Medires Publishers - Article

Archive : Article / Volume 2, Issue 1

Botanical Origin, Physicochemical Composition and Antioxidant Content of Comb, Crushed and Processed Honey Collected from Burie-Ethiopia

Yeshitla Eshete1*Abera Belay2

1Department of Food Science and Nutrition Program, Co-author Abera belaye (Phd), Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa-1165, Ethiopia.

2Department of Food Science and Nutrition, Debre Birhan Agricultural Research Center, Debre Birhan-1520, Ethiopia.

Correspondng Author:

Yeshitla Eshete, Department of Food Science and Nutrition Program, Co-author Abera belaye (Phd), Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa-1165, Ethiopia.

Copyright:

© 2023 Yeshitla Eshete, this is an open-access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • Received Date: 08-03-2023   
  • Accepted Date: 15-03-2023   
  • Published Date: 22-03-2023
Abstract Keywords:

Antioxidant properties, Comb honey, Crushed honey, Physicochemical properties, Processed honey, Sensory prop- erties.

Abstract

Honey quality and authenticity continue to be important factors in honey consumption and marketing. The major concern with honey quality is to keep its natural properties and compositions. This research work is aimed at investigating the botanical origin and physicochemical, antioxidant, rheological, and sensorial quality characteristics of comb, crushed, and processed honey. Accordingly, thirty samples were collected from the Burie district of Ethiopia. Based on Melissopalynology, botanical origin was determined. Physicochemical properties were determined based on the standard methods of the International Honey Commission (IHC) and the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC). Antioxidant propertiesand diastase activity were determined using UV-visible spectroscopy. All the samples were polyfloral honey. Comb honey was found to have moisture (17.98±0.72), sucrose (2.46±0.77), diastase activity (11.78±1.5 DN), total phenol content (TPC) (120.8±47.4 GAE/100 gm), total flavonoid content (TFC) (53.7±24 CEQ/100g), 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) inhibition (30.9±14.9%), IC50 (54±5.72 mg/ml), and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) scavenging (57±16.06%). It was determined that crushed honey contains moisture (19.43±0.40), sucrose (4.21±0.76), diastase activity (9.28±0.25), TPC (84.3±51.86), TFC (29.4±61), DPPH inhibition (33.45±5.07), inhibitory concentration (IC50) (80±6.25), and H2O2 scavenging (52.99±15.9). Analysis of processed honey indicated that moisture (23.76±0.78), sucrose (6.12±0.6), diastase activity (7.76±0.71), TPC (66.7±30.59), TFC (29.47±11.22), DPPH inhibition (33.98±1.84), IC50 (120±8.25), and H2O2 scavenging (56.61±4.86). Correlation analysis indicated that moisture is associated with sucrose content (r=0.88), diastase activity is related to sucrose (r=-0.86), and TPC correlates with H2O2 scavenging activity (r=0.82). Honey samples were found to be a Newtonian fluid. The sensory quality of comb honey is preferable. The result revealed that comb honey adequately satisfies the requirements of national and international standards.

Introduction

Honey production is a very long-standing and deep-rooted household activity in Ethiopia. Ethiopia has a huge potential for beekeeping because it is endowed with diversified honey flora and suitable topography [1]. The apiculture sector has a significant role in generating and diversifying the incomes of smallholder beekeepers [2]. It has been contributing to the national economy through export earnings. Ethiopian honey production is characterized mainly by traditional, backyard, forest beekeeping [3]. In Ethiopia, 6,986,100 bee colonies were found in beehives, of which 95.87% were found in tra- traditional, 2.66% in frame, and 1.47 in transitional beehives [4]. Besides, about 1.4–1.7 million households are engaged in beekeeping, which produces and markets mainly crushed and comb honey. Ethiopian honey varies in color, consistency, and purity depending on geographical location, botanical origin, and harvest season [5]. Ethiopian honey is mainly sold as comb, crushed, and processed. The widespread fraud practices and quality limitations of honey have exerted a negative effect on the use and trust of different types of honey, not only in the study area but also worldwide. According to [6], honey is a natural product having varied physicochemical properties and compositional variations. The geographical locations, the botanical origins, and pre-and post-harvest handlings are the factors of variation. The physicochemical properties of honey can be changed during post-harvest handling, processing, and storage practices. The marketing of comb and crushed honey was also experienced in Africa and some other continents. Evaluating and measuring the botanical origins, physicochemical, antioxidant, rheological, and sensory attributes of comb, crushed, and commercially processed honey for wider communication is fundamentally important to encourage quality product marketing and enhance honey industry development. This will, of course, contribute further to the protection of domestic consumers, promote fair competition among producers, and improve the foreign currency earnings from honey exports. Ripe honey in the beehives is qualified enough for human consumption and can be used for industrial purposes. Honey is one of the most functional foods due to its unique nutritional and medicinal properties, which are attributed to the influence of the different groups of substances it contains [7]. The Codex Alimentarius Commission [8] and other international honey standards stipulate that honey must only comprise honey and that no specific component may be eliminated. Organoleptic characteristics, physicochemical analyses, bio-functional characteristics, and pollen spectrum are now the primary grading criteria for honey [9]. Because of the multiple importance of honey, from food to medicine, it is of great interest to carry out a complete analysis and measure- ment of honey [10]. The composite nature of honey makes it vulnerable to adulteration. It is testing and verification that have been challenging due to the similarity in the composition of adulterants [11]. On the other hand, Bogdanov et al. [12] stated that there was a growing need to assess the quality and authenticity of honey, particularly with regard to quality, geographical and botanical origins. Domestic consumers can learn to trust and feel confident utilizing comb honey rather than processed and smashed honey, claims [13]. As a result, it was explained why there has been an increase in the demand for comb honey. For this reason, beekeepers in and around the study area were experienced in managing the comb honey market supplies. Beyond this, Belay et al. [14], Debela & Belay [15], and other reports were conducted to investigate honey in different parts of Ethiopia. However, no research has been done on the physicochemical, antioxidant, sensory, and rheological properties of comb, crushed, and processed honey from the Burie district. Therefore, the objective of this research is to measure and evaluate the quality merit of comb, crushed, and processed honey using various tools.

Material and methods

Sample collection and preparation

Representative comb honey samples were randomly selected from three honey production potential peasant associations (Shekua, Weynima, and Tiyatiya), and crushed and processed honey samples were also collected from the local market of Burie district, West Gojam, Ethiopia (Figure 1). The geographical coordination of the district is found at X-Y GPS coordinates of 1180000 N, 300000 E. The representative honey samples were collected randomly during the second main honey flow season in the study area (15th of July–20th of August 2021). The honey samples were collected and handled based on the principles used by Belay et al. [14] until laboratory analysis. A total of thirty honey samples were randomly collected, ten from each (combs, crushed, and processed).

Figure S1: HPLC Chromatogram of Sugars in honey (where retention time of fructose = 9.295, glucose = 10.522, sucrose = 13.640, turanose = 14.688, and Maltose 16.290).

Laboratory Analysis

Botanical origin

Botanical origin was determined based on Belay et al. [14], using pollen analysis. Accordingly, 10 g of honey was weighed using a centrifuge tube and dissolved in 20 ml of warm distilled water (20–40°C). The solution was centrifuged at 2060 g (3500 rpm) for 10 minutes, and the supernatant was decanted. Twenty ml of water was added again to completely dissolve the remaining sugar crystals and centrifuged at 2060 g (3500 rpm) for 5 minutes, and the supernatant was removed. The sediment was spread evenly using a sterile micro spatula on the microscope slide, and to dissolve some fat particles from the pollen grain, a drop of glycerin jelly was added and smeared to the cover slip, and the pollen grains were identified using a pollen atlas [3]. The pollen count was done under a microscope (ZEISS, Germany). The frequency of occurrence was determined by counting 500 pollen grains from a single slide. Then, the pollen counts were converted into percentages to calculate the relative dominance.

Physicochemical property Moisture

Moisture was determined with a digital refractometer (Abbe refractometer, Leica Mark II Plus) thermostated at 20°C. The honey sample was homogenized, and the surface of the prism was covered evenly with the sample. After 2 min, the refractive index was read with a refractometer. The refractive index reading was converted to moisture content using the AOAC, 969.38 conversion table [16].

Sugar's profile

Sugars were determined using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC-1260 Infinity Series, Agilent Technologies, Germany) equipped with a differential refractive index (DRI) detector AOAC [16]. Glucose, Fructose, Sucrose, maltose, and Turanose sugars were determined using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) 1260 Infinity Series Agilent Technologies at an Ethiopian conformity assessment laboratory. The honey sample (5 g) was dissolved in a 25% methanol in water solution, and the solution was transferred and made into a 100 ml volumetric flask. The solution was filtered through a 0.45 μm syringe and injected into the HPLC. The separation was performed using an NH₂ column (4.6 × 250 mm) (ZORBAX NH₂) with a particle size diameter of 5 μm, and the column was kept at 30°C. The mobile phase composition was 70.

Antioxidant properties

Total phenolic content

The total phenolic content in honey was determined using the Folin-Ciocalteu method in an alkaline environment. The Folin-Ciocalteu method, modified by [20], was used to determine total phenolic content in honey. Gallic acid (0–100 mg/ml) was used for calibration. Total phenolic compound content was expressed as mg of Gallic acid equivalent per kg of honey (mg of GAE/gm). Five gm of honey was dissolved in 50 ml of distilled water, shaken, and kept in a dark place, vortexed, and then filtered using quantitative filter paper 202 moderate 150 mm. One mg of gallic acid with 1 ml of distilled water was dissolved, shaken, and diluted (0–100 μg/mL) with a concentration range of (0, 20, 40, 60, and 100. It was prepared as a standard to establish the calibration curve, and absorbance was measured at 760 nm.

Total flavonoids content

The total flavonoids in honey were determined using a modified photometric method [20]. One gram of quercetin in 1 mL of distilled water was dissolved, shaken, and the stock solution was prepared. To perform different concentrated solutions, a serial dilution of the quercetin standard with a concentration of 0, 20, 40, 60, and 100) was prepared. Absorbance was measured at 510 nm using a UV Visible spectrophotometer (JENWAY 6300). The total flavonoid contents of the honey samples were determined using AlCl₃ according to Wieczorek et al. [21]. Quercetin was used as a standard to establish the calibration curve. A standard curve of quercetin was prepared within a concentration range of 20-100 μg/ml, and the results were expressed as mg of quercetin per kg of honey (mg of QE/kg).

Radical scavenging activity

Radical scavenging activities were determined using Meda et al., [22]. Honey samples were dissolved in distilled water at concentrations of ascorbic acid ranging from 20 to 140 g/ml and were mixed with 4 ml of 0.004% DPPH. A pure L-ascorbic acid standard was used as a reference. The mixtures were shaken vigorously and left for 30 min at room temperature in the dark, and the absorbance of the DPPH was measured at 517 nm against a blank using a UV visible Spectrophotometer (JENWAY 6300). The radical scavenging activities of the DPPH radical, expressed as % inhibition, were calculated from the following equation. Where Abs blank = blank absorbance at 517 nm; Abs sample = sample absorbance at 517 nm.

Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) scavenging activity

The hydrogen peroxide scavenging activity was assayed according to the method described by [23]. Accordingly, the samples were dissolved in 0.04 M phosphate buffer (pH = 7.4), and 5 mL of the samples were mixed with 0.6 mL of 40 mM H₂O₂ solution (prepared in the same buffer). The absorbance of the mixture and hydrogen peroxide was determined at 230 nm using a UV Spectrophotometer (Biochrom 80-7000-30, Cambridge, England). Ascorbic acid was used as a standard, and the blank was prepared in phosphate buffer without H₂O₂.. The decrease in absorbance value showed the high level of hydrogen peroxide scavenging activity designation. The results were expressed as H₂O₂ SC = micrograms per milliliter. The percentage of scavenged hydrogen peroxide was calculated by using the following equation: Percentage of scavenging H₂O₂: 100 Where Ai = absorbance of control; At = absorbance of test honey

Inhibitory concentration (IC50)

A substance's ability to inhibit a certain biochemical function by 50% is measured by its IC50 (inhibitory concentration), which is calculated using the technique outlined by Al-Farsi et al. [24]. The dose-response curves created by graphing the percentage of inhibition versus concentration were used to get the IC50 value.

Rheological measurement

The rheological properties of comb, crushed, and processed honey samples were measured by the rheometer machine MCR 102 (Anton Paar GmbH, Graz, Austria) with the use of cone-and-plate measuring geometry. The rheometer was adjusted at a temperature range of 20–50°C and with a constant shear rate of 50 s⁻¹. Honey samples were uniformly smeared on the cone and plate of the rheometer. The diameter of the cone is 50 mm at an angle of 10. Measurements were carried out at 20, 30, 40, and 50°C. The effect of temperature on the apparent viscosity of honey was analyzed, and graphic curves were evaluated. After a complete set of readings for each sample, the cone and plate bearing and stirring rod were washed with tap water, rinsed, and allowed to dry before the next sample was applied.

Sensory profile

For sensory analysis, ISO 13299: [25] was used. The test room has been arranged to conform to ISO 8589 (1988) minimum requirements (lighting, temperature, noise, and odors). The assessors were selected based on detection, recognition, and the ability to memorize and communicate sensory impressions. Twenty-three (twenty-two female and eleven male) panelists were selected and trained by the panel leader following international standards [26]. Instructions were also given on how to smell or taste, rinse the mouth between samples, and dissolve the sample in the mouth. The required materials for sensory analysis and evaluation forms were prepared. The trained assessors identified the sensory stimuli on the basis of previously memorized standards (ISO, 8586-1, 1993; ISO, 8586-2). The samples were prepared and given a random three-digit code; about 30 g of the sample from comb, crushed, and processed honey were put into clean, dry, and odor- and flavor-free sampling beakers and served in a single tray for each assessor, Piana et al. [27], established by the International Honey Commission. The samples were tested by 33 assessors and measured using a 1-to-7-line score.

Results and Discussion

Botanical origin

The relative frequency of nectar source plants of honey samples is presented in Table 1. The honey samples collected from the Burie district were found with a variety of nectar distributions. Table 1 shows the comparative pollen distribution of honey samples from Eucalyptus species of comb (31±1.70), crushed (43.7±3.86), and processed (33.5±1.72); as well as Croton macrostachyus of comb (31±3.30), crushed (44.1±3.38), and processed (42±3.83). Trifolium decorum, Plantago lanceolata, Cyperus longusus, Vicia faba, and Coffea arabica were relatively identified in a small proportion (Table 1). The floral origin helps to provide specific information on the color, taste, aroma, chemical compositions, sensorial, and viscosity behavior of honey [12]. Identification and documentation of nectar and pollen source plants are the most limiting factors in the development of the apiculture industry of Ethiopia [28]. Based on the relative frequency of the pollen taxonomy, honey is considered monofloral if the dominance is more than 45% [14-15]. Accordingly, the honey samples collected from Burie were polyfloral. A description of botanical origin is useful to authenticate and register honey for a protected designation of origin (PDO) that helps to promote specific plant-origin honey. At present, consumers and international buyers are demanding branded honey based on botanical origin and geographical indication. To guarantee quality and authenticity, a European Union (EU) council directive [29]. states that the botanical origin of honey shall be declared on the label.

Physicochemical Analysis Moisture

The mean ± SD of moisture content for comb, crushed, and processed honey was 17.98±0.72, 19.43±0.40 and 23.76±0.78 g/100 g, respectively (Table 2). There was a signif- icant difference (p<0>Schefflera abyssinica and 18.90 ± 0.45 g/100gm for polyfloral honey from Ethiopia) [30]. In addition, the findings of this study were in line with the literature values reported by [31]. (18.6–18.8 g/100 g), and [32]. (17.5–23 g/100 g). The significant difference in moisture content between honey samples may occur due to the maturation of honeycombs during harvesting and post-harvest handling practices. The amount of water present in honey determines its stability against fermentation and granulation [29]. Moisture content is related to the process by which the bees synthesize honey, the harvesting and extraction techniques, and economic adulteration, and can vary from season to season [Kumar et al.,[33]. and Belay et al., [31]. The Codex Alimentarius established a limit of 20 g/100 g of honey as per the Codex Alimentarius [8].

Sugar profile

Sugar compositions are important quality aspects for energyvalue, viscosity, hygroscopicity, and granulation of honey. The results of sugars, namely fructose, glucose, sucrose, maltose, and turanose, are presented in (Table 2). The HPLC chromatogram retention times for the sugar profiles of the analyzed honey samples were 9.29 (fructose), 10.22 (glucose), 13.34 (sucrose), 14.68 (turanose), and 16.29 (maltose) minutes. The mean ± SD value of fructose content in the present study was 38.89±0.59, 38.89±0.59,38.29±1.24 and 36.99±0.51 g/100 g for comb, crushed, and processed honey, respectively (Table 2).In the analyzed honey samples, the highest fructose content was identified in comb honey (39.5 g/100 g) and the lowest was reported in processed honey (36.5 g/100 g).The processed honey significantly varied (p<0>et al. [34], (37.70 ± 1.46 g/100g) for Brazilian polyfloralhoney. The mean ± SD value of glucose in the present study is 33.87±1.0, 33.09±1.13 and 33.73±1.22 g/100 g for comb, crushed, and processed honey samples, respectively. There is no significant difference (p > 0.05) between honeysamples in glucose content. The fructose/glucose ratio (F/G) is also one of the honey quality indicators. In this study, the fructose/glucose ratio falls in the range of 1.10 to 1.20 (comb), 1.13 to 1.21 (crushed), and 1.07 to 1.16 (processed) honey samples. The F/G ratios in all the honey samples of this study were greater than 1.0, which indicates slower crystallization. Honey crystallization is slower when the fructose/glucose ratio is more than 1.3 and it is faster when the ratio is below 1.0. The mean ± SD value of the sucrose content of the analyzed honey samples was found to be 2.46 ± 0.77, 4.21 ± 0.76, and 6.12 ± 0.6 g/100 g for comb, crushed, and processed honey samples, respectively (Table 2). The Codex Alimentarius, European Union, and Ethiopian standard allow a maximum sucrose content of 5 g/100 g in honey. The results of this study show that the sucrose content of comb honey was 2.46 ± 0.77 and crushed honey 4.21 ± 0.7 g/100 g and met the requirements of international [8] and national regulatory standards [17]. The sucrose content in processed honey might be affected by the lengthy supply chain between the farm gate and processors. The content of turanose is 0.049±0.014, 0.051±0.025 and 0.068±0.014 g/100 g for comb, crushed, and processed honey samples, respectively. The processed honey was varied (p, 0.05) with a comb and crushed honey. The result of maltose content is 0.15±0.24, 0.14±0.2 and 0.086±0.006 g/100 g of combs and crushed and processed honey samples, respectively. A significant difference was not observed (p > 0.05) between the comb, crushed, and processed honey samples.

Honey sampl e

Euculayptu s species

Croton mac- rostachys

Trifolium decorum

Cyperus longusus

Vicia faba

Plantago lanceolata

Coffea

arabica

Comb1

30

35

14

5

7

0

9

Comb 2

32

27

16

10

0

16

0

Comb 3

31

36

13

7

5

12

8

Comb 4

30

28

17

9

6

13

7

Comb 5

33

26

15

8

3

14

1

Comb 6

34

30

16

5

4

8

5

Comb 7

29

33

14

10

3

5

2

Comb 8

32

32

13

7

2

3

3

Comb 9

30

31

15

8

3

4

6

Comb 10

29

32

17

6

2

5

4

Crushed 1

52

38

5

0

5

0

0

Crushed 2

40

55

0

3

2

0

0

Crushed 3

50

42

4

1

5

0

0

Crushed 4

48

54

3

2

4

0

0

Crushed 5

51

44

2

3

2

0

0

Crushed 6

52

43

1

2

3

0

0

Crushed 7

42

46

0

0

5

0

0

Crushed 8

40

51

6

1

4

0

0

Crushed 9

42

50

3

2

3

0

0

Crushed 10

43

42

1

1

2

0

0

Processed 1

32

37

5

11

10

0

5

Processed 2

35

47

10

0

8

0

0

Processed 3

36

36

5

10

9

0

4

Processed 4

34

38

8

7

10

0

5

Processed 5

35

44

10

11

8

0

0

Processed 6

32

45

8

5

10

0

2

Processed 7

31

46

7

6

8

0

2

Processed 8

33

42

5

0

9

0

4

Processed 9

32

42

6

2

10

0

3

Processed 10

35

43

11

3

8

0

0

Table S1: Botanical origin /pollen analysis of the comb, crushed, and processed honey sample

Diastase activity

The mean ± SD of diastase activities of the comb, crushed, and processed honey samples of the present study were 11.78 ± 1.57, 9.28 ± 0.259, and 7.76 ± 0.71Schade units (DN), respectively (Table 2). A significant difference (p<0.05) was observed among the honey samples. Diastase activity is important to detect and predict honey age and freshness, storage time, and prolonged processing temperature and overheating of honey (Silva et al., [35]. The present diastase result was in agreement with the reports of Debela and Be- lay [15], which were 7. 64 ± 0.84 and 12.5 ± 0.55 Schade for Coffee arabica honey and Vernonia amygdalina honey, respectively. Ash content The mean ± SD of ash content was 0.32±0.08, 0.48±0.06 and 0.55±0.10 g/100g for comb, crushed, and processed honey samples, respectively (Table 2). There was no significant difference (p >0.05) observed in ash content among the honey samples. The ash content in the current study was higher than that reported by Debela and Belay [15], which was 0.28 ± 0.05 g/100g for Coffea arabica and 0.28 ± 0.01 g/100g for Vernonia amygdalina honey. However, the present result was also consistent with Tesfaye et al., [36], who reported a 0.1–1.0% ash content of honey samples. The over- all percentage of ash content was found to be 0.42±0.015 g/100g, which is below the allowable maximum and thus the honey samples conform to the international regulatory stan- dards set for honey quality. The present study result is also consistent with Silva et al.,[35], who reported 0.1–1.0% ash content of Ethiopian honey and is in line with the report of Erturk et al., [37], who reported (0.33 g/100g) for monofloral and (0.42 g/100g) for polyfloral honey. The comb, crushed and processed honeys of this report met the standards set by the Codex Alimentarius [8] and Ethiopian Standard [17], (not more than 0.60 g/100 g) in ash content.

Electric conductivity

The mean ± SD of electrical conductivity for comb, crushed, and processed honey of this finding was 0.70±0.08, 0.8± 0.1 and 0.88±0.04 mS/cm, respectively. The electrical conductivity of honey in this study was within the recommendation of Codex Alimentarius and Ethiopian standards (not more than 0.8 mS/cm) [8-17], Comb, crushed, and processed honey samples were identified as nectarous honey. The electrical conductivity of all the studied honey samples was in line with the report of Gebru et al., [38], (0.25–0.41 mS/cm) and [39] (0.41- 0.72 mS/cm). The measurement of electric conductivity depends on the ash and acid content of honey: the higher their content, the higher the resulting conductivity. The highest electrical conductivity value was observed in crushed and processed honey samples. The observed significant variations in electrical conductivity may be due to the possible variation in the degree of maturity of honey, post-harvest handling practices, botanical origin, and soil type. The current finding is in good agreement with the results of Eyobel et al., [34], who reported 0.55 ± 0.08 mS/ cm. Moreover, the study result is nearly similar to that reported- ed by Belay et al. [31], who reported a mean of 0.70 ± 0.04 mS/cm for honey from the Bale Harenna forest of Ethiopia. Free acidity The mean ± SD level of free acidity in the present study is 36.85±2.04, 41.73±4.22 and 38.08±7.74 meq/kg for comb, crushed, and processed honey samples, respectively (Table 2). The acidity level of the crushed honey sample exceeded the acidity limit set by national standards (40 meq/kg) ES [17]. Such results indicate the presence of unwanted experiences like the age of honey samples and the occurrence of fermentation. However, the overall findings of this study indicate an acceptable range for Codex and EU Directive [8], which is ≤50 meq/kg. Besides, Belay et al. [14], reported that the free acid content of the Harenna forest honeys of Ethiopia ranged from 25.49 to 48.81meq/kg, which is in agreement with the present study range (36.85 to 41.73meq/kg).

Specific rotation

The mean ± SD of the specific rotation of comb,crushed and processed honey samples is -9.81±8.05, 9.08±7.88 and- 8.51±0.81[α] D20), respectively. There was a significant difference (p<0>Coffea arabica and -5.98 ± 0.07 ([α] D20) for Vernonia amygdalina honey. The highest negative value was revealed by comb honey (-9.8), with a mean value of -8.8 ([α] D20). Nectar honey contains a predominance of fructose that results in a negative specific rotation.

Treatment

Mo

Ash

Elcd

MF

Spcr

ph

Glu

Fur

Suc

Mal

Tur

Inso - lu Mat

Acid

Dias

Comb

17.50

0.30

0.65

5.5

-11.50

3.80

32.00

38.50

2.5

0.08

0.07

0.14

37.80

11.18

Comb

18.00

0.25

0.57

3

-11.65

3.60

34.00

39.50

3

0.07

0.05

0.15

38.50

13.1

Comb

16.80

0.30

0.78

6

-10.33

3.65

33.50

36.80

2

0.09

0.06

0.12

39.20

14.3

Comb

17.00

0.23

0.76

7

-10.08

3.68

34.50

39.50

3.2

0.08

0.04

0.14

36.50

11.73

Comb

18.20

0.32

0.65

3.5

-10.03

3.64

35.00

39.80

2

0.07

0.06

0.17

35.65

12.95

Comb

18.00

0.40

0.65

4

-14.01

3.55

33.20

38.80

1.8

0.06

0.03

0.08

36.60

13.93

Comb

19.00

0.50

0.62

8

-12.32

3.68

33.40

38.50

2.8

0.08

0.04

0.05

38.25

11.44

Comb

18.50

0.20

0.80

10

13.01

3.62

33.10

39.00

4

0.09

0.03

0.14

32.85

13.37

Comb

18.80

0.42

0.77

8.5

-13.14

3.65

34.80

38.60

2

0.85

0.06

0.11

34.50

14.24

Comb

18.00

0.52

0.74

5

-12.03

3.85

35.20

38.90

1.5

0.08

0.05

0.16

38.60

12.36

Crushed

19.60

0.35

0.65

9.5

-10.80

3.60

34.20

38.50

4.5

0.075

0.07

0.18

43.50

9.1

Crushed

19.90

0.42

0.7

8

-11.05

3.46

32.80

39.10

4

0.08

0.03

0.16

45.20

9.6

Crushed

18.80

0.20

0.87

11

-10.33

3.63

30.50

34.90

3.8

0.09

0.03

0.22

39.53

9.3

Crushed

19.30

0.50

0.77

10.5

-10.08

3.62

32.20

39.00

4.5

0.75

0.05

0.17

44.24

9.12

Crushed

19.50

0.5

0.9

7.5

-10.03

3.67

34.50

39.00

5

0.08

0.03

0.27

37.67

9.67

Crushed

19.20

0.33

0.63

12

-14.01

3.53

33.00

38.10

5.5

0.09

0.02

0.03

47.08

9.66

Crushed

19.10

0.55

0.91

6.5

-12.32

3.64

33.40

38.80

3

0.07

0.05

0.08

43.31

8.83

Crushed

20.10

0.42

0.80

7

13.01

3.64

33.10

38.30

4

0.09

0.09

0.14

32.97

9.44

Crushed

19.70

0.54

0.77

8.5

-13.14

3.65

33.80

38.50

3.8

0.08

0.08

0.11

44.06

9.41

Crushed

19.10

0.58

0.94

9

-12.03

3.81

33.40

38.60

4

0.07

0.07

0.26

39.73

9.2

Processed

24.30

0.54

0.80

25.00

-8.17

3.76

33.80

38.50

5.50

0.09

0.07

0.47

36.73

8.4

Processed

22.90

0.46

0.80

15.00

-7.15

3.65

35.20

39.20

6.00

0.085

0.05

0.18

38.98

7

Processed

25.40

0.49

0.73

6.90

-8.34

3.64

31.80

36.40

6.50

0.075

0.05

0.12

39.56

7.9

Processed

23.50

0.40

0.86

18.00

-10.23

3.66

32.70

37.10

5.80

0.08

0.06

0.43

39.72

8.56

Processed

22.60

0.38

0.80

6.80

-7.49

3.68

33.00

36.50

5.00

0.095

0.07

0.06

39.36

7.85

Processed

23.90

0.30

0.80

6.70

-12.42

3.63

33.00

36.80

5.60

0.08

0.07

0.06

49.92

7.65

Processed

24.20

0.42

0.71

6.50

-8.40

3.62

33.50

36.20

6.80

0.09

0.09

0.24

42.37

8.35

Processed

23.80

0.37

0.76

22.00

-8.24

3.82

34.40

38.10

6.70

0.086

0.08

0.01

18.86

7.65

Processed

23.60

0.70

0.76

6.20

-10.04

3.66

35.90

38.30

6.90

0.095

0.08

0.22

38.61

6.85

Processed

23.40

0.96

0.80

5.85

-10.04

3.65

34.0

37.80

6.40

0.09

0.09

0.49

36.72

7.45

Table S2: Physicochemical properties of comb, crushed and processed honey sample Mo= Moisture, Elcd=Electric conductivity, HMF=Hydroxymethylfurfural, Spcr=Specific rotation, Glu= Glucose, Fur= Fructose, Suc =Su- crose, Mal=Maltose, Tur =Turanose, Insolu mat= Insoluble matter, Acid= Acid

Hydroxymethyl furfural

The HMF content of comb, crushed and processed honey was 6.05± 2.3, 8.9±1.8 and 11.8±1.5mg/kg respectively (Ta- ble 2). The Hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) content of honey is used as an indicator of heating temperature and/or pro- longed storage and it is recognized as an indicator of honey freshness. The findings of this study were under the require- ments of the international Codex [8] and national ES [17], honey quality standards which set maximum of 40 mg/kg. There was a significant difference (p<0.05) in HMF content among the honey samples. The result of the present study of comb, crushed and processed honey was in agreement with Debela H. and Belay A. [15], reported 6.12 ± 2.14 mg/kg for Schefflera abyssinica and 4.37 ± 1.83 mg/kg for polyfloral honey of Ethiopia. Schievano et al., [42] reported an HMF value of 26.2 mg/kg for Coffea arabica honey, which was higher than in the current study.

Water insoluble matter

The mean ± SD of water insoluble matter of the present study for comb, crushed and processed honey samples was 0.13±0.04, 0.16±0.08 and 0.23±0.18 g/kg, respectively. The result of the present study of insoluble matter to combs, crushed and processed honey samples were found to be more than the permitted value by Codex [8], 0.1g/100g. The measurement of insoluble matter is an important means to detect impurities in honey. The mean water insoluble matter content of processed honey samples was significantly higher than that of comb and crushed honey samples. The variation may be due to differences in harvesting practice, processing and storage conditions. The probable water-insoluble solids in honey include wax, pollen, propolis, and other particles of debris.

 

Antioxidant content

Total phenolic content (TPC)

The mean ± SD of total phenolic content for comb, crushed and processed honey samples was 120.8 ±47.4, 84.3±51.86 and 66.7±30.59 GAE/100g, respectively (Table 2), and a significant difference (p<0>et al., [39], for the phenolic content of monofloral honey (66.45 ± 15.4) and polyfloral honey (59.37±13.3 mg GAE/100g). The phenolic content of the present study was in line with the re- port of Alisi et al. [40] (106 to 130 mg GAE/100g) for Nigerian honey. Total flavonoid content (TFC) The mean ±SD values of flavonoid content are 53.7 ± 24, 29.46 ± 14, and 29.47±11.22 CEQ/100g for comb, crushed, and processed honey samples, respectively. There was a significant difference (p<0.05) among the honey samples. The TFC values of the present study were found to be higher at 2–80 mg CEQ/100g of honey. This is in agreement with the report of Debala H. and Belay A. [15], (2.03±1.49 and 31.07±1.31 CEQ/100g) for Schefflera abyssinica and Vernonia amygdalina honey, respectively. DPPH radical scavenging activity In this study, the DPPH radical scavenging activity of honey was identified for comb 30.9 ± 14.91, crushed 33.45 ± 5.07 and processed honey 33.98 ± 1.84 % (Table 2). Significant differences (p>0.05) were not observed in DPPH radical scavenging activity among the honey samples. The finding of this study is in line with the report of Hailu and Belay [30], who found 44.43 ± 0.97 for Schefflera abyssinica and 37.93 ± 1.14% for polyfloral honey from Ethiopia. Moreover, the result of the present study is nearly similar to the report of Goslinski et al. [41], 40.0 ± 0.3% DPPH scavenging activity value for New Zealand Manuka honey. The unpaired electron of DPPH forms a pair with hydrogen donated by a free radical scavenging antioxidant from honey. Hydrogen peroxide scavenging (H2O2) The hydrogen peroxide scavenging potentials of combs, crushed, and processed honeys were 57 ± 16.06, 52.99 ± 15.9, and 56.61 ± 4.86 % inhibitions, respectively (Table 2). There was a significant difference (p<0.05) between the hon- ey samples. In this study, comb honey samples had higherhydrogen peroxide scavenging activity than crushed and processed honey. The current study result was in agreement with that reported by Hailu and Belay [30], 78.00 ± 4.82 and 67.22 ± 2.93 % for Schefflera abyssinica and polyfloral honey, respectively. The hydrogen peroxide concentration of New Zealand Manuka honey ranged from 16.1 ± 1.2 to 95.8 ± 9.1 Juraj et al. [43], which is in agreement with the current research. Hydrogen peroxide plays a key role in honey's antibacterial activity. The production of H₂O₂ in honey requires glucose oxidase (GOx) that oxidizes glucose and produces hydrogen peroxide [43]. Inhibition concentration The DPPH IC50 value of comb, crushed, and processed honey samples was analyzed with a concentration range of 20–140. The average DPPH IC50 values of comb, crushed, and processed honey in the present study were 54±5.72, 80±6.25and 120±8.25 mg/ml, respectively (Table 2). A lowerIC50 concentration in honey indicates a higher ability to neutralize free radicals [24]. There were significant differenc- es among the honey samples in terms of their scavenging abilities, expressed as IC50 of the DPPH radical-scavenging activities. The increase in concentration shows an increase in the scavenging value of honey samples. The findings of this study on comb, crushed, and processed honey were in agreement with the report of Hailu and Belay [30] 134.60 ± 8.66 for Schefflera abyssinica and 152.84 ± 8.25 mg/ml for polyfloral honey from Ethiopia. Rheological properties In this rheological property study of honey samples, dynamic viscosity with fluidity was measured in a temperature range of 20–50°C with a constant shear rate of 50 s-1. As presented in Table 3, the average viscosity of comb, crushed, and pro- cessed honey samples as a function of temperature is found to be 4125, 2506, and 1543 Pa.s, respectively. The current study's comb, crushed, and processed honey's temperature sensitivity was evaluated by sketching the logarithmic of viscosity (Pa s) versus the reciprocal temperature (1/T) and the results were fitted using the Arrhenius model (Figure 2). The viscosity of all analyzed honey samples decreased with increasing temperature (Figure 2). The model adequatelydescribed the relationship between honey viscosity and temperature. In line with this, an exponential dependence of honey viscosity on temperature was evaluated with the use of regression analyses, and the coefficient of determination for comb, crushed, and processed honey samples was r² = 0.874, r² = 0.853, and r² = 0.877, respectively (Table 3).

Treatment

P h e n o l ( m g GAE/100g)

Flavonoid    (mg

CEQ/ 100g)

DPPH

(% inhibition)

H2O2 SCV

Comb

68

42

20.58

38.4

Comb

70

52

22.6

44.7

Comb

77

78

30.16

53.5

Comb

101

92

33.21

65.9

Comb

187

98

35.05

80.3

Comb

71

26

37.47

37.7

Comb

104

30

25.31

45.3

Comb

137

36

26.42

57.9

Comb

175

38

28.47

69.5

Comb

191

70

33.68

79.4

Comb

70

24

35.48

35.68

Comb

95

32

35.94

42.87

Comb

122

52

26.94

55.4

Comb

167

64

29.21

68.2

Comb

177

72

33.31

80

Crushed

34

12

33.68

33.7

Crushed

54

16

34

40.3

Crushed

81

26

34.89

43.75

Crushed

142

40

26.57

69.5

Crushed

172

52

29.16

76.5

Crushed

38

14

31.47

37

Crushed

50

16

34.16

40

Crushed

62

24

36.47

52

Crushed

78

32

37.36

61.7

Crushed

177

38

31.42

74.5

Crushed

32

12

32.57

34

Crushed

44

26

33.57

40.6

Crushed

52

38

35.68

51.7

Crushed

91

44

36.47

65

Crushed

157

52

38.42

74.6

Processed

23

30

21.36

39.4

Processed

33

32

27.94

46

Processed

82

36

31.79

55.7

Processed

86

40

36.78

61.6

Processed

103

44

38.31

74.9

Processed

30

12

42.68

38.3

Processed

41

14

29.52

45

Processed

60

18

33.42

54.6

Processed

66

20

33.52

69.8

Processed

112

40

35.36

79.6

Processed

39

12

36

37.6

Processed

58

32

36.21

44

Processed

67

34

32.21

55

Processed

78

38

32.36

69.6

Processed

122

40

32.42

78

Table S3: Antioxidant analysis of comb, crushed, and processed honey. AE = Gallic Acid Equivalent, CEQ = Qurecetin Equivalent SCV=Scavenging value

The temperature dependence of the honey viscosity in the present study agrees with the reports of James et al. [44], for North-Central Nigeria honey, Oroian et al. [45] for Romanian honey; and Belay et al. [46] for Ethiopian monofloral hon- ey. Similar observations to those of the present study were reported by Sopade et al. [47] for Australian honey, Yanni- otis et al., [48], which reported that the temperature effect on viscosity is strong at lower temperatures. The Arrhenius relationship, which states that the higher the temperature, the greater the chemical reaction and molecular mobility of viscous fluids, is what causes the change in viscosity with an increase in temperature [49]. The average viscosity of each honey sample was higher at an initial 20°C and decreased as the temperature increased (Table 3). The viscosity of combs and crushed and processed honeys obtained by fitting of the experimental data as a function of temperature is presented in Table 3). At all operating temperatures (20, 30, 40, 50 o C), the highest viscosity was observed in the comb, and the lowest was in processed honey. Generally, as the temperature increases, the average velocity of the molecules in honey increases, and the amount of contact time with adjacent molecules decreases. Gomez et al. [49] and thus, the average intermolecular forces decrease and the viscosity decreases. The effect of temperature was found to be more pronounced up to 30°C. However, at temperatures above 30°C, the dif- differences in viscosity were very small in most of the analyzed honeys. At higher temperatures, the difference in viscosity among three honey types decreases but still exists even at 40°C, which could be attributed to the natural variations in composition (sugar and water content) (Yanniotis et al. [48]. The analyzed honey samples of the present study exhibited Newtonian behavior (Figure 3), which was described by the linearity of shearing time (1/s) and viscosity (Pa.s).

Figure S2: Calibration graph of Fructose

Figure S3: Calibration graph of Glucose in g/100g Most honeys are Newtonian fluids. Dobre, et al., [50], Oroian et al. [45] characterized it by constant viscosity at a fixed temperature, which can be described by Newton’s law for flow. The finding of the study was in agreement with the report of Vanelle et al. [51] for Brazilian honeys and Mahder and Belay et al. [52]. Sensory test The sensory attributes and descriptors of honey, like color (light brown, dark brown), appearance (color, fermentation, viscosity), flavor (odor, taste), and taste (mouthfeel, body, aftertaste), floral fruits (orange, rose), fresh (eucalyptus, mint), warm/aroma (caramel, smoked), and spoilage (teji) of comb, crushed, and processed honey were presentedin Table 4. The means ± ±SD of comb honey samples for light brown (1.56 ± 0.74), dark brown (5.49 ± 0.76), orange (2.66 ± 1.32), rose (2.81 ± 1.47), mint (2.70 ± 1.16), eucalyptus (4.98 ± 0.89), sweet taste (5.24 ± 1.06), body (5.49 ± 0.78), aftertaste (5.02 ± 0.72), caramel (3.25 ± 1.39), smoked (3.09 ± 1.75), and spoiled teji (1.54 ± 0.70) are in Table 1. The means ± SD of crushed honey samples were found to be light brown (3.29±1.12), dark brown (3.16±1.18), orange (3.01±1.36), rose (3.10±1.38), mint (2.87±1.13), eucalyptus (4.33±0.98), sweet taste (4.58±1.05), body (3.54±1.13), aftertaste (3.42±0.94), caramel (3.15±1.23), smoked (2.92±1.47), and spoiled teji ji (2.43±0.72). The mean ± SD value of processed honey samples was found light brown (5.04±0.76), dark brown (2.55±1.06), orange (3.02±1.33), rose (2.98±1.52), mint (2.45±1.15), eucalyptus (4.01±0.83), sweet taste (4.52±0.89), body (3.36±1.14), after taste (3.27±1.13), caramel (3.68±1.24±1.24), smoked (2.68±1.34), and spoiled teji (3.34±0.94) (Table 4). There was a significant (p<0.05) difference between the comb honey taste (4.05±0.825), odor (4.05±0.759), color (4.30±0.732), and aroma (3.75±0.550) reported by et al. [53].

Treatment

Viscosity (cp) at different operation temperature (°C)

 

20

30

40

50

Comb 1

9500

4000

1800

500

Comb 2

11000

4000

1800

800

Comb 3

10200

4000

1500

600

Comb 4

10500

4050

1700

700

Comb 5

10100

4000

1800

550

Comb 6

10100

4100

1500

650

Comb 7

10445

4050

1850

500

Comb 8

11000

4100

1750

600

Comb 9

9500

4000

1800

800

Comb10

9322

3700

1500

630

Crushed 1

6800

2500

1000

600

Crushed 2

7200

3000

1200

500

Crushed 3

4500

1700

590

490

Crushed 4

6600

2500

990

650

Crushed 5

6200

2300

1000

450

Crushed 6

6500

1900

950

500

Crushed 7

5506

1700

1000

520

Crushed 8

7200

3000

1200

500

Crushed 9

6660

2900

590

600

Crushed 10

4500

2500

780

490

Processed 1

3400

1500

700

480

Processed 2

5800

2200

1000

250

Processed 3

1200

600

380

200

Processed 4

3500

1530

680

300

Processed 5

4300

2000

850

300

Processed 6

5800

700

700

450

Processed 7

1200

2200

800

200

Processed 8

4860

600

1000

250

Processed 9

3400

1500

390

420

Processed 10

1200

600

3800

200

Table S4: The Viscosity of comb, crushed and processed honey samples at different temperatures (20-50°C)

Association between variables

The physicochemical and antioxidant properties of comb, crushed, and processed honey samples were correlated by Pearson correlation (Table 5). Moisture and sucrose were found to be positively correlated (r = 0.88). This is based on the principle that the moisture and sucrose content of honey are widely related to the level of maturity and the harvesting season. A significant (p<.001) inverse association was observed between diastase activity and sucrose content (r= -0.86). This is based on the prin- ciple of early maturity at harvest and adulteration practice. Correlations were observed between total phenolic content and hydrogen peroxide scavenging activity (r=0.82), total flavonoids and total phenol content (r=0.61). The moisture and sucrose content of comb,crushed, and processed honey from the Burie district correlated significantly (p<0 r=0.88), r=663).>

T r e a t - ment

O r a n ge

Rose

Mint

Eucal yptus

Sweet taste

Body

Aftert aste

Ceram ela

Smok ed

Light brown

Dark brown

Teji

Comb

3

4

5

6

6

6

5

4

3

1

6

1

Comb

2

1

4

6

5

5

5

5

1

5

2

5

Comb

4

1

2

5

5

5

5

1

5

2

5

1

Comb

4

6

4

3

6

6

5

5

6

1

6

1

Comb

2

2

1

4

5

6

5

5

2

2

5

1

Comb

3

3

3

5

5

5

4

4

4

4

5

2

Comb

5

1

1

6

6

6

6

5

1

2

5

2

Comb

1

1

1

5

5

6

5

2

1

1

6

1

Comb

2

5

3

6

6

6

5

5

2

1

7

1

Comb

3

4

4

4

5

5

5

4

2

1

5

2

Comb

2

5

4

5

6

5

3

2

3

2

5

4

Comb

4

4

3

6

6

6

5

1

1

1

6

1

Comb

2

2

5

5

6

5

5

2

3

1

6

2

Comb

1

5

4

5

6

6

5

6

3

2

5

2

Comb

2

5

4

5

5

5

4

5

5

1

6

1

Comb

1

2

4

6

6

6

5

4

2

1

6

1

Comb

5

2

4

6

6

6

6

4

2

1

5

2

Comb

5

3

3

5

6

6

6

4

2

2

6

2

Comb

3

4

2

5

6

3

6

3

2

1

5

1

Comb

4

1

2

5

6

6

6

1

2

2

6

1

Comb

2

2

5

5

5

5

5

2

4

2

5

2

Comb

3

4

3

6

6

6

6

2

6

2

6

1

Comb

1

1

1

5

6

6

5

1

6

1

5

1

Comb

5

1

2

6

6

5

5

2

2

2

6

1

Comb

4

3

2

5

4

6

5

3

1

1

6

2

Comb

2

1

2

5

3

6

5

3

2

1

6

1

Comb

2

2

3

5

4

5

5

2

4

2

5

2

Comb

1

2

2

4

3

5

5

4

1

1

6

1

Comb

4

2

3

3

5

6

4

2

5

1

6

2

Comb

1

4

1

4

3

5

5

5

1

2

6

3

Comb

1

5

2

5

4

5

5

4

5

2

5

1

Comb

3

4

2

5

5

6

5

4

2

3

5

2

Comb

4

3

4

5

6

3

5

5

6

5

2

2

Crushed

2

4

4

5

5

4

4

5

4

3

4

3

Crushed

4

2

4

3

4

2

2

4

2

5

2

2

Crushed

5

2

3

4

2

3

3

1

1

5

1

3

Crushed

2

5

1

2

5

2

3

2

2

5

2

1

Crushed

1

1

3

3

3

2

2

5

5

5

5

4

Crushed

5

2

5

5

6

4

5

1

2

3

3

3

Crushed

3

1

1

4

4

1

2

4

6

3

1

2

Crushed

5

5

5

3

6

6

4

5

3

1

6

2

Crushed

2

4

4

4

5

4

4

4

2

3

4

3

Crushed

4

4

5

4

5

4

2

2

5

4

2

3

Crushed

4

3

4

5

6

5

2

4

1

4

5

1

Crushed

2

6

2

5

5

3

5

2

3

2

3

2

Crushed

3

3

2

4

4

4

4

3

2

3

5

2

Crushed

1

5

2

5

5

4

2

5

3

3

4

2

Crushed

2

1

1

5

4

3

4

1

5

2

4

3

Crushed

2

5

4

6

5

5

5

4

1

2

5

2

Crushed

4

4

3

4

4

3

3

4

1

2

3

3

Crushed

5

3

4

4

5

4

4

4

2

2

4

3

Crushed

2

4

3

4

6

6

4

5

1

2

4

1

Crushed

4

4

2

4

5

5

4

5

5

3

3

3

Crushed

1

2

3

5

5

4

3

2

4

2

4

3

Crushed

5

2

2

6

4

4

4

3

3

4

2

2

Crushed

2

1

3

5

6

3

5

2

3

5

2

2

Crushed

5

1

1

6

4

2

2

2

3

4

1

2

Crushed

4

3

4

5

5

4

4

4

3

5

4

3

Crushed

1

1

2

4

6

2

3

3

1

3

2

3

Crushed

3

4

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

3

2

3

Table S5: Sensory analysis of comb, crushed and processed honey

Figure S4: Calibration graph of Sucrose in gm/100gm

Figure S5: Calibration graph of Maltose in (g/100 g)

Figure S6: Calibration graph of Turanose in gm/100gm

Figure S7: Gallic acid calibration graph for total phenol

Figure S8: Qurecetin calibration graph for total flavonoids

Figure S9: DPPH Inhibition calibration curve of comb, crushed, and processed honey

Figure S10: Hydrogen peroxide scavenging capacity of comb, crushed, and processed honey sample

Figure S11: DPPH scavenging activity

Figure S12: Assessor training by the panel leader

Figure S13: Sensory analysis

Source

DF

Sum of Squares

M e a n Square

F Value

Pr>F

Between Groups

2

180.866

90.433

 

 

210.84

 

 

210.84

W i t h i n Groups

27

11.581

0.428

 

 

Total

29

192.447

 

 

 

ANOVA Table S14: Moisture content

Source

DF

Sum             of Squares

Mean Square

F Value

Pr>F

Between Groups

2

0.1265

0.0632

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.94

0.070

Within Groups

27

0.581

0.021

 

 

Total

29

0.707

 

 

 

ANOVA Table S15: Ash content

Source

DF

Sum of Squares

Mean Square

F Val- ue

Pr>F

Between Groups

2

170.823

85.4117500

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.02

0.029

Within Groups

27

573.692

21.247

 

 

Total

29

744.515

 

 

 

ANOVA Table S16: HMF content

Source

DF

Sum of Squares

Mean Square

F Value

Pr>F

Between Groups

2

0.0164

0.008

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.21

0.313

Within Groups

27

0.183

0.0067

 

 

Total

29

0.199

 

 

 

ANOVA Table S17: pH content

Source

DF

Sum of Squares

Mean Square

F Value

Pr>F

Between Groups

2

3.458

1.729

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.37

0.2707

Within Groups

27

34.031

1.260

 

 

Total

29

37.489

 

 

 

ANOVA Table S18: Glucose

Source

DF

Sum     of Squares

Mean Square

F Value

Pr>F

Between Groups

2

8.600

4.300

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.93

0.0319

Within Groups

27

29.567

1.095

 

 

Total

29

38.167

 

 

 

ANOVA Table S 19: Fructose

Source

DF

Sum    of Squares

Mean Square

F Value

Pr>F

Between Groups

2

66.302

33.151

 

 

 

 

 

 

66.99

<.0001

Within Groups

27

13.361

0.494

 

 

Total

29

79.663

 

 

 

ANOVA Table S20: Sucrose

Source

DF

Sum         of Squares

Mean Square

F

Value

Pr>F

Between Groups

2

22874.311

11437.155

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.84

0.0058

Within Groups

42

82258.666

1958.539

 

 

Total

44

105132.977

 

 

 

ANOVA Table S21: Total phenolic content

Source

DF

Sum      of Squares

Mean Square

F Val- ue

Pr>F

Between Groups

2

5888.711

2944.355

 

 

 

 

 

 

9.79

0.0003

Within Groups

42

12630.400

300.723

 

 

Total

44

18519.111

 

 

 

ANOVA Table S22: Total Flavonoid

Source

DF

Sum              of Squares

Mean Square

F Val- ue

Pr>F

Between Groups

2

145.844

72.922

0.30

0.7431

Within Groups

42

10240.655

243.825

 

 

Total

44

10386.499

 

 

 

ANOVA Table S23 : Hydrogen peroxide

Source

DF

Sum    of Squares

Mean Square

F Value

Pr>F

Between Groups

2

40.856

20.4284

 

 

 

 

 

 

20.18

0.0022

Within Groups

6

6.073

1.01225

 

 

Total

8

46.930

 

 

 

ANOVA Table S24: Diastase

Source

DF

Sum      of Squares

Mean Square

F Value

Pr>F

Between Groups

2

97.048

48.524

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.73

0.0745

Within Groups

51

905.359

17.752

 

 

Total

53

1002.408

 

 

 

ANOVA Table S25: DPPH scavenging activity

Conclusion

In this study, most honey samples fulfilled the quality stan- dards established by national and international regulations, except some processed honey. Comb honey showed better physicochemical and antioxidant properties. The correlation of moisture with sucrose and diastase with sucrose are a good mark for quality control. Moreover, comb honey sam- ples have good sensory profiles, having a light brown to dark brown color; floral fruits; and a fresh and sweet taste. Like elsewhere, the natural quality of honey is affected by post-harvest handling and processing.

Acknowledgement

We would like to sincerely thank the Department of Food Science and Applied Nutrition of AASTU and Ethiopian Meat and Dairy Industry Development (EMDID). Additionally, Mr. Demelash Hailu and Asaminaw Shewangizaw deserve particular thanks. Asnake Bekele is also acknowledged for making the map. A kind provision of Phadebas tablets from Phadebas-AB Sweden for enzyme analysis is also highly acknowledged.

Declarations

The work described has not been published before, it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, and the submission to the Journal of Food Measurement and Characterizationhas been approved by all authors as well as the responsible authorities. If accepted, it will not be published elsewhere in the same form, in English or in any other language, including electronically, without the written consent of the copyright holder, and the Journal of Food Measurement and Characterization will not be held legally responsible should there be any claims for compensation or dispute on authorship.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Availability of data and material The authors declare that data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article [and its supplementary information files].

Authors Contribution

All of the two authors conducted the research. YE and AB designed the research, developed the parameters, analyzed the samples, analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

References

  1. Nega, Tekeba, and Yeshitela Eshete. "Review of Ethiopia’ s global position in honey and other bee products production and marketing-analysis of sectoral opportunities and limita- tions." Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research 10, no. 3 (2018): 7879-7883.
  2. Abebe, Workneh, and Ranjitha Puskur. "Beekeeping sub sec- tor challenges and constraints in Atsbi Wemberta District of eastern zone, Tigray Region, Ethiopia." Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development 3, no. 1 (2011): 8-12.
  3. N. Adgaba (2007), Atlas of pollen grains of major honeybee flora of Ethiopia, HBRC. 1,11
  4. Megersa, Bekele, Wudu Temesgen, Kebede Amenu, Wond- wosen Asfaw, Solomon Gizaw, Buke Yussuf, and Theodore JD Knight-Jones. "Camels in Ethiopia: An overview of demogra- phy, productivity, socio-economic value and diseases." (2024).
  5. K. Haftu (2015)., Production and Quality Characteristics of Ethiopian Honey: A Review. Academic Journal of Entomology. 8, 4
  6. K. Haftu (2015)., Production and Quality Characteristics of Ethiopian Honey: A Review. Academic Journal of Entomology. 8, 4
  7. Eshete, Yeshitla, and Abera Belay. "Botanical Origin, Physi- cochemical Composition and Antioxidant Content of Comb, Crushed and Processed Honey Collected from Burie-Ethiopia." Archives of Gynaecology and Women Health 2, no. 1 (2023).
  8. Buba, Fatimah, Abubakar Gidado, and Aliyu Shugaba. "Analy- sis of biochemical composition of honey samples from North- East Nigeria." Biochem Anal Biochem 2, no. 3 (2013): 139.
  9. Baglio, Ettore, and Ettore Baglio. "The industry of honey. An introduction." Chemistry and Technology of Honey Production (2018): 1-14.
  10. Bogdanov, Stefan, Kaspar Ruoff, and Livia Persano Oddo. "Physico-chemical methods for the characterisation of unifloral honeys: a review." Apidologie 35, no. Suppl. 1 (2004): S4-S17.
  11. Ajibola, A. (2015). Physico-chemical and physiological values of honey and its importance as a functional food. International Journal of Food and Nutritional Science, 2(2), 180-188.
  12. Tosun, Murat. "Detection of adulteration in honey samples add- ed various sugar syrups with 13C/12C isotope ratio analysis method." Food chemistry 138, no. 2-3 (2013): 1629-1632.
  13. Bogdanov, Stefan, and Peter Martin. "Honey authenticity: a re- view." Mitt. Lebensm. Hyg 93 (2002): 232-254.
  14. Yeserah, Sileshi, Abebe Jenberie, and Desalegn Begna. "Hon- ey marketing, structure and conduct of honey market in Go- zamen district, East Gojjam Zone, and Amhara Region." Co- gent Food & Agriculture 5, no. 1 (2019): 1620153.
  15. Belay, Abera, W. K. Solomon, Geremew Bultossa, Nuru Adga- ba, and Samuel Melaku. "Botanical origin, colour, granulation, and sensory properties of the Harenna forest honey, Bale, Ethi- opia." Food chemistry 167 (2015): 213-219.
  16. Debela, Hawine, and Abera Belay. "Caffeine, invertase en- zyme and triangle test sensory panel used to differentiate Cof- fea arabica and Vernonia amygdalina honey." Food Control 123 (2021): 107857.
  17. AOAC, Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Official methods of the analysis of official analytical chemists (15th ed., Vol. II). USA: Virginia. (1990).
  18. Damto, Teferi, Tarekegn Birhanu, and Ashagrie Zewdu. "Phys- icochemical and antioxidant characterization of commercially available honey sample from Addis Ababa market, Ethiopia." Heliyon 9, no. 10 (2023).
  19. Bogdanov, Stefan. "CONTROL STEPS."
  20. Beretta, Giangiacomo, Paola Granata, Maria Ferrero, Marica Orioli, and Roberto Maffei Facino. "Standardization of antioxi- dant properties of honey by a combination of spectrophotomet- ric/fluorimetric assays and chemometrics." Analytica chimica acta 533, no. 2 (2005): 185-191.
  21. Leontowicz, H. A. N. N. A., M. A. R. I. A. Leontowicz, S. H. E. L. A. Gorinstein, O. L. G. A. Martin-Belloso, and S. I. M. O. N. Trakhtenberg. "Apple peels and pulp as a source of bioactive compounds and their influence digestibility and lipid profile in normal and atherogenic rats-in English." Medycyna wetery- naryjna 63 (2007): 1434.
  22. Wieczorek, Jolanta, Monika Pietrzak, Janusz Pomianowski, and Zbigniew Wieczorek. "Honey as a source of bioactive com- pounds." Pol. J. Nat. Sci 29 (2014): 275-285.
  23. Meda, Aline, Charles Euloge Lamien, Marco Romito, Jeanne Millogo, and Odile Germaine Nacoulma. "Determination of the total phenolic, flavonoid and proline contents in Burkina Fasan honey, as well as their radical scavenging activity." Food chem- istry 91, no. 3 (2005): 571-577.
  24. Ruch, Randall J., Shu-jun Cheng, and James E. Klaunig. "Pre- vention of cytotoxicity and inhibition of intercellular communi- cation by antioxidant catechins isolated from Chinese green tea." Carcinogenesis 10, no. 6 (1989): 1003-1008.
  25. Al-Farsi, Mohamed, Abeer Al-Amri, Ahlam Al-Hadhrami, and Sharifa Al-Belushi. "Color, flavonoids, phenolics and antioxi- dants of Omani honey." Heliyon 4, no. 10 (2018).
  26. ISO, Sensory Analysis Methodology General Guidance for Establishing a Sensory Profile, International Organization for Standardization; ISO, 13299: ISO, Genéve Switzerland. (2016).
  27. Standard, I. S. O., and BS ISO. "Sensory analysis–methodolo- gy–sequential analysis." (2004).
  28. Piana, Maria Lucia, Livia Persano Oddo, Antonio Bentabol, Etienne Bruneau, Stefan Bogdanov, and Christine Guyot De- clerck. "Sensory analysis applied to honey: state of the art." Apidologie 35, no. Suppl. 1 (2004): S26-S37.
  29. Bareke, T., and A. Addi. "Performance evaluation of herba- ceous of bee forages for semi-arid parts of the rift valley of central, Ethiopia." Advances in Plants & Agriculture Research 8, no. 5 (2018): 10-15406.
  30. EU Council Directive Relating to honey Official, Journal of the European Communities. 10, (2002).
  31. Hailu, Demelash, and Abera Belay. "Melissopalynology and an- tioxidant properties used to differentiate Schefflera abyssinica and polyfloral honey." Plos one 15, no. 10 (2020): e0240868.
  32. Belay, Abera, W. K. Solomon, Geremew Bultossa, Nuru Adg- aba, and Samuel Melaku. "Physicochemical properties of the Harenna forest honey, Bale, Ethiopia." Food chemistry 141, no. 4 (2013): 3386-3392.
  33. Nigussie, Kebede, P. A. Subramanian, and Gebrekidan Me- brahtu. "Physicochemical analysis of Tigray honey: An attempt to determine major quality markers of honey." Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Ethiopia 26, no. 1 (2012).
  34. Kumar, Atul, Jatinder Paul Singh Gill, Jasbir Singh Bedi, Man- meet Manav, Mohd Javed Ansari, and Gurjeet Singh Walia. "Sensorial and physicochemical analysis of Indian honeys for assessment of quality and floral origins." Food Research Inter- national 108 (2018): 571-583.
  35. Mulugeta, Eyobel, and Miresa Tadese. "Physicochemical char- acterization and pesticide residue analysis of honey produced in West Shewa zone, Oromia." American Journal of Applied Chemistry 5, no. 6 (2017): 101-109.
  36. da Silva, Priscila Missio, Cony Gauche, Luciano Valdemiro Gonzaga, Ana Carolina Oliveira Costa, and Roseane Fett. "Honey: Chemical composition, stability and authenticity." Food chemistry 196 (2016): 309-323.
  37. Tesfaye, Bekele, Desalegn Begna, and Mitiku Eshetu. "Evalu- ation of physico-chemical properties of honey produced in bale natural forest, Southeastern Ethiopia." Int. J. Agric. Sci. Food Technol 2, no. 1 (2016): 21-27.
  38. Erturk, Ömer, Sefine Kalın, and Melek Çol Ayvaz. "Physico- chemical properties, bioactive components, antioxidant and antimicrobial potentials of some selected honeys from different provinces of Turkey." British Food Journal 121, no. 6 (2019): 1298-1313.
  39. Gebru Equar, Berhanu Abraha, Hayal Lemma, and Solomon Amare. "Physicochemical Characterization of Honey from De- bre-Nazret Kebelle of Tigray Region, Ethiopia." World Applied Sciences Journal 33, no. 12 (2015): 1806-1814.
  40. do Nascimento, Kelly Souza, José Augusto Gasparotto Sat- tler, Luciene Fagundes Lauer Macedo, Carol Viviana Serna González, Illana Louise Pereira de Melo, Elias da Silva Araú- jo, Daniel Granato, Aroni Sattler, and Lígia Bicudo de Almei- da-Muradian. "Phenolic compounds, antioxidant capacity and physicochemical properties of Brazilian Apis mellifera honeys." LWT 91 (2018): 85-94.
  41. Alisi, Chinwe S., Okey A. Ojiako, Chidi U. Igwe, Cosmas O. Ujowundu, Ken Anugweje, and Gloria N. Okwu. "Antioxidant content and free radical scavenging activity of honeys of Apis mellifera of Obudu cattle ranch." International Journal of Bio- chemistry Research & Review 2, no. 4 (2012): 164.
  42. Gośliński, Michał, Dariusz Nowak, and Lucyna Kłębukowska. "Antioxidant properties and antimicrobial activity of manuka honey versus Polish honeys." Journal of Food Science and Technology 57 (2020): 1269-1277.
  43. Schievano, Elisabetta, Claudia Finotello, Stefano Mammi, Anna Illy Belci, Silvia Colomban, and Luciano Navarini. "Preliminary characterization of monofloral Coffea spp. honey: correlation between potential biomarkers and pollen content." Journal of agricultural and food chemistry 63, no. 25 (2015): 5858-5863.
  44. Majtan, Juraj, Jana Bohova, Emanuel Prochazka, and Jaroslav Klaudiny. "Methylglyoxal may affect hydrogen peroxide accu- mulation in manuka honey through the inhibition of glucose oxidase." Journal of medicinal food 17, no. 2 (2014): 290-293.
  45. James, O. O., M. A. Mesubi, L. A. Usman, S. O. Yeye, K. O. Ajanaku, K. O. Ogunniran, Olayinka O. Ajani, and T. O. Siyan- bola. "Physical characterisation of some honey samples from North-Central Nigeria." International Journal of Physical Sci- ences 4, no. 9 (2009): 464-470.
  46. Oroian, Mircea. "Physicochemical and rheological properties of Romanian honeys." Food Biophysics 7 (2012): 296-307.
  47. Belay, Abera, Gulelat Desse Haki, Marc Birringer, Hannelore Borck, Admasu Addi, Kaleab Baye, and Samuel Melaku. "Rhe- ology and botanical origin of Ethiopian monofloral honey." LWT 75 (2017): 393-401.
  48. Sopade, P. A., P. Halley, B. Bhandari, B. D’arcy, Caffin Doebler, and N. Caffin. "Application of the Williams–Landel–Ferry model to the viscosity–temperature relationship of Australian honeys." Journal of Food Engineering 56, no. 1 (2003): 67-75.
  49. Yanniotis, S., S. Skaltsi, and S. Karaburnioti. "Effect of mois- ture content on the viscosity of honey at different tempera- tures." Journal of food engineering 72, no. 4 (2006): 372-377.
  50. Dekeba Tafa, Kenenisa, Venkatesa Prabhu Sundramurthy, and N. Subramanian. "Rheological and thermal properties of honey produced in Algeria and Ethiopia: a review." International Jour- nal of Food Properties 24, no. 1 (2021): 1117-1131.
  51. Dobre, Irina, Luminita Anca Georgescu, Petru Alexe, Olga Escuredo, and Maria Carmen Seijo. "Rheological behavior of different honey types from Romania." Food Research Interna- tional 49, no. 1 (2012): 126-132.
  52. Silva, Vanelle Maria da, Robledo de Almeida Torres Filho, and Jaime Vilela de Resende. "Rheological properties of selected Brazilian honeys as a function of temperature and soluble solid concentration." International journal of food properties 20, no. sup3 (2017): S2481-S2494.
  53. Mulugeta, Mahder, and Abera Belay. "Comb honey and pro- cessed honey of Croton macrostachyus and Schefflera abyss- inica honey differentiated by enzymes and antioxidant proper- ties, and botanical origin." Heliyon 8, no. 5 (2022).
  54. Guler, Ahmet, Yuksel Bek, and Veli Kement. "Verification test of sensory analyses of comb and strained honeys produced as pure and feeding intensively with sucrose (Saccharum offici- narum L.) syrup." Food chemistry 109, no. 4 (2008): 891-898.

Become an Editorial Board Member

Become a Reviewer

What our clients say

MEDIRES PUBLISHING

At our organization, we prioritize excellence in supporting the endeavors of researchers and practitioners alike. With a commitment to inclusivity and diversity, our journals eagerly accept various article types, including but not limited to Research Papers, Review Articles, Short Communications, Case Reports, Mini-Reviews, Opinions, and Letters to the Editor.

This approach ensures a rich tapestry of scholarly contributions, fostering an environment ripe for intellectual exchange and advancement."

Contact Info

MEDIRES PUBLISHING LLC,
447 Broadway, 2nd Floor, Suite #1734,
New York, 10013, United States.
Phone: +1 (786) 490-6788
WhatsApp us: WhatsApp - Medires Online
Email: info@mediresonline.org