Chemical Profile of Pine Honey Produced in Turkey (Turkish with English Abstract)

Öz

Chemical composition and electrical conductivity of 100 pine honey samples were investigated. The samples were collected from different 9 localities in Mugla province at 2006, 2007 and 2008. The results showed that honey samples contained 14.40-16.80% water, 25.97- 36.38% fructose and 18.97- 35.10% glucose. The ratio of fructose/glucose changed between 1.01-1.44. The major mineral constituent of pine honig was potassium (1236- 2554 mg/kg), and it was followed by magnesium (40.1- 77.4 mg/kg), calcium (25.6- 93.6 mg/kg) and sodium (21.8- 80.8 mg/kg). The ratio of K/Na was found between 21.2-80.9. Electrical conductivity of samples varied from 0.82 to 1.82 mS/cm. Total acidity of samples changed between 19.98- 35.59 meq/kg while proline content varied between 301-977 mg/kg. The glucose, sucrose and maltose content and electrical conductivity of the samples showed significant differences in terms of harvest year (P<0.01). However, moisture, fructose, ash, potassium magnesium, calcium, sodium and proline amounts as well as total acidity of the samples did not show any significant differences due to harvest year (P>0.01).

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Pine honey, chemical composition, sugar profile, mineral profile, acid profile, authenticity control

Türkiye’de Üretilen Çam Balının Kimyasal Profili

Öz

Toplam 100 çam balı örneğinin kimyasal bileşimi ve elektriksel iletkenliği belirlenmiştir. Bal örnekleri Muğla ilindeki 9 farklı yöreden 2006, 2007 ve 2008 sezonunda toplanmıştır. Bulgulara göre çam balı örnekleri %14.40-16.80 su, %25.97-36.38 fruktoz ve %18.97-35.10 glukoz içermektedir. Fruktoz/glukoz oranı 1.01-1.44 arasında değişmektedir. Balın başat mineral bileşeni 1236-2554 mg/kg ile potasyumdur ve onu magnezyum (40.1-77.4 mg/kg), kalsiyum (25.6-93.6 mg/kg) ve sodyum (19.6-99.6 mg/kg) izlemektedir. K/Na oranı 21.2-80.9 arasındadır. Elektriksel iletkenlik ise 0.82-1.82 mS/cm arasında değişmektedir. Çam balının toplam asitliği 17.98-35.59 meq/kg, prolin miktarı ise 301-977 mg/kg arasında bulunmuştur. Hasat yılına göre örneklerin glukoz, sakkaroz ve maltoz miktarı ile elektriksel iletkenliği arasındaki farklar istatistik olarak önemli (P>0.01) bulunmuştur. Buna karşılık nem, fruktoz, kül, potasyum, magnezyum, kalsiyum, sodyum, prolin miktarı ve ayrıca toplam asitlik açısından farklar hasat yılına göre önemli değildir (P<0.01).

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çam balı, kimyasal bileşim, şeker profili, mineral profili, asit profili, gerçeklik kontrolü

Kaynakça

1. FAO. 2010. Statistcs. http://faostat.fao.org . Erişim tarihi 20.03.2010.
2. Sunay EA. 2008. Authenticity and sensorial properties of pine honey from Turkey. 1stWorld Honeydew Honey Seymposium, Tzarevo, Bulgaria, p.12.
3. Tananaki C, Thrasyvoulou A, Giraudel JL, Montury M. 2007. Determination of volatile characteristics of Greek and Turkish pine honey samples and their classification by using Kohonen self organising maps. Food Chem, 101, 1687- 1693.
4. Perez RA, Gonzales MM, Iglesias MT, Pueyo E, Lorenzo, C. 2008. Analytical, sensory and biological features of Spanish honeydew honeys. 1stWorld Honeydew Honey Seymposium, Tzarevo, Bulgaria, 16-17.
5. Tosi E, Ciappini M, Re E, Lucero H. 2002. Honey thermal treatment effects on hydroxmethylfurfural content. Food Chem, 77, 71-74.
6. Rodriguez GO, Sulbaran B, Ferrer A, Rodriguez B. 2004. Characterization of honey produced in Venezuela. Food Chem, 84, 499-502.
7. Soria AC, Gonzales M, De Lorenzo C, Martinez -Castro, Sanz J. 2004. Characterization of artinasal honeys from Madrid (Central Spain) on the basis of their melissopalynological, physicochemical and volatile composition data. Food Chem, 85, 121-130.
8. Anupama D, Bhat KK, Sapna VK. 2003. Sensory and physico-chemical properties of commercial samples of honey. Food Res Int, 36, 183-191.

9. Oddo LP, Piazza MG, Sabatini AG, Accorti M. 2004. Characterization of unifloral honeys. Apidologie, 26, 453-485.
10. Bogdanov S, Vit P, Kilchenmann V. 1996. Sugar profiles and electrical conductivity of stingless bee honeys from Venezuela. Apidologie, 27, 445-450.
11. Weston RJ, Brocklebank LK, Lu Y. 2000. Identification and quantitative levels of antibacterial components of some New Zealand honeys. Food Chem, 70, 427-435.
12. Sanz ML, Gonzales M, Lorenzo C, Sanz J, Martinez-Castro I. 2005. A contribution to the differentiation between nectar honey and honeydew honey. Food Chem, 91, 313-317.
13. Crane E. 1975. Honey: a comprehensive survey. Marrson and Gibb Ltd. London 608 p.
14. Mateo R, Bosch-Reig F. 1997. Sugar profiles of Spanish unifloral honeys. Food Chem, 60, 33-41. 15. Abu Tarboush H, Al.Kahtani H, El-Sarrange M. 1993. Floral type identification and quality evaluation of some honey types. Food Chem, 46, 13-17. 16. Singh N, Bath PK. 1997. Quality evaluation of different types of Indian honey. Food Chem, 58, 129-133.
15. Marinova M, Gurgulova K, Kalinova G, Todorov M. 2008. Investigation on the honeydew honeys collected from the region of Strandja. 1st World Honeydew Honey Seymposium, Tzarevo, Bulgaria, p. 26-27.
16. Ivanov T. 2008. Chemical composition and characteristics of Bulgarian honeydew honey. 1st World Honeydew Honey Seymposium, Tzarevo, Bulgaria, p. 11-12.
17. Rodriguez-Otero JL, Paseiro P, Simal J, Cepeda A. 1994. Mineral content of the honeys produced in Galicia (Northwest Spain). Food Chem, 49, 169-171.
18. Latorre MJ, Pena R, Pita C, Garica S, Herrero C. 1999. Chemometric classification of honeys according to their type. II. Metal content data. Food Engineering, 64, 9-21.
19. Silva LR, Videra R, Monteiro PA, Valentao P, Androde PB. 2009. Honey from Luso region (Portugal): Physicochemical characteristics and mineral contents. Microchemical J, 93, 73-77.
20. Terrab A, Diez M, Heredia FJ. 2002. Characterization of Moraccon unifloral honeys by their physicocchemical characteristics. Food Chem, 79, 373-379.
21. Piazza MG, Accorti M, and Oddo LP. 1991. Electrical conductivity, ash, colour and specific rotatory power in Italian unifloral honeys. Apicoltura, 7, 51-63.
22. Haroun MI. 2006. Türkiye’de üretilen bazı çiçek ve salgı ballarının fenolik asit ve flavonoid profilinin belirlenmesi. Ankara Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Gıda Mühendisliği Anabilim Dalı Doktora Tezi, Ankara, Türkiye, 110 s.
23. Şahinler N, Şahinler S, Gül A. 2001. Hatay yöresi ballarının bileşimi ve biyokimyasal analizi. MKÜ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 6, 93-108.
24. Hermosin I, Chicon RM, Cabezudo MD. 2003. Free amino acid composition and botonical origin of honey. Food Chem, 83, 263-268.
25. Meda A, Lamien CE, Romito M, Millogo J, Nacoulma OG. 2005. Determination of the total phenolic, flavonoid and proline contents in Burkina Fason honey, as well as their radical scavenging activity. Food Chem, 91, 571-577.
26. AOAC. 2006. Official Methods of Analysis. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Inc., Arlington.
27. Anon 1997. Analysis of honey, determination of the content of saccharides, fructose, glucose, saccharose, turanose and maltose, HPLC method, DIN 10758.
28. Anon 1998 NMKL Method. Nordic Commitee on Food Analysis. Oslo, Norway.
29. Anon 2002. Harmonised Methods of International Honey Commission. Bern, Switzerland.
30. Popek S. 2002. A procedure to identify a honey type. Food Chem, 79, 401-406.
31. Şahinler N, Gül A. 2004. Biochemical composition honey from sunflower, cotton, orange and pine produced in Turkey. European Conference of Apidology, European Association for Bee Research, Udine, Italy, p. 136-137.
32. Downey G, Hussey K, Kelly JD, Walshe TF, Martin PG. 2005. Preliminary contribution to the characterization of artisanal honey produced on the Island of Ireland by palynological and physico -chemical data. Food Chem, 91, 347-354.