year 20, Issue 78 (5-2021)                   J. Med. Plants 2021, 20(78): 14-25 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Nabati F, Khalighi-Sigaroodi F, Kashefi M, Ghasemi S V, Sadri H, Tajabadi F. Evaluating the quality of commercial Iranian honeys. J. Med. Plants. 2021; 20 (78) :14-25
URL: http://jmp.ir/article-1-3030-en.html
1- Medicinal Plants Research Center, Institute of Medicinal Plants, ACECR, Karaj, Iran , nabati@imp.ac.ir
2- Medicinal Plants Research Center, Institute of Medicinal Plants, ACECR, Karaj, Iran
Abstract:   (482 Views)
Background: Honey is one of the most valuable foods that used in human societies to treat many diseases due to its healing properties for centuries. The lack of an objective way to distinguish natural honey from counterfeit honey has strengthened the field of profiteering in this area and has led to the supply of counterfeit honey instead of natural honey. So honey quality must be controlled analytically with the aim of guaranteeing the reality and preserving the consumer from commercial speculation. Objective: The present study was conducted to evaluate 24 samples of 9 commercial brands of honey in Tehran’s markets with number 1 to 9 (1-AB, 2-TF, 3-DP, 4-JK, 5-SN, 6-SK, 7-IM, 8-MD, and 9-MH). A number of physical, chemical, and biological parameters of the samples were evaluated. Methods: Carbohydrate composition was determined by GC/Mass to evaluate the contents of fructose, glucose, and sucrose. 5-hydroxymethyl-2-furfuraldehyde (HMF) was quantified by HPLC-UV and other physicochemical quality parameters including moisture, pH, proline content; and diastase activity were also evaluated according to the Codex Alimentarius. Results: Only 2 brands met all major international specifications. Although all the parameters of the other brands were conformed, the diastase activity was not in a specific range. Conclusion: The diastasis activity is considered as the most important factor to evaluate honey quality based on the results of this study.
Full-Text [PDF 595 kb]   (281 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Pharmacognosy & Pharmaceutics
Received: 2021/01/27 | Accepted: 2021/04/21 | Published: 2021/06/1

References
1. Stan C. Codex Standard for Honey. 2001, 1-14.
2. Jeffrey AE and Echazarreta CM. Medical Uses of Honey. Rev. Biomédica. 1996; 7 (1): 43-49.
3. Kumar KS and Bhowmik D. Medicinal uses and health benefits of Honey: An overview. J. Chem. Pharm. Res. 2010; 2 (1): 385-395.
4. Channa FA, Khan MA and Narejo NT. The Benefits of Honey and Science Quraa'n and Hadith Perspective. Grassroots 2018; 52 (I): 236-245.
5. Martinotti S and Ranzato E. Honey, wound repair and regenerative medicine. J. Funct. Biomater. 2018; 9 (2). [DOI:10.3390/jfb9020034]
6. Alvarez-Suarez J, Gasparrini M, Forbes-Hernández T, Mazzoni L and Giampieri F. The Composition and Biological Activity of Honey: A Focus on Manuka Honey. Foods 2014; 3 (3): 420-432. [DOI:10.3390/foods3030420]
7. Combarros-Fuertes P, Estevinho LM, Dias LG, Castro JM, Tomás-Barberán FA, Tornadijo ME and Fresno-Baro JM. Bioactive Components and Antioxidant and Antibacterial Activities of Different Varieties of Honey: A Screening Prior to Clinical Application. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2019; 67 (2): 688-698. [DOI:10.1021/acs.jafc.8b05436]
8. Ramsay EI, Rao S, Madathil L, Hegde SK, Baliga-Rao MP, George T and Baliga MS. Honey in oral health and care: A mini review. J. Oral Biosci. 2019; 61 (1): 32-36. [DOI:10.1016/j.job.2018.12.003]
9. Waheed M, Hussain MB, Javed A, Mushtaq Z, Hassan S, Shariati MA, Khan MU, Majeed M, Nigam M, Mishra AP and Heydari M. Honey and cancer: A mechanistic review. Clin. Nutr. 2019; (January): 1-5.
10. White JW and Doner LW. Honey Composition and Properties. Agric. Handb. 1980; 335 (335): 82-91.
11. Machado De-Melo AA, Almeida-Muradian LB de, Sancho MT and Pascual-Maté A. Composición y propiedades de la miel de Apis mellifera: una revisión. J. Apic. Res. 2018; 57 (1): 5-37. [DOI:10.1080/00218839.2017.1338444]
12. Sahlan M, Azizah N, Hakamada K, Noguchi K and Yohda M. Isolation and Molecular Weight Characterization of Tetragonula laeviceps Honey Protein. Makara J. Technol. 2018; 22 (1): 9. [DOI:10.7454/mst.v22i1.3363]
13. Doner LW. The enzymes of Honey. Food Enzymol. 1991: 143-161.
14. Livia Persano Oddo Maria Gioia Piazza Patrizio Pulcini. Invertase activity in honey. Apidologie. 1999; 30: 57-65. [DOI:10.1051/apido:19990107]
15. Vorlov L and Piidal A. Invertase and Diastase Activity in Honeys of Czech Provenience. Acta Univ. Agric. Mendel Brun. 2002; 5 (8): 57-66.
16. Meda A, Lamien CE, Romito M, Millogo J and Nacoulma OG. Determination of the total phenolic, flavonoid and proline contents in Burkina Fasan honey, as well as their radical scavenging activity. Food Chem. 2005; 91 (3): 571-577. [DOI:10.1016/j.foodchem.2004.10.006]
17. Abu-Tarboush HM, Al-Kahtani HA and El-Sarrage MS. Floral-type identification and quality evaluation of some honey types. Food Chem. 1993; 46 (1): 13-17. [DOI:10.1016/0308-8146(93)90068-Q]
18. Akram M. Evaluation of Physio-chemical properties of honey collected from local markets of Lahore, Pakistan. Pakistan J. Med. Biol. Sci. 2018; 2 (1): 15-20.
19. Al-Farsi M, Al-Belushi S, Al-Amri A, Al-Hadhrami A, Al-Rusheidi M and Al-Alawi A. Quality evaluation of Omani honey. Food Chem. 2018; 262 (April): 162-167. [DOI:10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.04.104]
20. Gidamis AB, Chove BE, Shayo NB, Nnko SA and Bangu NT. Quality evaluation of honey harvested from selected areas in Tanzania with special emphasis on hydroxymethyl furfural (HMF) levels. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 2004; 59 (3): 129-132. [DOI:10.1007/s11130-004-0020-7]
21. Mendes E, Brojo Proença E, Ferreira IMPLVO and Ferreira MA. Quality evaluation of Portuguese honey. Carbohydr Polym. 1998; 37 (3): 219-223. [DOI:10.1016/S0144-8617(98)00063-0]
22. Perez-Arquillué C, Conchello P, Ariño A, Juan T and Herrera A. Quality evaluation of Spanish rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) honey. Food Chem. 1994; 51 (2): 207-210. [DOI:10.1016/0308-8146(94)90258-5]
23. Serra Bonvehí J, Bentabol Manzanares A and Santos Vilar JM. Quality evaluation of broom honey (Spartocytisus supranubius L) produced in Tenerife (The Canary Islands). J. Sci. Food Agric. 2004; 84 (10): 1097-1104. [DOI:10.1002/jsfa.1792]
24. Singh N and Bath PK. Quality evaluation of different types of Indian honey. Food Chem. 1997; 58 (1-2): 129-133. [DOI:10.1016/S0308-8146(96)00231-2]
25. Parviz M, Karimi F, Rezaei M, Javanmard MR, Javadzadeh M and Allahdadi G. Assessment of the physicochemical quality of Iranian honey. Qual. Assur. Saf. Crop. Foods. 2015; 7 (5): 629-634. [DOI:10.3920/QAS2014.0467]
26. Bogdanov S. Harmonised Methods of the Honey Commission. International Honey Commission 2002; (5): 1-62.
27. Shehata EE, Alsubaie ES and ELamin NY. Quality Analysis for Some Types of Honey in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Int. Res. J. Pure. Appl. Chem. 2019; 17 (3): 1-6. [DOI:10.9734/IRJPAC/2018/46302]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2021 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Journal of Medicinal Plants

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb