Food Chemistry 123 (2010) 41–44

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Chemistry

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate / foodchem

Physico-chemical properties in honey from different regions of Turkey

Tolga Kahraman a, Serkan Kemal Buyukunal b, Aydın Vural c,*, Sema Sandıkcı Altunatmaz d

a Department of Food Hygiene and Technology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkeyb Manager of Food Department of Uyum Markets, Istanbul, Turkeyc Department of Food Hygiene and Technology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Dicle University, Diyarbakir, Turkeyd The Food Technology Programme of Vocational High School, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 29 November 2009Received in revised form 15 February 2010Accepted 29 March 2010

Keywords:HoneyPhysico-chemical propertiesHMFDiastase activity

0308-8146/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright � 2doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.03.123

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 412 2488020; faxE-mail address: avural@dicle.edu.tr (A. Vural).

a b s t r a c t

The present study was undertaken to determine the physico-chemical parameters of honey samplesobtained from retailers in Marmara Region (Site 1) and East Anatolia (Site 2) of Turkey. The 70 sampleswere analysed for parameters including moisture, total acidity, diastase activity, hydroxymethylfurfural(HMF), invert sugar, sucrose, ash, commercial glucose and starch. 10 of 70 (14.3%) honey samples were ofunacceptable quality based on recommended criteria of moisture (3 of 70, 4.29%), diastase activity (3 of70, 4.29%), HMF (2 of 70, 2.86%), invert sugar (4 of 70, 5.71%) and sucrose (2 of 70, 2.86%) by Turkish FoodCodex and European Commission Regulation. The results of study indicated that 85.7% of honey sampleswere at good quality. It is important that the essential precautions should be taken to ensure standardi-sation and rationalisation of beekeeping techniques, manufacturing procedures and storing processes toimprove honey quality.

Crown Copyright � 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In Turkey, thanks to geographical and climatic conditions thatprovide a suitable environment for apiculture, honey productionhas been well developed. The beekeeping that has been sustainedin Turkey for thousands of years is an important agricultural activ-ity. According to the State Institute Statistics (SIS, 1997), there areabout 2,984.000 hives in Turkey that the total production of honeyis estimated at 80,000 tons and makes a contribution of 5.7% to thetotal world honey production (Tuzen, Silici, Mendil, & Soylak, 2007).

Honey is defined as the natural sweet substance produced byhoney bees from nectar of blossoms or from secretions of livingparts of plants or excretions of plant sucking insects on the livingpart of plants, which honey bees collect, transform and combinewith specific substances of their own, store and leave in the honeycomb to ripen and mature (Mendes, Brojo, Ferreira, & Ferreira,1998).

Honey is a very important energy food and is used as an ingre-dient in hundreds of manufactured foods, mainly in cereal-basedproducts, for its sweetness, colour, flavour, caramelisation and vis-cosity (Rodriguez, Ferrer, Ferrer, & Rodriguez, 2004). Honey con-tains approximately 80% carbohydrates (35% glucose, 40%fructose, and 5% sucrose) and 20% water, serving as an excellentsource of energy. Also, it contains more than 180 substances,including amino acids, vitamins, minerals, enzymes, organic acids

010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All r

: +90 412 2488021.

phenol compounds. Its pH is approximately 4.0 (Ouchemoukh,Louaileche, & Schweitzer, 2007). The composition depends highlyon the type of flowers utilised by the bee as well as climatic condi-tions (Abu-Tarboush, Al-Kahtani, & El-Sarrage, 1993). The physicalproperties and chemical composition of honey from differentsources have been published by many scientists (Mendes et al.,1998; Ouchemoukh et al., 2007; Przybylowski & Wilczynska,2001; Singh & Bath, 1997; Unal & Kuplulu, 2006; Yilmaz & Yavuz,1999).

The purpose of this study was undertaken to study physico-chemical quality of honey purchased in two different region ofTurkey.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Sample collection

The total numbers of 70 honey samples were obtained fromretailers in Marmara Region (Site 1; Istanbul, Bursa, Balikesir,Canakkale, Bilecik, Sakarya, Yalova) and East Anatolia Region (Site2; Kars, Erzurum, Ardahan, Agri, Igdir) of Turkey (Fig. 1). All sam-ples were collected in their original packages and were transferredto the laboratory and kept at 4–5 �C until analysis.

2.2. Physico-chemical analysis

Samples were analysed for moisture, total acidity, diastaseactivity, hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF), invert sugar, sucrose, ash

ights reserved.

Fig. 1. Location of honey sampling points in Marmara and East Anatolia.

42 T. Kahraman et al. / Food Chemistry 123 (2010) 41–44

and commercial glucose according to AOAC (2000) Methods No.969.38, 962.19, 958.09, 980.23, 920.183, 925.46, 920.181 and959.12, respectively. Determination of starch was performed by io-dine method (TS 2419, 2001). All analyses were performed intriplicate.

2.3. Statistical analysis

To compare the physico-chemical analysis of Site 1 and Site 2,Multiple Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) and discriminant analysisusing partial least-squares (PLS) regression (DPLS) was performed.

3. Results and discussion

The means of physico-chemical results detected in honey sam-ples are given in Table 1. Overall, 60 of 70 (85.7%) samples were ofacceptable quality whilst 10 of samples were of unacceptable qual-ity based on Turkish Food Codex (TFC, 2005) and European Com-mission Regulation (EU, 2002). A number of studies have beenexamined on physico-chemical quality of honey throughout theworld (Table 2).

The moisture content of honey is highly important factor con-tributing to its stability against fermentation and granulation dur-ing storage (Singh & Bath, 1997). In this study, 4.29% (3/70) of

Table 1The results of physico-chemical analysis of flower honey samples (n = 70).

Parameters Site 1 (n = 40) Site 2 (n = 30) F Total

Moisture (%) 15.3 ± 0.24b 16.9 ± 0.28a 18.5*** 16.0 ± 0.20Total acidity (meq/kg) 23.9 ± 0.82 24.4 ± 0.95 0.14 24.1 ± 0.61Diastase activity (%) 9.89 ± 0.47 9.70 ± 0.55 0.07 9.80 ± 0.35HMF (mg/kg) 31.8 ± 1.20 30.5 ± 1.38 0.56 31.2 ± 0.90Invert sugar (%) 72.2 ± 0.71 71.6 ± 0.82 0.25 71.9 ± 0.53Sucrose (%) 3.81 ± 0.16 3.80 ± 0.18 0.003 3.80 ± 0.11Ash (%) 0.29 ± 0.01 0.28 ± 0.01 0.02 0.28 ± 0.01Glucose ND ND ND NDStarch ND ND ND ND

a,bMeans with different letters in a same line are significantly different from one anotheND not detected.TFC Turkish Food Codex (TFC) (2005).EU European Commission Regulation (2002).

samples were in an unacceptable range. The moisture content ofsamples in permitted levels was found in the range of 13.6–19.4%. Similar (Al-Khalifa & Al-Arify, 1999; Duman Aydin, Sezer,& Oral, 2008; Nanda, Sarkara, Sharma, & Bawa, 2003) and higher(Guler, 2005; Przybylowski & Wilczynska, 2001; Rodriguez et al.,2004) results were detected in previous studies. The differentmoisture content of honey depends on harvest season, the degreeof maturity reached in the hive and moisture content of originalplant (Finola, Lasagno, & Marioli, 2007). The present study alsodemonstrated that the mean in Site 1 was lower than Site 2 andsignificant differences were found (p < 0.001). These may be dueto the climatic factors and storage conditions.

The acidity of honey is due to the presence of organic acids, par-ticularly the gluconic acid, in equilibrium with their lactones or es-ters and inorganic ions such as phosphate and chloride (Al-Khalifa& Al-Arify, 1999). The mean value of total acidity was found 24.1with the range of 6.94 to 29.6 meq/kg. Similar results were de-tected by Yilmaz and Kufrevioglu (2000) and Ozcan, Arslan, andCeylan (2006). In previous studies, low levels of total acidity werereported in Turkey and in Argentina by Yilmaz and Yavuz (1999)and Finola et al. (2007), respectively. On the other hand, higher re-sults were reported by Esti, Panfili, Marconi, and Trivisonno (1997),Costa et al. (1999) and Cantarelli, Pellerano, Marchevsky, and Cam-iña (2008). Differences between the findings obtained from severalstudies and our findings may be caused to differences in geograph-

Satisfactory limit by TFC and EU Unacceptable samples (%) (Site 1/Site 2)

At most 20 4.28% (1/2)At most 50 NDAt least 8 4.28% (1/2)At most 40 2.85% (1/1)At least 60 5.71% (2/2)At most 5 2.85% (1/1)At most 0.6 NDNot be found NDNot be found ND

r (***P < 0.001).

Table 2Physico-chemical quality of honey reported in previous studies.

References Country Moisture(%)

Acidity(meq/kg)

Diastase (%) HMF(mg/kg)

Invert Sugar(%)

Sucrose(%)

Ash (%)

Singh and Bath (1997) India 18.7–21.8 29.5–41.5 8.5–32.5 – – – –Esti et al. (1997) Italia 16.3 (15.1–

18.3)25.8 (12.3–36.8)

39.1 (17.0–84.0)

7.8 (0.8–25.3)

– 1.09 (0.0–4.7)

0.10 (0.03–0.39)

Mendes et al. (1998) Portuguese 13.6–19.2 3–22 1.7–471 – - 0.1–0.5Costa et al. (1999) Brazil 17.4 8.20–50.0 11.30 – – – –Al-Khalifa and Al-Arify (1999) Saudi

Arabia14.0–16.9 10.0–39.7 3.30–12.5 0.83–13.6 16.7–73.3 0.028–

6.230.02–0.59

Przybylowski and Wilczynska (2001) Poland 17.7 – – – – 1.23 –Nanda et al. (2003) India 14.0–18.7 14.6–32.7 – – – 0.12–0.28Rodriguez et al. (2004) Venezuela 18.6–20.4 24.4–53.3 – – – 2.21–5.52 0.19–0.64Devillers et al. (2004) France 18.1 – 22.4 3.29 – 0.742 –Downey, Hussey, Daniel Kelly, Walshe, and

Martin (2005)Ireland 17.6 36.1 – – – – 0.2

Ouchemoukh et al. (2007) Algerian 14.6–19.0 – – – 67.8–80.3 0.08–5.31 0.06–0.54Finola et al. (2007) Argentina 18.4 (16–

23.4)20.6 – 14.8 (1.1–

44.8)– – 0.063

Cantarelli et al. (2008) Argentina 16.2 30.2 19.7 8.98 68.1 4.05 0.11Akyuz et al. (1995) Turkey 17.8 24.6 – 25.9 72.8 3.56 0.18Yilmaz and Yavuz (1999) Turkey 15.7 (14.4–

18.6)17.2 14.8 3.60 72.6 3.0 (0.8–

5.0)0.23 (0.06–0.41)

Yilmaz and Kufrevioglu (2000) Turkey 16.0 22.3 14.6 3.3 70.3 1.8 0.1Sahinler, Sahinler, and Gul (2004) Turkey 16.0 40.4 10.3 10.7 57.8 2.39 0.32Sahinler and Gul (2004) Turkey 16.6 36.6 17.9 3.95 67.6 2.37 0.31Erdogan et al. (2004) Turkey 17.8 27.5 – – 71.2 2.19 –Guler (2005) Turkey 18.9 – – 3.83 68.4 1.54 0.57Unal and Kuplulu(2006) Turkey 16.3 24.5 11.6 74.5 70.5 5.28 0.15Ozcan et al. (2006) Turkey 15.4 22.8 10.9 1.75 – 0.0 0.177Turhan (2007) Turkey 16.4 16.6 16.3 4.52 71.3 3.03 0.25Duman Aydin et al. (2008) Turkey 13.2–19.2 6–24 0.0–13.9 2.49–205 51–85 0.95–18.1 –

T. Kahraman et al. / Food Chemistry 123 (2010) 41–44 43

ical condition, harvesting procedure and storage condition. In thepresent study, the acidity of samples were found with the meanof 23.9 meg/kg in Site 1 and 24.4 meg/kg in Site 2 (p > 0.05).

The diastase activity and the HMF content are widely recogni-sed as parameters indicating the freshness of honey (Mendeset al., 1998; Terrab, Diez, & Heredia, 2002). It is seen that 3(4.28%) of samples exceeded the limit value. The mean of diastaseactivity was 9.80 in all samples. Devillers, Morlot, Pham-Delegue,and Dore (2004), Cantarelli et al. (2008), Sahinler and Gul (2004)and Esti et al. (1997) reported that the diastase activity had a meanof 22.4%, 19.7%, 17.9% and 39.1%, respectively. In contrary, lowervalues were found by Al-Khalifa and Al-Arify (1999) and DumanAydin et al. (2008). In the present study, diastase levels in honeysfrom Site 1 and Site 2 were in the range of 5.0–17.9%. Samples fromSite 1 had higher values than those from Site 2, but differenceswere not significant. HMF levels were high and diastase levels werelow, showing that these honeys had been slightly heat processed(Unal & Kuplulu, 2006). The mean of HMF was found 31.2 mg/kgwith the range of 7.68 to 52.6 mg/kg. Significantly lower levelsthan the data presented here were reported for honeys from France(3.28 mg/kg, Devillers et al., 2004), Italy (7.80 mg/kg, Esti et al.,1997) and Turkey (25.9 mg/kg, Akyuz, Bakirci, Ayar, & Tuncturk,1995). Mendes et al. (1998) reported HMF levels in the range of1.7–471 mg/kg. No differences were found in HMF levels betweenthe two sites of origin (p > 0.05). The variation in the activity ofdiastases and HMF may be related to source of honey as well as cli-mate of region (Singh & Bath, 1997).

Glucose, fructose and sucrose are the major constituents of hon-ey. In this study, the combined levels of these sugars varied from51.2% to 79.1%. 4 of samples were higher than the permitted levels.Our findings showed approximately similarity with the results ofYilmaz and Yavuz (1999), Przybylowski and Wilczynska (2001),Erdogan, Dodologlu, and Zengin (2004) and Ouchemoukh et al.(2007). In this study, means belong to Site 1 (72.2%) was found lesshigh than Site 2 (71.6%) (p > 0.05).

The level of sucrose differs according to the maturity degree andorigin of the nectar compound of the honey. Cantarelli et al. (2008)reported sucrose content in honey samples at the average of 4.05%.In another study, sucrose was detected between 2.21% and 5.52%(Rodriguez et al., 2004). Our findings showed approximately simi-larity with these results. Higher (Duman Aydin et al., 2008) andlower (Al-Khalifa & Al-Arify, 1999; Ozcan et al., 2006) results weredetected in previous studies. The result of this study indicates thathoneys contain sugar, bees were fed with sugar solution instead ofnectars, early harvesting before honey ripened in the honeycombhoneys have been mixed (Unal & Kuplulu, 2006). In this study, su-crose in Site 1 and Site 2 was found with the range of 1.98 to 5.84%and 1.98% to 6.22%, respectively (p > 0.05).

Ash content is one of these parameters that have been associ-ated with botanical and geographical origins of honey samples.The ash content in honey is generally small and depends on nectarcomposition of predominant plants in their formation (Al-Khalifa &Al-Arify, 1999). In our study, ash content of samples (mean 0.28%)was in the acceptable range. These results are good agreementwith those of Nanda et al. (2003), Mendes et al. (1998) and Sahinlerand Gul (2004). Moreover, no significant differences were observed(p > 0.05).

Glucose from extraneous origin and starch are important as-pects in assessing the geniuness of honey. According to TFC(2005) and EU (2002), the presence of starch and hydrolysed starchis not acceptable. In this study, all samples were in the acceptablerange. Our findings were in support of the findings obtained thestudies of Tolon (1999) and Aydogan, Ozalp, and Bozkurt (1990).

4. Conclusion

In conclusion, the result of this study indicated that honey sam-ples purchased form two different region of Turkey, were mostly atgood quality. Honey samples that are available commercially differ

44 T. Kahraman et al. / Food Chemistry 123 (2010) 41–44

in quality on account of various factors like seasons, packaging andprocessing conditions, floral source, geographical origin, and stor-age period. It is important that the essential precautions shouldbe taken to ensure standardisation and rationalisation of beekeep-ing techniques, manufacturing procedures and storing processes toimprove honey quality. Therefore, the beekeepers should be edu-cated and further investigations are needed.

References

Abu-Tarboush, H. M., Al-Kahtani, H. A., & El-Sarrage, M. S. (1993). Floraltypeidentification and quality evaluation of some honey types. Food Chemistry, 46,13–17.

Akyuz, N., Bakirci, I., Ayar, A., & Tuncturk, Y. (1995). Van piyasasında satıs�a sunulanbalların bazı fiziksel ve kimyasal özellikleri ve bunların ilgili standardauygunlugu üzerine bir aras�tırma. Gıda, 20(5), 321–326.

Al-Khalifa, A. S., & Al-Arify, I. A. (1999). Physicochemical characteristics and pollenspectrum of some Saudi honeys. Food Chemistry, 67, 21–25.

Association of Analytical Communities (AOAC) (2000). Official methods of analysis(17th ed.). Washington, DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.

Aydogan, A., Ozalp, E., & Bozkurt, M. (1990). Yerli ballarımızın kimyasal yapılarıüzerine aras�tırmalar. Türk Hijyen ve Deneysel Biyoloji Dergisi, 48, 55–84.

Cantarelli, M. A., Pellerano, R. G., Marchevsky, E. J., & Camiña, J. M. (2008). Quality ofhoney from Argentina: Study of chemical composition and trace elements. TheJournal of the Argentine Chemical Society, 96(1–2), 33–41.

Costa, L. S. M., Albuquerque, M. L. S., Trugob, L. C., Quinteiro, L. M. C., Barth, O. M.,Ribeiro, M., et al. (1999). Determination of non-volatile compounds of differentbotanical origin Brazilian honeys. Food Chemistry, 65, 347–352.

Devillers, J., Morlot, M., Pham-Delegue, M. H., & Dore, J. C. (2004). Classification ofmonofloral honeys based on their quality control data. Food Chemistry, 86,305–312.

Downey, G., Hussey, K., Daniel Kelly, J., Walshe, T. F., & Martin, P. G. (2005).Preliminary contribution to the characterization of artisanal honey produced onthe island of Ireland by paleontological and physico-chemical data. FoodChemistry, 91, 347–354.

Duman Aydin, B., Sezer, C., & Oral, N. B. (2008). Kars’ta Satıs�a Sunulan SüzmeBalların Kalite Niteliklerinin Aras�tırılması. Kafkas Üniversitesi Veteriner FakültesiDergisi, 14(1), 89–94.

Erdogan, Y., Dodologlu, A., & Zengin, H. (2004). Farklı Çevre Kos�ullarının Bal KalitesiÜzerine Etkileri. 4. Ulusal Zootekni Bilim Kongresi, 1–3 Eylül, Isparta.

Esti, M., Panfili, G., Marconi, E., & Trivisonno, M. C. (1997). Valorization of thehoneys from the Molise region through physico-chemical, organoleptic andnutritional assessment. Food Chemistry, 58(1–2), 125–128.

European Union Directive (EU). (2002). European Union Directive 2001/110/ECrelating to honey.

Finola, M. S., Lasagno, M. C., & Marioli, J. M. (2007). Microbiological and chemicalcharacterization of honeys from central Argentina. Food Chemistry, 100,1649–1653.

Guler, Z. (2005). Dogu Karadeniz Bölgesinde üretilen balların kimyasal ve duyusalnitelikleri. Gıda, 30(6), 379–384.

Mendes, E., Brojo, P. E., Ferreira, I. M. P. L. V. O., & Ferreira, M. A. (1998). Qualityevaluation of Portuguese honey. Carbohydrate Polymers, 37(3), 219–223.

Nanda, V., Sarkara, B. C., Sharma, H. K., & Bawa, A. S. V. (2003). Physico-chemicalproperties and estimation of mineral content in honey produced from differentplants in Northern India. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 16, 613–619.

Ouchemoukh, S., Louaileche, H., & Schweitzer, P. (2007). Physicochemicalcharacteristics and pollen spectrum of some Algerian honeys. Food Control, 18,52–58.

Ozcan, M., Arslan, D., & Ceylan, D. A. (2006). Effect of inverted saccharose on someproperties of honey. Food Chemistry, 99, 24–29.

Przybylowski, P., & Wilczynska, A. (2001). Honey as an environmental marker. FoodChemistry, 74, 289–291.

Rodriguez, G. O., Ferrer, B. S., Ferrer, A., & Rodriguez, B. (2004). Characterization ofhoney produced in Venezuela. Food Chemistry, 84, 499–502.

Sahinler, N., & Gul, A. (2004). Yayla ve ayçiçegi ballarının biyokimyasal analizi. 4.Ulusal Zootekni Bilim Kongresi, 1–3 Eylül, Isparta.

Sahinler, N., Sahinler, S., & Gul, A. (2004). Biochemical composition of honeysproduced in Turkey. Journal of Apicultural Research, 43(2), 53–56.

Singh, N., & Bath, P. K. (1997). Quality evaluation of different types of Indian honey.Food Chemistry, 58(1–2), 129–133.

State Institute of Statistics (SIS). (1997). Statistical Year Book, Ankara.Terrab, A., Diez, M. J., & Heredia, F. J. (2002). Characterization of Moroccan unifloral

honeys by their physicochemical characteristics. Food Chemistry, 79, 373–379.Tolon, B. (1999). Mugla ve yöresi çam ballarının biyokimyasal özellikleri üzerine bir

aras�tırma. Ege Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü: Doktora tezi.Turhan, K. (2007). Chemical contents and some trace metals of honeys produced in

the middle Anatolia region of Turkey. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 16,459–464.

Turkish Food Codex (TFC). (2005). Number 26026, Food Codex-(No. 2005/49).Turkish Standard Institute (TS 2419). (2001). Ögütülmüs� Toz Kırmızı Biber. Türk

Standartları Enstitüsü, Ankara.Tuzen, M., Silici, S., Mendil, D., & Soylak, M. (2007). Trace element levels in honeys

from different regions of Turkey. Food Chemistry, 103, 325–330.Unal, C., & Kuplulu, O. (2006). Chemical quality of strained honey consumed in

Ankara. Ankara Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 53, 1–4.Yilmaz, H., & Kufrevioglu, I. (2000). Composition of honeys collected from eastern

and south-eastern Anatolia and effect of storage on hydroxymethylfurfuralcontent and diastase activity. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 25,347–349.

Yilmaz, H., & Yavuz, O. (1999). Content of some traces metals in honey from south-eastern Anatolia. Food Chemistry, 65, 475–476.