131 

 

Journal homepage: www.fia.usv.ro/fiajournal 

Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering,  

Ştefan cel Mare University of Suceava, Romania  

Volume XIX, Issue 2- 2020, pag. 131 - 138 

 

 

IMPACT OF CORN AND RICE SYRUP ADULTERATION ON PHYSICO-

CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF TILIA HONEY 

 

*Paula CIURSA
1
, Mircea OROIAN

1
 

1Faculty of Food Engineering, Stefan cel Mare University,   

Suceava, Romania, ciursa.paula@yahoo.com, 

*Corresponding author 

Received 25th April 2020, accepted 28th June 2020 

 
Abstract: The aim of this study was to highlight the impact of corn and rice syrups 

adulteration on physico-chemical parameters of tilia honey. For this purpose, tilia honey was 

adulterated by addition of concentrated corn and rice syrups in different percentages: 5%, 

10%, 20% and 50%. The parameters chosen to study the influence of adulteration agents in 

honey were the following: pH, free acidity, electrical conductivity, color, moisture content, 

hydroxymethyl furfural content and the sugar content (fructose, glucose, sucrose, maltose, 

melesitose, turanose, trehalose, raffinose and F/G ratio).  The result indicated that the 

adulteration with corn and rice syrup caused significant chances on most of physico-chemical 

parameters values. The moisture content of adulterated honey with both types of syrup 

increased depending on the degree adulteration from 16.75% in authentic honey to 19.39% 

for 50% adulterated honey with corn syrup and to 17.03% for adulterated honey with 50% 

rice syrup. The hydroxymethyl furfural content of honey samples did not exceed the maximum 

allowed limit (40 mg/kg). The free acidity content decreased from 14.56 meq/kg in authentic 

honey to 8.96 meq/kg in adulterated honey with 50% corn syrup and increased from 14.56 

meq/kg to 18.17 meq/kg in adulterated honey with 50% rice syrup. Electrical conductivity 

decreased 1.91 times in adulterated honey with 50% corn syrup and increased 1.41 times in 

adulterated honey with 50% rice syrup. 
 

Keywords: tilia honey, adulteration, syrups, physico-chemical parameters 
 

1. Introduction 
 

Honey is a natural produce with a 

characteristic taste and known for its 

therapeutic properties (antioxidant, 

antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, anti-

tumor) [1]. The composition of honey 

include about 200 substances, mainly 

sugars and water but also other substances 

such as proteins, organic acids, enzymes, 

vitamins, minerals, phenolic compounds, 

pigments and solid particles (results from 

honey harvesting) [2]. Honey composition 

depends on various factors (floral source, 

soil, and climate) [3]. Due to a high 

worldwide demand for bee products, the 

adulteration of honey has become an 

increasingly common problem. Illegal 

honey producers add various types of 

syrups at a lower cost price, seeking to 

obtain greater economic benefits. Thus, 

consumer confidence in the honey quality 

and safety is undermined, having also a 

negative effect on the competitiveness and 

profitability of honest producers [4]. In 

recent years, honeybee has been 

adulterated with different concentrated 

carbohydrate syrups such as: sugar cane, 

inverted sugar, rice syrup, agave syrup, 

date syrup, corn syrup, HFCS (high-

fructose corn syrup), fructose, glucose, 

zaharose and maltose syrups[5]. At 

present, guaranteeing the quality and 

authenticity of honey represents a very 

http://www.fia.usv.ro/fiajournal
mailto:mariap@fia.usv.ro


Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefancel Mare University – Suceava 

Volume XIX, Issue 2 – 2020 

 

Paula CIURSA, Mircea OROIAN, Impact of corn and rice syrups adulteration on physicochemical properties of Tilia 
honey, Food and Environment Safety, Volume XIX, Issue 2 – 2020, pag. 131 - 138 

132 

 

important issue for both the national and 

international market. Therefore, it is 

necessary to establish an analytical 

procedure for the detection of adulterated 

honey [4]. 

Rice syrup is obtained from rice in three 

stages: hydrolysis (acid or enzymatic), 

refining and concentration. The main 

chemical components of rice syrup are 

glucose, maltose, trisaccharides, 

tetrasaccharides, etc. [6]. Corn syrup is 

obtained from corn starch by enzymatic 

reaction using the enzymes α-amylase and 

glucoamylase.If the reaction is continued 

with the enzyme glucose isomerase, high 

fructose corn syrup (HFCS) of different 

degrees of isomerization (HFCS-90, 

HFCS-55, HFCS-42) can be obtained[7]. 

The chemical composition of these syrups 

is similar to that of authentichoney, but 

thenutritionalvalueismuchlower. Thus, the 

detection of adulterated honey with corn 

and rice syrups has become an important 

topic for the production and quality of 

honey, but also for the nutrition and health 

of consumers. Adulterated honey by 

addition of sugars may present changes in 

some physico-chemical parameters (color, 

free acidity, electrical conductivity etc.) 

and/or enzymatic activity,  the content of 

various compounds such as fructose, 

glucose, sucrose, fructose/glucose ratio, 

maltose, proline and hydroxymethyl 

furural[8]. 

In this study, the influence of corn and rice 

syrups adulteration on the physico-

chemical parameters of Romanian tilia 

honey is presented.To highlight the 

differences between authentic and 

adulterated honey samples, the analysis of 

variance (ANOVA) was used. 

 

2. Materials and methods 

 

Tilia sp. honey was purchased from a local 

beekeeper located in Suceava County, 

Romania. The syrups produced in South 

Korea, were purchased from importing 

companies: DAESANG EUROPE B.V. for 

corn syrup and from PANAISIA DE 

HANDELS GMBH for rice syrup. 

Authentic honeywas adulterated with these 

types of syrups by addition in different 

percentages (5%, 10%, 20% and 50%) 

(w/w). 

The physico-chemical characteristics 

analyzed were: color, electrical 

conductivity, moisture content, pH, free 

acidity, hydroxymethyl furfural content 

and sugar content. Before performing the 

analysis, all the samples were liquefied at 

50° and homogenized. 

To measure the color of honey samples 

two instruments were used: a portable 

chromameter CR-400 (Konica, Minolta, 

Japan) and a photometer Pfund HI 96785 

(Hanna Instruments, USA). 

The electrical conductivity was measured 

with a portable conductometer HQ14d 

(HACH, USA). For this purpose, 20 g of 

honey were dissolved in 100 ml of distilled 

water. The results were expressed in micro 

Siemens per centimeter (µS·cm-1). 

The moisture content was analyzed using 

an Abbé refractometer (Leica Mark II 

Plus), based on refractometry. This is a 

method that determines the refractive index 

of honey and the determination of the 

water content (%) is done using the 

Chataway table [9]. 

A 10% honey aqueous solution was 

prepared to measure the pH with a 

METTLER TOLEDO FiveGo pH-meter 

(Mettler Toledo, USA). 

The free acidity was determined by 

titrimetric method with a TITROLINE 

easy device (Schott Instruments, 

Germany). The results were expressed in 

milliequivalents/kg of honey. 

The hydroxymethyl furfural (HMF) 

presence in honey was determined using 

the method proposed by White [10].The 

absorbance of the reference samples 

(containing 0.2% sodium bisulphite 

solution) and samples  (containing distilled 

water) was read at 284 nm and 336 nm 

using a UV-VIS-NIR 3600 

spectrophotometer (Schimadzu  



Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefancel Mare University – Suceava 

Volume XIX, Issue 2 – 2020 

 

Paula CIURSA, Mircea OROIAN, Impact of corn and rice syrups adulteration on physicochemical properties of Tilia 
honey, Food and Environment Safety, Volume XIX, Issue 2 – 2020, pag. 131 - 138 

133 

 

Corporation, Japan). The results were 

expressed in mg/kg honey. 

High performance liquid chromatography 

(HPLC) was used to determine the sugar 

content according to the method published 

by Bogdanov& Baumann [11]. The mobile 

phase was the mixture acetonitrile: water 

(80:20) and standard substances used were: 

fructose, glucose, sucrose, maltose, 

melesitose, turanose, trehalose and 

raffinose. 

One-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) 

was the statistical analysis used to present 

the differences between samples. The 

ANOVA is based on the law of total 

variance. 

 

3. Results and discussion 

 

Color 

Honey color is an important factor that 

depends largely on the polen content and 

the source of nectar. The various pigments 

that derive from these such as phenolic 

acids, flavonoids, anthocyanins along with 

the mineral content constitute the basic 

color of honey[12]. 

Depending on the degree of adulteration, 

L*, a*, b*, ΔE* color parameters showed 

significant (p<0.001) or partially 

significant (p<0.01) changes for both types 

of syrups. The values of L* ranged 

between 37.76 for authentic honey and 

40.81 for adulterated honey with 50% corn 

syrup and between 37.76 for authentic 

honey and 27.10 for adulterated honey 

with 50% rice syrup.The value of L* for 

corn syrup was 38.22 and for rice syrup 

was 34.13. Ribeiro et al. [13] observed an 

increase of L* parameter for adulterated 

honey with high fructose corn syrup. 

 a* parameter decrease for adulterated 

honey with corn syrup from 3.01 in 

authentic honey to 0.48 in adulterated 

honey with 50% syrup and increase for 

adulterated honey with rice syrup from 

3.01 to 9.02 in adulterated honey with 50% 

syrup. The variation of b* parameter was 

between 28.88 and 31.17 for adulterated 

honey with corn syrup and between 28.88 

and 13.41 for adulterated honey with rice 

syrup. ΔE* parameter ranged from 0.66  to 

4.47 for adulterated honey with corn syrup 

and from 2.82 to 19.73 for adulterated 

honey with rice syrup. 

Positive values for both coordinates (a* 

and b*) indicate that all the samples had 

nuance of color between yellow and red 

(first quadrant of CIE L*a*b* color space). 

On the Pfund scale adulterated with corn 

syrup decreased significantly from 35.64 in 

autentic honey to 27.72 in adulterated 

honey with 50% syrup (acording to the 

Pfund scale, the color changed from extra 

light amber to white), and for adulterated 

honey with rice syrup increased 

significantly from 36.64 to 52.47 in 

adulterated honey with 50% syrup (the 

color changed from extra light amber to 

light amber acording to the Pfund scale). 

The value for corn syrup (100%) was 

33.46 and for rice syrup (100%) was 41.98. 

Depending on the adulteration agent all the 

parameters from CIE L*a*b* space 

showed significant changes (p<0.001). All 

these results are shown in Table 1 and 

Table 2.a. and Table 2.b. 

 

pH 

A low pH prevents the development of 

microorganisms. The acidic content of 

honey bee is relatively low, influencing its 

texture, stability and term of validity [14]. 

Depending on the degree of adulteration, 

the pH results for adulterated honey with 

corn syrup were not significant (p>0.05), 

the values being between 4.05 for authentic 

honey and 4.27 for adulterated honey with 

50% syrup (Table 2.a.). For adulterated 

honey with rice syrup the results were less 

significant (p<0.05), existing as in the case 

of adulterated honey with corn syrup an 

increase, with values between 4.05 for 

authentic honey and 4.36 for adulterated 

honey with 50% syrup (Table 2.b.). 

Ribeiro et al. [13] observed an increase in 

the case of adulterated honey with high 

fructose corn syrup. 



Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefancel Mare University – Suceava 

Volume XIX, Issue 2 – 2020 

 

Paula CIURSA, Mircea OROIAN, Impact of corn and rice syrups adulteration on physicochemical properties of Tilia 
honey, Food and Environment Safety, Volume XIX, Issue 2 – 2020, pag. 131 - 138 

134 

 

Depending on the adulteration agent, the 

changes were not significant, the pH values 

being 4.13 for corn syrup and 4.15 for rice 

syrup (Table 1). 

 

Free acidity 

Free acidity is given by the presence of 

organic acids and organic ions. A high 

degree of acidity may indicate the 

fermentation of sugars into organic acids 

[15]. 

Adulterated honey with corn syrup 

presented a significant decrease of free 

acidity, against to adulterated honey with 

rice syrup that presented a significant 

increase (p<0.001). The values ranged 

from 14.46 meq/kg for authentic honey to 

8.96 meq/kg and 18.17 meq/kg, for 

adulterated honey with 50% corn syrup 

and 50% rice syrup, respectively, as shown 

in Table 2.a. and Table 2.b. Depending on 

the adulteration agent, all the changes were 

significant, the values being 12.65 meq/kg 

for corn syrup and15.78 meq/kg for rice 

syrup (Table 1). 

None of the analyzed samples showed free 

acidity values superior to 50 meq/kg [16]. 

 

Electrical conductivity 

Electrical conductivity depends on various 

factors such as the content of ash, proteins, 

organic acids, some sugars and 

polyols[14]. 

The electrical conductivity values 

decreases significantly (p<0.001) for 

adulterated honey with corn syrup from 

333.63µS·cm-1 in authentic honey to 270 

µS·cm-1in adulterated honey with 20% 

syrup and to 175.02 µS·cm-1for adulterated 

honey with 50% syrup (Table 2.a.).The 

values for adulterated honey with rice 

syrup has shown a significant increase 

from 333.63 µS·cm-1in authentic honey to 

397.12 µS·cm-1 (for adulterated honey with 

20% syrup) and to 492.36 µS·cm-1 (for 

adulterated honey with 50% syrup) (Table 

2.b.). Regardless of the adulteration agent, 

the changes were significant, too. The 

value for corn syrup was 279.70 µS·cm-1 

and for rice syrup was 387.60 µS·cm-1 

(Table 1). 

All the analyzed honey samples showed 

values of electrical conductivity lower than 

the maximum allowed limit of 800µS·cm-

1[16]. 

 

Moisture  

The moisture content of honey varies from 

year to year depending on the 

environmental conditions and the 

manipulation of beekeepers during the 

harvest period. High moisture content 

could increase the activity of water with 

negative effects on the development of 

yeasts and accelerate the crystallization of 

certain types of honey [15]. Depending on 

the degree of adulteration, the moisture 

content presented a significant increase for 

adulterated honey with corn syrup, the 

values ranged from 16.75% (authentic 

honey) to 19.39% (adulterated with 50% 

syrup) (Table 2.a.).For adulterated honey 

with rice syrup the increase was not 

significant (p>0.05), values ranged from 

16.75% to 17.03% (adulterated honey with 

50% syrup), as it can be observed in Table 

2.b. 

Ribeiro et al. [13] observed also an 

increase for the adulterated honey by high 

fructose corn syrup (HFCS). 

Depending on the adulteration agent, the 

changes were significant. The values for 

corn and rice syrups were 17.65% and 

16.85% (Table 1). The moisture content 

did not exceed the maximum allowed limit 

(20%) established by Codex Alimentarius 

and EU Honey Directive for any sample. 

 

Hydroxymethyl furfural content (HMF) 
The HMF content is a parameter that 

indicates the degree of freshness of honey. 

This is a product of the Maillard reaction, 

the maximum allowed value being 40 

mg/kg of honey [12]. 

In this study, the HMF content did not 

exceed the established limit. Depending on 

the degree of adulteration and on the 

adulteration agent the changes for HMF 



Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefancel Mare University – Suceava 

Volume XIX, Issue 2 – 2020 

 

Paula CIURSA, Mircea OROIAN, Impact of corn and rice syrups adulteration on physicochemical properties of Tilia 
honey, Food and Environment Safety, Volume XIX, Issue 2 – 2020, pag. 131 - 138 

135 

 

content were significant (p<0.001).  For 

adulterated honey with corn syrup the 

HMF content decreased from 13.34 mg/kg 

in authentic honey to 8.07 mg/kg in 

adulterated honey with 50% syrup and for 

adulterated honey with rice syrup the HMF 

content presented a significant increase 

from 13.34 mg/kg to 20.03 mg/kg 

adulterated honey with 50% syrup (Table 

2.a. and Table 2.b). The values for corn 

and rice syrups (100%) were 11.55 mg/kg 

and 15.70% mg/kg (Table 1). 

 

Table 1. 

Physico-chemical parameters of adulteration agent 

 

ns – not significant (p>0.05), * - p<0.05, ** - p<0.01, *** - p<0.001, a-e –significant differences between sample 

Sugar content 

For adulterated honey with corn syrup the 

significant changes (p<0.001) were in the 

case of fructose, glucose, turanose, 

maltose, trehalose and melesitose, the 

partially significant were in the case of 

raffinose (p<0.01) and for sucrose and F/G 

ratio the changes were not significant 

(p>0.05). 

In the case of fructose, glucose, turanose, 

maltose, trehalose, raffinose and F/G ratio 

for adulterated honeywith corn syrup was a 

decrease from 33.65% to 16.85% 

(fructose), 30.61% to 16.08% (glucose), 

0.36% to 0.18% (turanose), 1.15% to 

0.58% (maltose), 1.46% to 0.73% 

(trehalose), 0.19% to 0.15% (raffinose) and 

1.09% to 1.04% (F/G ratio). An increase 

was in the case of melesitose from 0.75% 

to 17.89%. Sucrose was not present in 

either authentic honey or corn syrup. For 

adulterated honey with rice syrup the 

changes were significant (p<0.001) for all 

sugar content analyzed in this study. 

A decrease was in the case of fructose 

(from 33.65% to 16.95%), glucose (from 

30.61% to 22.57%), turanose (from 0.36% 

to 0.18%), maltose (from 1.15% to 0.57%), 

trehalose (from 1.46% 0.72%), raffinose 

(from 0.19% to 0.09%), F/G ratio (from 

Parameter Adulteration agent F – ratio Interaction 

Corn  syrup Rice syrup Agent – Degree of 

adulteration 

L* 38.22(3.93)a 34.13(1.50)b 311.07*** 118.24*** 

a* 2.78(1.27)b 6.01(2.12)a 10248.90*** 2186.62*** 

b* 30.12(1.04)a 24.65(6.19)b 947.05*** 327.26*** 

ΔE* 1.91(1.63)b 6.70(7.27)a 11377.98*** 3755.05*** 

Color (mm Pfund) 33.46(3.14)b 41.98(6.16)a 1214.70*** 317.96*** 

pH 4.13(0.09)a 4.15(0.12)a 1.16ns 0.32ns 

Free acidity 

(meq/kg) 

12.65(2.1)b 15.78(1.36)a 1157.91*** 316.39*** 

Electrical 

conductivity 

(μS/cm) 

279.70(59.52)b 387.60(59.63)a 2429.31*** 664*** 

Moisture (%) 17.65(1.01)a 16.85(0.21)b 52.21*** 14.36*** 

HMF (mg/kg) 11.55(1.98)b 15.70(2.62)a 2176.06*** 595.20*** 

Fructose (%) 27.93(6.30)a 27.97(6.26)a 0.04ns 0.01ns 

Glucose (%) 25.67(5.45)a 27.88(3.02)a 164.13*** 44.83*** 

Sucrose (%) 0b 0.02(0.03)a 1874.70*** 506.89*** 

Turanose (%) 0.29(0.07)a 0.29(0.07)a 0.03ns 0.03ns 

Maltose (%) 0.95(0.21)a 0.95(0.21)a 0ns 0ns 

Trehalose (%) 1.21(0.27)a 1.20(0.27)a 0ns 0ns 

Melesitose (%) 6.58(6.43)b 6.77(6.64)a 11.56** 3.17ns 

Raffinose (%) 0.17(0.01)a 0.15(0.03)a 96.94*** 26.25*** 

F/G ratio 1.07(0.02)a 0.98(0.13)b 173.69*** 56.41*** 



Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefancel Mare University – Suceava 

Volume XIX, Issue 2 – 2020 

 

Paula CIURSA, Mircea OROIAN, Impact of corn and rice syrups adulteration on physicochemical properties of Tilia 
honey, Food and Environment Safety, Volume XIX, Issue 2 – 2020, pag. 131 - 138 

136 

 

1.09 to 0.74). The content of sucrose and 

melesitose increased from 0% in authentic 

honey to 0.07% in adulterated honey with 

50% syrup (sucrose) and from 0.75% to 

18.47% (melesitose). 

Regardless of the adulteration agent, the 

changes were not significant for fructose, 

turanose, maltose, trehalose (p>0.05). 

The values of fructose, glucose, trehalose, 

melesitose, raffinose and F/G ratio were 

27.93% for corn syrup and 27.97% for rice 

syrup (fructose), 25.67% for corn syrup 

and 27.88% for rice syrup (glucose), 

1.21% for corn syrup and 1.20% for rice 

syrup (trehalose), 6.58% for corn syrup 

and 6.77% for rice syrup (melesitose), 

0.17% for corn syrup and 0.15% for rice 

syrup (raffinose) and 1.07 for corn syrup 

and 0.98 (F/G ratio) (Table 1). 

All these results are shown in Table 1 and 

Table 2.a. and Table 2.b. 

 

Table 2.a. 

Physico-chemical parameters of tilia honey adulterated with corn syrup 

 

Tilia  honey analysis results 

Parameter Degree of adulteration for corn syrup F - ratio 

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 20.00% 50.00% 

L* 37.76(0.54)bc 36.8(0.52)c 37.48(0.54)bc 38.24(0.54)b 40.81(0.58)a 15.98** 

a* 3.01(0.04)c 3.93(0.06)a 3.55(0.05)b 2.95(0.04)c 0.48(0.007)d 1963.05*** 

b* 28.88(0.41)b 30.48(0.44)a 29.14(0.42)b 31.17(0.45)a 30.93(0.44)a 11.85** 

ΔE* 0e 2.08(0.03)c 0.66(0.008)d 2.33(0.03)b 4.47(0.06)a 4756.80*** 

Color (mm 

Pfund) 

35.64(0.51)a 35.64(0.51)a 34.65(0.49)ab 33.66(0.48)b 27.72(0.40)c 95.64*** 

pH 4.05(0.06)b 4.07(0.06)b 4.09(0.06)b 4.14(0.06)ab 4.27(0.06)a 4.63ns 

Free acidity 

(meq/kg) 

14.56(0.21)a 13.99(0.20)b 13.44(0.19)c 12.32(0.18)d 8.96(0.13)e 296.82*** 

Electrical 

conductivity 

(μS/cm) 

333.63(4.77)a 317.77(4.54)bc 301.91(4.31)c 270.19(3.86)d 175.02(2.50)e 478.56*** 

Moisture 

(%) 

16.75(0.24)c 17.01(0.24)c 17.28(0.25)bc 17.80(0.26)b 19.39(0.28)a 34.08*** 

HMF 

(mg/kg) 

13.34(0.19)a 12.81(0.18)b 12.28(0.17)c 11.23(0.16)d 8.07(0.12)e 314.67*** 

Fructose 

(%) 

33.65(0.48)a 31.96(0.46)b 30.29(0.43)c 26.92(0.39)d 16.85(0.24)e 533.57*** 

Glucose (%) 30.61(0.43)a 29.15(0.42)b 27.70(0.40)c 24.80(0.36)d 16.08(0.23)e 480.28*** 

Sucrose (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0ns 

Turanose 

(%) 

0.36(0.007)a 0.34(0.008)b 0.32(0.002)c 0.28(0.005)d 0.18(0.0005)e 354.91*** 

Maltose (%) 1.15(0.02)a 1.09(0.01)b 1.03(0.01)c 0.92(0.01)d 0.58(0.007)e 467.11*** 

Trehalose 

(%) 

1.46(0.02)a 1.38(0.01)b 1.31(0.02)c 1.16(0.01)d 0.73(0.007)e 621.39*** 

Melesitose 

(%) 

0.75(0.007)e 2.46(0.03)d 4.17(0.06)c 7.60(0.11)b 17.89(0.25)a 5749.03*** 

Raffinose 

(%) 

0.19(0.007)a 0.18(0.002)ab 0.17(0.006)ab 0.17(0.0007)b 0.15(0.001)c 21.53** 

F/G ratio 1.09(0.01)a 1.08(0.02)a 1.08(0.02)a 1.07(0.02)ab 1.04(0.01)b 3.09ns 

ns – not significant (p>0.05), * - p<0.05, ** - p<0.01, *** - p<0.001, a-e –significant differences between sample 

 



Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefancel Mare University – Suceava 

Volume XIX, Issue 2 – 2020 

 

Paula CIURSA, Mircea OROIAN, Impact of corn and rice syrups adulteration on physicochemical properties of Tilia 
honey, Food and Environment Safety, Volume XIX, Issue 2 – 2020, pag. 131 - 138 

137 

 

Table 2.b. 

Physico-chemical parameters of tilia honey adulterated with rice syrup 

 

Tilia  honey analysis results 

Parameter Degree of adulteration for rice syrup F - ratio 

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 20.00% 50.00% 

L* 37.76(0.54)a 36.39(0.52)b 35.36(0.50)b 34.08(0.49)c 27.10(0.39)d 144.83*** 

a* 3.01(0.042)d 5.43(0.078)c 5.41(0.078)c 7.23(0.11)b 9.02(0.13)a 1211.89*** 

b* 28.88(0.41)a 29.38(0.42)a 27.05(0.39)b 24.52(0.35)c 13.41(0.19)d 657.06*** 

ΔE* 0e 2.82(0.04)d 3.86(0.05)c 7.09(0.10)b 19.73(0.28)a 6285.09*** 

Color (mm 

Pfund) 

35.64(0.51)d 39.6(0.57)c 38.61(0.55)c 43.56(0.62)b 52.47(0.75)a 231.60*** 

pH 4.05(0.06)b 4.08(0.06)b 4.11(0.06)b 4.17(0.06)b 4.36(0.06)a 8.89* 

Free acidity 

(meq/kg) 

14.56(0.21)d 14.92(0.22)cd 15.28(0.22)c 16.00(0.23)b 18.17(0.26)a 80.33*** 

Electrical 

conductivity 

(μS/cm) 

333.63(4.77)e 349.50(4.99)d 365.38(5.22)c 397.12(5.67)b 492.36(7.04)a 254.31*** 

Moisture 

(%) 

16.75(0.24)a 16.78(0.24)a 16.81(0.24)a 16.86(0.24)a 17.03(0.24)a 0.41ns 

HMF 

(mg/kg) 

13.34(0.19)e 14.03(0.20)d 14.73(0.21)c 16.12(0.23)b 20.30(0.29)a 297.30*** 

Fructose 

(%) 

33.65(0.48)a 31.98(0.46)b 30.31(0.43)c 26.97(0.38)d 16.95(0.24)e 526.97*** 

Glucose (%) 30.61(0.43)a 29.80(0.43)ab 29.00(0.41)b 27.39(0.39)c 22.57(0.32)d 128.54*** 

Sucrose (%) 0d 0.009(0.002)c 0.01(0.003)c 0.03(0.001)b 0.07(0.001)a 506.89*** 

Turanose 

(%) 

0.36(0.007)a 0.35(0.008)b 0.32(0.002)c 0.28(0.005)d 0.18(0.003)e 348.06*** 

Maltose (%) 1.15(0.02)a 1.09(0.01)b 1.03(0.01)c 0.92(0.01)d 0.57(0.009)e 454.88*** 

Trehalose 

(%) 

1.46(0.02)a 1.38(0.01)b 1.31(0.02)c 1.16(0.01)d 0.72(0.008)e 615.74*** 

Melesitose 

(%) 

0.75(0.007)e 2.52(0.04)d 4.29(0.06) 7.84(0.11)bc 18.47(0.26)a 5746.84*** 

Raffinose 

(%) 

0.19(0.007)a 0.17(0.005)b 0.16(0.005)b 0.15(0.0008)c 0.09(0.001)d 129.01*** 

F/G ratio 1.09(0.01)a 1.06(0.02)ab 1.03(0.02)b 0.97(0.02)c 0.74(0.01)d 162.51*** 

 
ns – not significant (p>0.05), * - p<0.05, ** - p<0.01, *** - p<0.001, a-e – significant differences 

between sample 

 

4. Conclusion 

 

In this study the impact of honey 

adulteration with corn and rice syrups on 

the physico-chemical properties was 

analyzed. 

Statistical analysis indicated that most of 

the physico-chemical parameters presented 

significant differences (p<0.001)   between 

authentic and adulterated honeys. 

Free acidity, electrical conductivity, 

moisture and HMF contents did not exceed 

the maximum allowed limit for any 

analyzed sample.  

 

 

 

 pH values had a low increase from 4.05 to 

4.27 for adulterated honey with corn syrup 

and from 4.05 to 4.36 for adulterated 

honey with rice syrup. The color 

parameters on both color CIE L*a*b* and 

Pfund scales showed significant changes 

(p<0.001 in the case of adulterated honey 

with rice syrup and significant and 

partially significant (p<0.01) for 

adulterated honey with corn syrup, due to 

the intensity degree of color of the 

adulteration agent. 



Food and Environment Safety - Journal of Faculty of Food Engineering, Ştefancel Mare University – Suceava 

Volume XIX, Issue 2 – 2020 

 

Paula CIURSA, Mircea OROIAN, Impact of corn and rice syrups adulteration on physicochemical properties of Tilia 
honey, Food and Environment Safety, Volume XIX, Issue 2 – 2020, pag. 131 - 138 

138 

 

The content of fructose, glucose, turanose, 

maltose, trehalose and melesitose 

decreased significantly for adulterated 

honey with corn and rice syrups. For 

turanose, maltose and trehalose the 

changes were similar in the adulterated 

honey with both types of syrups. 

Depending on the adulteration agent the 

changes for the following parameters were 

not significant (p>0.05): pH and sugar 

content (fructose, turanose, maltose and 

trehalose). 

 

5. Acknowledgment 

This work was supported by “DECIDE - 

Development through entrepreneurial 

education and innovative doctoral and 

postdoctoral research, project code 

POCU/380/6/13/125031, supported by 

project co-financed from the European 

Social Fund through the 2014 – 2020 

Operational Program Human Capital”. 
 

6. References 

 
[1]. FERNANDES, L., RIBEIRO, H., OLIVEIRA, 

A., SILVA, A. S., FREITAS, A., HENRIQUES, 

M., & RODRIGUES, M. E. Portuguese honeys as 

antimicrobial agents against Candida 

species. Journal of Traditional and Complementary 

Medicine, (2020). 

[2]. DA SILVA, P. M., GAUCHE, C., GONZAGA, 

L. V., COSTA, A. C. O., & FETT, R. Honey: 

Chemical composition, stability and 
authenticity. Food Chemistry, 196, 309-323, 

(2016). 

[3]. PEREIRA, J. R., CAMPOS, A. N. D. R., DE 

OLIVEIRA, F. C., SILVA, V. R., DAVID, G. F., 

DA SILVA J. G., ... & DENEDAI, Â. M. Physical-

chemical characterization of commercial honeys 

from Minas Gerais, Brazil. Food Bioscience, 

100644, (2020). 

[4]. GEANĂ, E. I., CIUCURE, C. T., COSTINEL, 

D., & IONETE, R. E. Evaluation of honey in terms 

of quality and authenticity based on the general 

physicochemical pattern, major sugar composition 
and δ13C signature. Food Control, 109, 106919, 

(2020). 

[5]. OROIAN, M., PADURET, S., & ROPCIUC, S. 

Honey adulteration detection: voltammetric e‐

tongue versus official methods for physico-

chemical parameter determination. Journal of the 

Science of Food and Agriculture, 98(11), 4304-

4311, (2018). 

[6]. CAI, J., WU, X., YUAN, L., HAN, E., ZHOU, 

L., & ZHOU, A. Determination of Chinese 

Angelica honey adulterated with rice syrup by an 

electrochemical sensor and 

chemometrics. Analytical Methods, 5(9), 2324-

2328, (2013). 

[7]. PARKER, K., SALAS, M., & NWOSU, V. C. 

High fructose corn syrup: production, uses and 

public health concerns. Biotechnol Mol Biol 
Rev, 5(5), 71-78, (2010). 

[8]. GEANĂ, E. I., & CIUCURE, C. T. Establishing 

authenticity of honey via comprehensive Romanian 

honey analysis. Food chemistry, 306, 125595, 

(2020). 

[9].BOGDANOV, S., LÜLLMANN, C., MARTIN, 

P., VON DER OHE, W., RUSSMANN, H., 

VORWOHL, G., ... & FLAMINI, C. Honey quality 

and international regulatory standards: review by 

the International Honey Commission. Bee world, 

80(2), 61-69, (1999). 
[10]. WHITE JR, J. W. Spectrophotometric method 

for hydroxymethylfurfural in honey. Journal of 

theAssociation of Official Analytical Chemists, 

62(3), 509-514, (1979). 

[11]. BOGDANOV, S., & BAUMANN, E. 

Bestimmung von Honigzuckermit HPLC. Mitt 

GebLebensmitteluntersHyg, 79, 198-206 (1988). 

 

[12]. CAN, Z., YILDIZ, O., SAHIN, H., 

TURUMTAY, E. A., SILICI, S., & KOLAYLI, S. 

An investigation of Turkish honeys: their physico-
chemical properties, antioxidant capacities and 

phenolic profiles. Food Chemistry, 180, 133-141, 

(2015). 

[13].  RIBEIRO, R. D. O. R., MÁRSICO, E. T., DA 

SILVA CARNEIRO, C., MONTEIRO, M. L. G., 

JÚNIOR, C. C., & DE JESUS, E. F. O. Detection of 

honey adulteration of high fructose corn syrup by 

Low Field Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (LF 1H 

NMR). Journal of Food Engineering, 135, 39-43, 

(2014). 

[14]. OROIAN, M., OLARIU, V., & ROPCIUC, S. 

Influence of Adulteration Agents on Physico-
Chemical and Spectral Profile of Different Honey 

Types. International Journal of Food 

Engineering, 4(1), (2018). 

[15]. GOMES, S., DIAS, L. G., MOREIRA, L. L., 

RODRIGUES, P., & ESTEVINHO, L. 

Physicochemical, microbiological and antimicrobial 

properties of commercial honeys from 

Portugal. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 48(2), 

544-548, (2010). 

[16]. EU, 2001. Council Directive 2001/110 

relating to honey. Official Journal of the European 
Communities. 


	1. Introduction