Aydin et al., 2008) and
lower (Al-Khalifa & Al-Arify, 1999; Ozcan et al., 2006) results were
detected in previous studies. The result of this study indicates that
honeys contain sugar, bees were fed with sugar solution instead of
nectars, early harvesting before honey ripened in the honeycomb
honeys have been mixed (Unal & Kuplulu, 2006). In this study, su-
crose in Site 1 and Site 2 was found with the range of 1.98 to 5.84%
and 1.98% to 6.22%, respectively (p> 0.05).
Ash content is one of these parameters that have been associ-
ated with botanical and geographical origins of honey samples.
The ash content in honey is generally small and depends on nectar
composition of predominant plants in their formation (Al-Khalifa &
Al-Arify, 1999). In our study, ash content of samples (mean 0.28%)
was in the acceptable range. These results are good agreement
with those of Nanda et al. (2003), Mendes et al. (1998) and Sahinler
and Gul (2004). Moreover, no significant differences were observed
(p> 0.05).
Glucose from extraneous origin and starch are important as-
pects in assessing the geniuness of honey. According to TFC
(2005) and EU (2002), the presence of starch and hydrolysed starch
is not acceptable. In this study, all samples were in the acceptable
range. Our findings were in support of the findings obtained the
studies of Tolon (1999) and Aydogan, Ozalp, and Bozkurt (1990).
4. Conclusion
In conclusion, the result of this study indicated that honey sam-
ples purchased form two different region of Turkey, were mostly at
good quality. Honey samples that are available commercially differ
Table 2
Physico-chemical quality of honey reported in previous studies.
References Country Moisture
(%)
Acidity
(meq/kg)
Diastase (%) HMF
(mg/kg)
Invert Sugar
(%)
Sucrose
(%)
Ash (%)
Singh and Bath (1997) India 18.7–21.8 29.5–41.5 8.5–32.5 – – – –
Esti et al. (1997) Italia 16.3 (15.1–
18.3)
25.8 (12.3–
36.8)
39.1 (17.0–
84.0)
7.8 (0.8–
25.3)
– 1.09 (0.0–
4.7)
0.10 (0.03–
0.39)
Mendes et al. (1998) Portuguese 13.6–19.2 3–22 1.7–471 – - 0.1–0.5
Costa et al. (1999) Brazil 17.4 8.20–50.0 11.30 – – – –
Al-Khalifa and Al-Arify (1999) Saudi
Arabia
14.0–16.9 10.0–39.7 3.30–12.5 0.83–13.6 16.7–73.3 0.028–
6.23
0.02–0.59
Przybylowski and Wilczynska (2001) Poland 17.7 – – – – 1.23 –
Nanda et al. (2003) India 14.0–18.7 14.6–32.7 – – – 0.12–0.28
Rodriguez et al. (2004) Venezuela 18.6–20.4 24.4–53.3 – – – 2.21–5.52 0.19–0.64
Devillers et al. (2004) France 18.1 – 22.4 3.29 – 0.742 –
Downey, Hussey, Daniel Kelly, Walshe, and
Martin (2005)
Ireland 17.6 36.1 – – – – 0.2
Ouchemoukh et al. (2007) Algerian 14.6–19.0 – – – 67.8–80.3 0.08–5.31 0.06–0.54
Finola et al. (2007) Argentina 18.4 (16–
23.4)
20.6 – 14.8 (1.1–
44.8)
– – 0.063
Cantarelli et al. (2008) Argentina 16.2 30.2 19.7 8.98 68.1 4.05 0.11
Akyuz et al. (1995) Turkey 17.8 24.6 – 25.9 72.8 3.56 0.18
Yilmaz and Yavuz (1999) Turkey 15.7 (14.4–
18.6)
17.2 14.8 3.60 72.6 3.0 (0.8–
5.0)
0.23 (0.06–
0.41)
Yilmaz and Kufrevioglu (2000) Turkey 16.0 22.3 14.6 3.3 70.3 1.8 0.1
Sahinler, Sahinler, and Gul (2004) Turkey 16.0 40.4 10.3 10.7 57.8 2.39 0.32
Sahinler and Gul (2004) Turkey 16.6 36.6 17.9 3.95 67.6 2.37 0.31
Erdogan et al. (2004) Turkey 17.8 27.5 – – 71.2 2.19 –
Guler (2005) Turkey 18.9 – – 3.83 68.4 1.54 0.57
Unal and Kuplulu(2006) Turkey 16.3 24.5 11.6 74.5 70.5 5.28 0.15
Ozcan et al. (2006) Turkey 15.4 22.8 10.9 1.75 – 0.0 0.177
Turhan (2007) Turkey 16.4 16.6 16.3 4.52 71.3 3.03 0.25
Duman Aydin et al. (2008) Turkey 13.2–19.2 6–24 0.0–13.9 2.49–205 51–85 0.95–18.1 –
T. Kahraman et al. / Food Chemistry 123 (2010) 41–44 43
in quality on account of various factors like seasons, packaging and
processing conditions, floral source, geographical origin, and stor-
age period. It is important that the essential precautions should
be taken to ensure standardisation and rationalisation of beekeep-
ing techniques, manufacturing procedures and storing processes to
improve honey quality. Therefore, the beekeepers should be edu-
cated and further investigations are needed.
References
Abu-Tarboush, H. M., Al-Kahtani, H. A., & El-Sarrage, M. S. (1993). Floraltype
identification and quality evaluation of some honey types. Food Chemistry, 46,
13–17.
Akyuz, N., Bakirci, I., Ayar, A., & Tuncturk, Y. (1995). Van piyasasında satısßa sunulan
balların bazı fiziksel ve kimyasal özellikleri ve bunların ilgili standarda
uygunlug
˘u üzerine bir arasßtırma. Gıda, 20(5), 321–326.
Al-Khalifa, A. S., & Al-Arify, I. A. (1999). Physicochemical characteristics and pollen
spectrum of some Saudi honeys. Food Chemistry, 67, 21–25.
Association of Analytical Communities (AOAC) (2000). Official methods of analysis
(17th ed.). Washington, DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.
Aydogan, A., Ozalp, E., & Bozkurt, M. (1990). Yerli ballarımızın kimyasal yapıları
üzerine arasßtırmalar. Türk Hijyen ve Deneysel Biyoloji Dergisi, 48, 55–84.
Cantarelli, M. A., Pellerano, R. G., Marchevsky, E. J., & Camiña, J. M. (2008). Quality of
honey from Argentina: Study of chemical composition and trace elements. The
Journal of the Argentine Chemical Society, 96(1–2), 33–41.
Costa, L. S. M., Albuquerque, M. L. S., Trugob, L. C., Quinteiro, L. M. C., Barth, O. M.,
Ribeiro, M., et al. (1999). Determination of non-volatile compounds of different
botanical origin Brazilian honeys. Food Chemistry, 65, 347–352.
Devillers, J., Morlot, M., Pham-Delegue, M. H., & Dore, J. C. (2004). Classification of
monofloral honeys based on their quality control data. Food Chemistry, 86,
305–312.
Downey, G., Hussey, K., Daniel Kelly, J., Walshe, T. F., & Martin, P. G. (2005).
Preliminary contribution to the characterization of artisanal honey produced on
the island of Ireland by paleontological and physico-chemical data. Food
Chemistry, 91, 347–354.
Duman Aydin, B., Sezer, C., & Oral, N. B. (2008). Kars’ta Satısßa Sunulan Süzme
Balların Kalite Niteliklerinin Arasßtırılması. Kafkas Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi
Dergisi, 14(1), 89–94.
Erdogan, Y., Dodologlu, A., & Zengin, H. (2004). Farklı Çevre Kosßullarının Bal Kalitesi
Üzerine Etkileri. 4. Ulusal Zootekni Bilim Kongresi, 1–3 Eylül, Isparta.
Esti, M., Panfili, G., Marconi, E., & Trivisonno, M. C. (1997). Valorization of the
honeys from the Molise region through physico-chemical, organoleptic and
nutritional assessment. Food Chemistry, 58(1–2), 125–128.
European Union Directive (EU). (2002). European Union Directive 2001/110/EC
relating to honey.
Finola, M. S., Lasagno, M. C., & Marioli, J. M. (2007). Microbiological and chemical
characterization of honeys from central Argentina. Food Chemistry, 100,
1649–1653.
Guler, Z. (2005). Dog
˘u Karadeniz Bölgesinde üretilen balların kimyasal ve duyusal
nitelikleri. Gıda, 30(6), 379–384.
Mendes, E., Brojo, P. E., Ferreira, I. M. P. L. V. O., & Ferreira, M. A. (1998). Quality
evaluation of Portuguese honey. Carbohydrate Polymers, 37(3), 219–223.
Nanda, V., Sarkara, B. C., Sharma, H. K., & Bawa, A. S. V. (2003). Physico-chemical
properties and estimation of mineral content in honey produced from different
plants in Northern India. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 16, 613–619.
Ouchemoukh, S., Louaileche, H., & Schweitzer, P. (2007). Physicochemical
characteristics and pollen spectrum of some Algerian honeys. Food Control, 18,
52–58.
Ozcan, M., Arslan, D., & Ceylan, D. A. (2006). Effect of inverted saccharose on some
properties of honey. Food Chemistry, 99, 24–29.
Przybylowski, P., & Wilczynska, A. (2001). Honey as an environmental marker. Food
Chemistry, 74,289–291.
Rodriguez, G. O., Ferrer, B. S., Ferrer, A., & Rodriguez, B. (2004). Characterization of
honey produced in Venezuela. Food Chemistry, 84, 499–502.
Sahinler, N., & Gul, A. (2004). Yayla ve ayçiçeg
˘i ballarının biyokimyasal analizi. 4.
Ulusal Zootekni Bilim Kongresi, 1–3 Eylül, Isparta.
Sahinler, N., Sahinler, S., & Gul, A. (2004). Biochemical composition of honeys
produced in Turkey. Journal of Apicultural Research, 43(2), 53–56.
Singh, N., & Bath, P. K. (1997). Quality evaluation of different types of Indian honey.
Food Chemistry, 58(1–2), 129–133.
State Institute of Statistics (SIS). (1997). Statistical Year Book, Ankara.
Terrab, A., Diez, M. J., & Heredia, F. J. (2002). Characterization of Moroccan unifloral
honeys by their physicochemical characteristics. Food Chemistry, 79, 373–379.
Tolon, B. (1999). Mug
˘la ve yöresi çam ballarının biyokimyasal özellikleri üzerine bir
arasßtırma. Ege Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü: Doktora tezi.
Turhan, K. (2007). Chemical contents and some trace metals of honeys produced in
the middle Anatolia region of Turkey. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 16,
459–464.
Turkish Food Codex (TFC). (2005). Number 26026, Food Codex-(No. 2005/49).
Turkish Standard Institute (TS 2419). (2001). Ög
˘ütülmüsßToz Kırmızı Biber. Türk
Standartları Enstitüsü, Ankara.
Tuzen, M., Silici, S., Mendil, D., & Soylak, M. (2007). Trace element levels in honeys
from different regions of Turkey. Food Chemistry, 103, 325–330.
Unal, C., & Kuplulu, O. (2006). Chemical quality of strained honey consumed in
Ankara. Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 53, 1–4.
Yilmaz, H., & Kufrevioglu, I. (2000). Composition of honeys collected from eastern
and south-eastern Anatolia and effect of storage on hydroxymethylfurfural
content and diastase activity. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 25,
347–349.
Yilmaz, H., & Yavuz, O. (1999). Content of some traces metals in honey from south-
eastern Anatolia. Food Chemistry, 65, 475–476.
44 T. Kahraman et al. / Food Chemistry 123 (2010) 41–44
