2024
DOI: 10.1007/s00217-024-04520-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Distinctive properties of the pine, oak, chestnut and multifloral blossom and honeydew honeys

Ozgul Ucurum,
Hakan Tosunoglu,
Çigdem Takma
et al.

Abstract: Although blossom and honeydew honeys are produced from different nectar sources, it is very difficult to distinguish them. In this study, physicochemical and biochemical properties were compared to distinguish honeydew and blossom honeys obtained from different botanical sources. The honeys of pine (Pinus spp.) and oak (Quercus, spp.) were used as honeydew honey, and chestnut (Castania sativa L.) and highland honey were used as blossom honey. Turbidity, specific optical rotation (SOR) [α]20, electrical conduct… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

1
0
1

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
1
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, Akgün et al [35], Rodríguez-Flores [48] and Ucurum et al [49] found lower values for chestnut honey (1.13 ± 0.25, 1.1 ± 0.2, and 1.43 ± 0.33 mS/cm, respectively), compared to our findings. Additionally, Seijo et al [31] and Ucurum et al [49] noted lower values for oak honey (1.0 ± 0.1, 1.13 ± 0.31 mS/cm, respectively). Lastly, while Rodriguez et al reported similar electrical conductivity values for citrus honey [50], Karabagias et al (0.616 ± 0.019 mS/cm) and Makhloufi et al (0.40 ± 0.20 mS/cm) referred to higher values [51,52].…”
Section: Determination Of Electrical Conductivity and Colorcontrasting
confidence: 79%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, Akgün et al [35], Rodríguez-Flores [48] and Ucurum et al [49] found lower values for chestnut honey (1.13 ± 0.25, 1.1 ± 0.2, and 1.43 ± 0.33 mS/cm, respectively), compared to our findings. Additionally, Seijo et al [31] and Ucurum et al [49] noted lower values for oak honey (1.0 ± 0.1, 1.13 ± 0.31 mS/cm, respectively). Lastly, while Rodriguez et al reported similar electrical conductivity values for citrus honey [50], Karabagias et al (0.616 ± 0.019 mS/cm) and Makhloufi et al (0.40 ± 0.20 mS/cm) referred to higher values [51,52].…”
Section: Determination Of Electrical Conductivity and Colorcontrasting
confidence: 79%
“…Multiple authors have reported similar average electrical conductivity for the different types of honey they studied [9,28,29,41,[44][45][46][47]. However, Akgün et al [35], Rodríguez-Flores [48] and Ucurum et al [49] found lower values for chestnut honey (1.13 ± 0.25, 1.1 ± 0.2, and 1.43 ± 0.33 mS/cm, respectively), compared to our findings. Additionally, Seijo et al [31] and Ucurum et al [49] noted lower values for oak honey (1.0 ± 0.1, 1.13 ± 0.31 mS/cm, respectively).…”
Section: Determination Of Electrical Conductivity and Colorsupporting
confidence: 71%