4.7 Article

Comparative analysis of the volatile composition of honeys from Brazilian stingless bees by static headspace GC-MS

Journal

FOOD RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
Volume 102, Issue -, Pages 536-543

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2017.09.036

Keywords

Honey; Traditional foods; Stingless bee; Headspace; Volatile composition; Multivariate analysis

Funding

  1. FINEP (Fundo Parana)
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento do Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES) [063/2010 - PRO-EQUIPAMENTOS INSTITUCIONAL Edital 27/2010/CAPES]
  3. CAPES
  4. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The volatile composition of honeys produced by eight species of stingless bees collected in three municipalities in the state of Parana (Brazil) was compared by combining static headspace GC-MS and chemometrics methods. Forty-four compounds were identified using NIST library and linear retention index relative to n-alkanes (C8-C40). Linalool derivatives were the most abundant peaks in most honeys regardless geographical or entomological origin. However, Principal Component Analysis discriminated honeys from different geographical origins considering their distinctive minor volatile components. Honey samples from Guaraquegaba were characterized by the presence of hotrienol while those from Cambard showed epoxylinalol, benzaldehyde and TDN as minor discriminating compounds. Punctual species such as Bora showed similar fingerprints regardless geographical origin, with ethyl octanoate and ethyl decanoate as characteristic intense chromatographic peaks, which may suggest a specialized behavior for nectar collection. Discriminant Analysis allowed correct geographic discrimination of most honeys produced in the three spots tested. We concluded that volatile profile of stingless bee honeys can be used to attest authenticity related to regional origin of honeys.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available