Study some Physical and Chemical properties of some Yemeni honeys

Wagdi Mohammed Abdullah Ali Algunidi

Aden University, Lawdar Education collage, Chemistry Department.

Abstract:

Although The Yemeni honey has good fame and high prices not in the local markets but in the international markets. unless, there were not standard Attributes for it and the researches is rare which describe his physicochemical Attributes. This study aimed to determine some physicochemical Attributes – ( sugars , water , pH , conductivity , and ash) – of five kinds Yemeni honey was produced in Lawdar area Abyan Gev.

Generally , The findings was showed that the Attributes of the studied honeys agree with international standards and some previous studies.

Key words : Yemeni honey . sugars . sidir.

______

  1. Introduction

The diversity of the physical and chemical properties and quality ofhoney types depends on theplant sources, also depend on several environmental factorsduring production such asweather and humidity inside the hive,production methods, processing and storage conditions, honey maturity,and the abilitypractices of the beekeeperin removing and extracting honey. (White,1978,Nour, 1988; Bogdanov, 1999; Oddo & Bogdanov, 2004;Joseph et al ,2007; Vazquez, 2007).

Although Yemeni honey has fame, specially (Sidir Hadramout, Sidir

Shabwa, and Squtra honey) and its high price not in the local markets, but also in International markets, and it's classified as the most expensive honey in the world, خنبش (1998), unless, there was not standard characters for The Yemeni honey that define its general composition and physicochemical characteristics, also the research about it generally is rare. This study aims toEvaluated some physical and chemical characteristics for honeys.

2. Materialsand methods

2.1. Honey samples

For this experimental study, 15 fifteen honey samples were collected directly from beekeeper in Lawder area in Abyan governorate.

2.2. Methods

2.2.1 Determination of sugars:

200 mg of each honey sample was dissolve in 100 ml volumetric flask with 25 ml water HPLC grade from (MERCK), from 2ml carrz 1 (Zink acetate 15 gin 100aml water) +2 ml carrz 2 (zinc ferrocyande 30 g in 100ml water) added as clarifying agent, dilate the volume by water, before injection, all samples filtrate through 0.45µg.filter then injection.Samples were injected in a HPLC (AgilentHPLC (GERMANY) model 1100 Series) connected to a refractive index detector, RID (AgilentModel G1362A). Sugars were separated by a NH2 column AgilentG1316A and quat pump G1613Ausing LC grade acetonitrile diluted with ultrapure water (80+20) from Merk at a flow rateof 1.0 mL min−1. Authenticated standards of sucrose, glucose, fructose, and maltose were used for the quantification of the sugars from BHD.

2.2. Physicals and Chemical methods

2.2.1.Electrical conductivity.

The Electrical conductivity measurement was doneat solution containing 20% of honey dry matter in CO2 – Free distilled water at 20 - oC (A.O.A.C 1990). Measurement was carried out by usingpH/Conductivity meter Model LF 315 (WTW GmbH, Germany). Every sample was analysed in three parallel determinations.

2.2.2.pH

ThepH value was determined using a digital pH meter Model LF 315 (WTW GmbH, Germany).in solution containing 10 g honey in 75 ml of distilled water (A.O.A.C1990).

2.2.3.Moisture content

The Moisture was indirectly assessed via measuring the refractive index of the sample using Abbe refractometer (Kruss Optronic GmbH, 2008 Germaney ) using the relationship between refract index and water content reading at 20 oC,Using the Wedmore table (AOAC, 1990).

2.2.4. Ash

Ash percentage was determined by calcinations, at 550 _C in a furnace, to constant mass (AOAC, 1990) and expressed in gram per 100 g (%).

2.3. Statistical Analysis:

Data were subjected to analysis of ANOVA and the least significant difference (LSD) at 5% probability and correlation using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Ver. 15, software for windows.

1

Table (1) : Physical and Chemical properties of some Yemeni honeys(Sugars, Moisture, pH, Ash and Electrical Conductivity

Sidir honey
3samples / Somarh honey
3samples / Kasas honey
3samples / Sisban Honey
3samples / Marae Honey
3samples
Mean / SD ± / Mean / SD ± / Mean / SD ± / Mean / SD ± / Mean / SD ±
Fructose g /100 g / 36.68 a / 0.9088 / 38.21 a / 0.3244 / 37.07 a / 0.5636 / 34.56 b / 1.136 / 36.37 ab / 1.823
Glucose g/100 g / 29.00 a / 0.3244 / 31.17 b / 1.200 / 33.25 c / 0.6945 / 38.06 d / 1.056 / 34.26 c / 1.345
Sucrose g /100g / 0.9122 a / 0.1706 / 0.4178 b / 0.0250 / 0.7833 ab / 0.3197 / 3.978 c / 0.3102 / 2.473 d / 0.1735
Maltose g / 100 g / 3.209 ab / 1.208 / 2.913 ab / 1.710 / 4.954 a / 0.5452 / 0.5878 b / 0.4045 / 4.922 a / 0.8339
Sum of Fructose and Glucose g/ 100 g / 65.68 a / 0.6286 / 69.72 b / 2.852 / 70.32 b / 1.223 / 72.62 b / 2.018 / 70.63 b / 3.158
Moisture g/100g / 18.7 a / 0.0524 / 19.6 b / 0.1381 / 17.0 c / 0.4499 / 19.7 b / 0.4648 / 19.5 b / 0.4272
Fructose / Glucose Ratio / 1.26 a / 0.0189 / 1.23 b / 0.0253 / 1.11 c / 0.0073 / 0.91 d / 0.0095 / 1.06 e / 0.0127
Glucose / Moisture Ratio / 1.55 a / 0.0072 / 1.59 a / 0.0276 / 1.94 b / 0.0818 / 1.94 b / 0.0914 / 1.76 c / 0.0330
pH / 4.08 a / 0.0823 / 3.81 b / 0.0877 / 4.06 a / 0.1228 / 3.70 b / 0.058 / 3.811 b / 0.112
Ash % / 0.47 a / 0.0451 / 0.19 a / 0.0147 / 0.17a / 0.0208 / 0.23 a / 0.0451 / 0.43 a / 0.0231
Electrical Conductivity μS / cm / 1122 a / 135.5 / 962 b / 25.63 / 610 c / 35.00 / 756 c / 100.5 / 791 c / 55.77

Any two means within a raw having the same letters are not significant difference at (p < 0.05). SD =Standard Deviations

1

  1. Results and discussion:

3.1. Sugars:

Table (1) shows the mean and standard deviations ofthe sugar content values obtained for differenthoney samples,Fructose and Glucose are the most abundant, while, small amounts of Maltose and Sucrose were found. The Fructose content was the highest in all honey kinds, except in Sisban honey, where Glucose content was higher than it. The highest amount of Fructose was found in Somarh Honey .

The content of Fructoseand Glucose in Shin and Ustnol, (2005), are in agreement with this study.while Bonvehi and Coll, (1995),and Joshi et al., (2000),found that the range of Fructose and Glucosecontent, were lower than above, Tharwat and Nafea, (2006),mentioned the range of Fructose was higher in this study than in our results, while, Glucose content was similar ours. and The results of Soria et al., (2004),do not agree with our results.

Swallow and Low, (1990), found that the range of Fructose was 36.2 -38.5 % and the range of Glucose was 33.2 – 40.0 %. The mean of Fructose and Glucose values of Sidir Aseer and Albaha honeysin Al-Khalifa and Al-Arify, (1999),disagree with our results, however, value of Somarah was similar. In addition, Kaakeh and Gad EL-Hak, (2005),evaluated that the smallest amount of Fructose and Glucose found in Sidir honey comparable with other honey types.

Shin and Ustnol, (2005) andDiez et al., (2004), reported that the amount of Maltose was very higher than our results.

The distribution of Sucrose content was broad among analyzed samples, whereas its range amount was 0.4178 – 3.978 g /100 g and its amount do not exceeded the limits laid down by the Codex standard (5 g/100 g), and the FAO/WHO standard (10 g/100 g). Bonvehi and Coll, (1995),Crecente and Latorre, (1993),Al-Khalifa and Al-Arify, (1999), and Joshi et al., (2000),found that the range of sucrose was much higher than our results.Sucrose not detected in Diez et al., (2004).

The amount of Sucrose in Sidir and Somarah in Kamal et al., (2002)study, was higher than our results, where the Sucrose amount in their Sidir and Somarah honeys was 1.115 % and 3.452 % respectively.

The mean of F+G values were higher than 60 g /100 g in all studied honey kinds The high mean of sum of Fructose and Glucose found in Sisban honey was 72.62 g/100 g and the lowest in Sidir Honey 65.68 g / 100 g .

Esti et al., (1997), found in Molise region (Italy) Honey the range of Sum of Fructose and Glucose, was higher than our results. Our results nearly disagree with the data of Diez et al., (2004), who mentioned that the range of sum of Fructose and Glucose was 55.03 – 71.60 g/100g. Sanz et al., (2005), found that the range of Sum Fructose and Glucose was 51.5 – 80. 0 with mean value 65.5 g / 100g.

3.2. Moisture:

Honey moisture is the quality criterion that determines the capability of honey to remain stable andto resist spoilage by yeast fermentation: the higher the moisture, the higher the probability thathoney will ferment upon storage.

The range of moisture content was 17.0 – 19.7 g / 100 g. The range of water content was lower than results of Conti, et al., (2007).

3.3. Granulation:

Nothing granulation found in all honey especially in samples which had ratio F/g\G lower than 1. This in agree Kaakeh and Gad EL-Haq (2005) how reported that the relationship between granulation and indices type suggests that the Fructose to Glucose ratio may not be an effective gauge of granulation tendency. And Thrasivolulov (2001) found that the F/G failed to predict crystallization in both international (predication = 14 %) and Greek honeys (predication = 10).

In generally, Soria et al (2005), Diez et al (2004), and Tchoumboue et al(2007), they all found the ratio of Fructose / Glucose higher than 1, this agree with above results.

3.4. pH:

All honeys are acidic, with pH value generally lying between 3.5 and 5.5, due to the presence of organic acids, particularly gluconic, pyruvic, malic and citric acids, in equilibrium with lactones or esters and inorganic ions, such as phosphate and chloride. Bogadanov et al., (2004), Rupff, (2006), and Kucku, et al., (2007).

From the table (1) Sidir honey has highest mean of pH Value 4.08 Abo-Tarboush et al., (1993), Al-Khalifa and Al-Arify, (1999), in Saudi Arabia, and Kamal et al., (2002), in Pakistan they reported that the Sidir honey has the high pH values in honeys, which studied by them.

Our results coincide with that reported by Yilmaz and Kfrevuoulu, (2001), in Turkey, Terrab et al., (2003a and 2003b), and Diez et al., (2004) in Moroccan honeys, and Corbella, and Cozzolino, (2006), in Uruguayan honeys. They found that the range of pH were 3.2 – 4.3, 3.02 – 4.09 b, 3.20 – 4.49 c, 3.49 – 4.02, 3.00 – 4.30 respectively.

3.5. Electrical Conductivity (E.C.):

The E.C. of honey is closely related to the concentration of minerals (total ash) salts, organic acids and protein, and is a parameter that shows great variability according to the floral origin of honey. Terrab et al., (2003).

The results in Table (4.3) showed that the highest mean was 1122.3 μS / cm in Sidir honey and the lowest was 610 μS / cm in Kasas honey, From these results there were found a large variation among honey samples depending on the floral origin.The results above accord with that recorded by Devillers et al., (2004), Nour, (1988), and Soria et al., (2004), who reported that the range of E.C. was 22 - 1883 μS/cm, 1.80 – 18.50 10-4 S /cm, and 0.117 – 1.116 10-4 S /cm respectively. In contrast, it does not accord with results of Popek, (2002), and Andrade et al., (1999), who stated that the range of E.C. was 2.192 – 9.972 10-4 S /cm, and 2.90 – 7.41 10-4 S /cm, respectively.

3.6. Ash:

The ash content in all studied honey Kinds were within the limit of Codex standard (2001).The results of our study harmonize with those found by Felsner et al., (2004) and Ouchemoukh et al., (2007), they found that the range of ash content was 0.319 – 0.423 and %0.09 - 0.54 % respectively and They are too lower than that reported by Soria et al., (2005), the range of ash content was 0.003 - 0.99 %. While our results agreement with results of Abo-Tarboush et al., (1993), they ranged the ash content was 0.06 – 0.43 % and the highest amount found in Sidir honey.

1

References

  1. A.O.A.C, official Methods of Analysis. (1990). Sugars and Sugar Products. In: Horwitz, W. (Ed.).official Methods of Analysis of A.O.A.C International. Maryland, U.S.A. 2 (44): Pp 22 - 33.
  2. Abu–Tarboush, H. M., AL-Malah, K. I.M., and EL-Sarrage, M.S. (1993). Floral – type identification and quality evaluation of some honey types. Food Chemistry, 46: pp 13 – 17.
  3. AL-Khalifa, A. S., and I. A. AL-Arify. (1999). Physicochemical characteristics and pollen spectrum of some Saudi honeys. Food chemistry. 67, 1: pp 21 – 25.
  4. AL-Khaliifa, A. S., and I. A. AL-Arify. (1999). Physicochemical characteristics and pollen spectrum of some Saudi honeys. Food chemistry, 67, 1: pp 21 – 25.
  5. Bogdanov, Stefan (2002). Harmonized methods of the international Honey commission. international Honey Commission , 1-62.
  6. Bogdanov, Stefan. Kaspar Ruoff, and Livia Persano Oddo. (2004). Physico-Chemical Methods for The Characterization of Unifloral Honeys: A Review. Apidologie. 35: Pp S4 – S17.
  7. Bonvehi, J.Serra. and F.Ventura Coll.(1995). Characterization of Citrus honey (Citrus Spp).produced in Spain. Journal of agriculture and food chemistry. 43, pp 2053 – 2057.
  8. Codex Alimentarius Commission Standards, 1981/Revised 2001. Codex Standards for Honey, 1–7, FAO- Rome.
  9. Conti, Marcelo Enrique , Jorge Stripeikis, Luigi Campanella, Domenico Cucina and Mabel Beatriz Tudino. (2007) Characterization of Italian honeys (Marche Region) on the basis of their mineral content and some typical quality parameters. Chemistry central,1-14.
  10. Corbella, E, and D. Cozzolino. (2006). Classification of The Floral Origin of Uruguayan Honeys By Chemical and Physical Characteristics Combined With Chemometrics. LWT, 39: Pp 534 – 539.
  11. Crecente, R. Pena and C. Herrero Latorre, (1993). Analysis Applied To Classification Of Honeys From Two Geographic. Journal Of Agricultural And Food Chemistry.41,560-564.
  12. Devillers, J. M., Morlot, M. H., Pham - Delegue, and J. C. Dore. (2004). Classification of Monofloral Honeys Based On Their Quality Control Data. Food Chemistry, 86: Pp 305 – 312.
  13. Diez, Marya Josefa., Cristina Andres and Anass Terrab. (2004). Physicochemical parameters and pollen analysis of Moroccan honeydew honeys International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 39,pp 167–176.
  14. Esti, M., Panfili, G., Marconi, E., and M. C. Traivisonno, (1997). Valorization of The Honeys From The Molise Region Through Physico-Chemical, Organoleptic and Nutritional Assessment. Food Chemistry 58. 1-2: Pp125 – 128.
  15. Felsner, M. L., C. B. Cano, R. E. Bruns, H.M. Watanabed, L. B. Almeida-Muradiane, and J. R. Matos. (2004). Characterization of Monofloral Honeys By Ash Contents Through A Hierarchical Design. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 17: Pp 737 – 747.
  16. Joshi, Surendra Rai., Hermann Pechhacker, Alfons Willam, Werner von der Ohe. (2000).Physico-chemical characteristics of Apis dorsata, A. cerana and A. mellifera honey from Chitwan district, central Nepal. Apidologie 31: pp 367 –375
  17. Kaakeh, Walid. And Gadelhak G. Gadelhak.(2005). Sensory evaluation and chemical analysis of Apis mellifera honey from the ArabGulf Region. Journal of Food and Drug Analysis, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp 331 - 337.
  18. Kamal, Asif., Saeeda Raza, Nouman Rashid, Tabassum Hameed,Musarrat Gilani, M., Amjad Qureshi and Khalid Nasim .(2002).Comparative Study of Honey Collected from Different Flora of Pakistan. Journal of Biological Sciences 2 (9): pp 626-627.
  19. Kucuk, Murat., Sevgi Kolayl ., Sengu Karaoglu., Esra Ulusoy., Cemalettin Baltac ., and Ferda Candan. (2007). Biological Activities and Chemical Composition of Three Honeys of Different Types From Anatolia. Food Chemistry, 100: Pp 526 – 534.
  20. Mendes,Teresa M. F. F, S Nivaldo Baccan and Solange Cadore (2006). Sample Treatment Procedures for the Determination of Mineral Constituents in Honey by Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Emission Spectrometry. J. Braz. Chem. Soc., 17, 1: pp 168 - 176.
  21. Nour, M. (1988). Some Factors Affecting Quality of Egyptian Honey. Ph. D. Thesis In Economic Entomology, CairoUniversity.
  22. Ouchemoukh, Salim., Hayette Louaileche., and Paul Schweitzer. (2007). Physico Chemical Characteristics and Pollen Spectrum of Some Algerian Honeys. Food Control, 18: Pp 52 – 58.
  23. Popek, S. (2002). A Procedure To Identify A Honey Type. Food Chemistry, 79: Pp 401–406.
  24. Ruoff, Kaspar. (2006). Authentication of The Botanical Origin of Honey. Ph. D. Thesis At The Institute of Food Science and Nutrition, ETH Zurich, In Collaboration With The Swiss Federal Research Station for Animal Production and Dairy Production, Liebefeld – Bern Switzerland. Pp (24).
  25. Sanz, M. L., M. Gonzalez, C. De Lorenzo, J. Sanz, and I. Martinez-Castro. (2005). A Contribution To The Differentiation Between Nectar Honey and Honeydew Honey. Food Chemistry, 91: Pp 313 – 317.
  26. Shin, Han - Seung and Zeyneb Ustunol. (2005). Carbohydrate composition of honey from different floral sources and their influence on growth of selected intestinal bacteria: An in vitro composition. Food Research International .38: 721 – 728.
  27. Soria, A.C., M. Gonza lez, C. de Lorenzo, I. Mart nez - Castroa, and J. Sanza. )2004) .Characterization of artisanal honeys from Madrid (Central Spain) on the basis of their melissopalynological, physicochemical and volatile composition data. Food Chemistry. 85: pp 121–130.
  28. Swallow, W. Kevin., and Nicholas H. Low. (1990). Analysis and Quantitation of The Carbohydrates In Honey Using High-Performance Liquid Chromatography. Journalof Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 38: Pp 1828 – 1882.
  29. Terrab, Anass. Maria Josefa Dıez and Francisco Jose Heredia. (2003a). Palynological, Physico - Chemical and Colour Characterization of Moroccan Honeys: I. River Red Gum (Eucalyptus Camaldulensis Dehnh) Honey. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 38: Pp 379 – 386.
  30. Terrab, Anass., Maria J. Dıez and Francisco, J. Heredia. (2003b). Palynological, Physico - Chemical and Colour Characterization of Moroccan Honeys: III. Other Unifloral Honey Types. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 38: Pp 395 – 402.
  31. Tharwat, E.A and E. A. Nafea. (2006).The physicochemical properties and composition of Saudi Arabia honeys of different botanical origin. Journal of the Advances in Agriculture Researches. AL – Mansora uive 11 :( 1), pp 1 – 10 March.
  32. Vazquez , Laura., Alexis Verdu , Ana Miquel , Francisco Burlo and Angel A. Carbonell-Barrachina ,(2007). Changes in physico-chemical properties, hydroxymethylfurfural and volatile compounds during concentration of honey and sugars in Alicante and Jijona turr.Eur Food Res Technol (2007) 225:757–767.
  33. White, J. W. (1978). Honey. Advances in Food Research, 24, 287–374.
  34. Yanniotis, S., S. Skaltsi, and S. Karaburnioti. (2006). Effect of moisture content on the viscosity of honey at different temperatures. Journal of Food Engineering 72: pp 372 – 377.
  35. Yilmaz, Hayrullah and Irfan Kufrevioglu. (2001). Composition of Honeys Collected From Eastern and South-Eastern Anatolia and Effect of Storage OnHydroxymethylfurfural Content and Diastase Activity. Turkey J Agric for 25: Pp 347 - 349.

36- خنبش , محمد سعيد : مكاوي , مها معتوق , علي , غزه محفوظ .(1998). دراسة الصفات المرغوبة في عسل النحل اليمني. مجلة نحل العسل , العدد الاول يوليو وسبتمبر .ص 38 – 43.

دراسة بعض صفات أنواع من العسل اليمني

وجدي محمد عبدالله علي الجنيدي

قسم الكيمياء - كلية التربية –لودر - جامعة عدن

كلمات مفتاحية :

عسل اليمن . السكريات . السدر

بالرغم من أن العسل اليمني من أجود وأغلى أنواع العسل الموجودة ليس في الأسواق المحلية فحسب ولكن في الأسواق الدولية ، لكن لا توجد مواصفات قياسية له كذلك الأبحاث قليلة التي عملت حول صفاته الفيزيائية والكيميائية, لذلك هدفت هذه الدراسة إلى تعيين بعض الصفات الكيميائية والفيزيائية - ( السكريات , الرطوبة , الرقم الهيدروجيني , الموصلية , و الرماد ) –لخمسة أنواع من العسل اليمني المنتج في منطقة لودر محافظة أبين .

أظهرت نتائج الدراسة أن مواصفات الأعسال المدروسة تتفق مع المواصفات العسل الدولية بشكل عام كما اتفقت مع بعض الدراسات السابقة.

1