4.7 Article

Metric and Spectral Insight into Bee-Pollen-to-Bee-Bread Transformation Process

期刊

FOODS
卷 12, 期 22, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/foods12224149

关键词

bee pollen; bee bread; bee-pollen-to-bee-bread transformation process; honeycomb cell depth; FTIR-ATR spectral profiles

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the process of transforming bee pollen (BP) into bee bread (BB) and its chemical changes. The results demonstrate that the depth of the honeycomb cells where bees store pollen is on average 11.0 mm, and the bees store BB up to an average depth of 7.85 mm. The chemical analysis using FTIR-ATR spectroscopy reveals compositional changes in BB, primarily higher water content and altered carbohydrate composition.
Due to numerous bioactive constituents, both bee pollen (BP) and bee bread (BB) represent valuable food supplements. The transformation of BP into BB is a complex biochemical in-hive process that enables the preservation of the pollen's nutritional value. The aim of this study was to determine the depth of the honeycomb cells in which bees store pollen and to provide a spectral insight into the chemical changes that occur during the BP-to-BB transformation process. This study was carried out on three experimental colonies of Apis mellifera carnica, from which fresh BP was collected using pollen traps, while BB samples were manually extracted from the cells two weeks after BP sampling. The samples were analyzed using infrared (FTIR-ATR) spectroscopy, and the depth of the cells was measured using a caliper. The results showed that the average depth of the cells was 11.0 mm, and that the bees stored BB up to an average of 7.85 mm, thus covering between 2/3 and 3/4 (71.4%) of the cell. The FTIR-ATR analysis revealed unique spectral profiles of both BP and BB, indicating compositional changes primarily reflected in a higher water content and an altered composition of the carbohydrate fraction (and, to a lesser extent, the lipid fraction) in BB compared to BP.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据