No abstract

This paper presents the findings of a comprehensive review on common bee pollen processing methods which can impact extraction efficiency and lead to differences in measured total phenolic content (TPC) and radical scavenging activity based on 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) and ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) data. This hampers the comparative analysis of bee pollen from different floral sources and geographical locations. Based on the review, an in-depth investigation was carried out to identify the most efficient process to maximise the extraction of components for measurement of TPC, DPPH and FRAP antioxidant activity for two bee pollen samples from western Australia (Jarrah and Marri pollen). Optimisation by Design of Experiment with Multilevel Factorial Analysis (Categorical) modelling was performed. The independent variables included pollen pulverisation, the extraction solvent (70% aqueous ethanol, ethanol, methanol and water) and the extraction process (agitation, maceration, reflux and sonication). The data demonstrate that non-pulverised bee pollen extracted with 70% aqueous ethanol using the agitation extraction method constitute the optimal conditions to maximise the extraction of phenolics and antioxidant principles in these bee pollen samples.

The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the large variety of phenolic compounds that have to date been identified in a wide range of monofloral honeys found globally. The collated information is structured along several themes, including the botanical family and genus of the monofloral honeys for which phenolic constituents have been reported, the chemical classes the phenolic compounds can be attributed to, and the analytical method employed in compound determination as well as countries with a particular research focus on phenolic honey constituents. This review covers 130 research papers that detail the phenolic constituents of a total of 556 monofloral honeys. Based on the findings of this review, it can be concluded that most of these honeys belong to the Myrtaceae and Fabaceae families and that Robinia (Robinia pseudoacacia, Fabaceae), Manuka (Leptospermum scoparium, Myrtaceae), and Chestnut (Castanea sp., Fagaceae) honeys are to date the most studied honeys for phenolic compound determination. China, Italy, and Turkey are the major honey phenolic research hubs. To date, 161 individual phenolic compounds belonging to five major compound groups have been reported, with caffeic acid, gallic acid, ferulic acid and quercetin being the most widely reported among them. HPLC with photodiode array detection appears to be the most popular method for chemical structure identification.

The Folin-Ciocalteu assay is a widely used method for measuring the total phenolic content (TPC) in honey, but it can be affected by the presence of reducing sugars in honey, which can lead to interference and an over-estimation of its TPC. To optimize the Folin-Ciocalteu assay for honey analysis, the effect of pH on the assay was investigated. A number of pH scenarios were tested using different concentrations of Na2CO3 (0.00%, 0.75%, 0.94%, and 7.50%) in order to minimize reducing sugar interference and maximize the reaction of phenolics in the assay. The modified TPC method was then validated in accordance with current International Council on Harmonisation (ICH) guidelines. The findings of this study demonstrate that the traditional Folin-Ciocalteu assay (using 7.50% aqueous Na2CO3 solution, pH 10.8) leads to a significant overestimation of the TPC of honey due to the interference of reducing sugars. However, a pH of 7.9, achieved by using a 0.75% aqueous Na2CO3 solution, provides suitable conditions to account for most of the phenolic compounds without interference from reducing sugars. This finding was further confirmed by testing various sugar solutions and artificial honey which yielded TPC values below the established limit of detection and quantification of the assay. However, a slight increase in pH, even by a moderate deviation (pH 8.9), leads to significant discrepancies in absorbance readings, indicating that pH control is crucial for the accurate analysis of TPC in honey.

No abstract