Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34441487›Full record

ReviewFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Analytical Rheology of Honey: A State-of-the-Art Review.

Célia Faustino, Lídia Pinheiro

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Célia FaustinoiMed.Ulisboa-Research Institute for Medicines, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Prof. Gama Pinto, 1649-003 Lisboa, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-4599-8404
Lídia PinheiroiMed.Ulisboa-Research Institute for Medicines, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Prof. Gama Pinto, 1649-003 Lisboa, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Honey has been used as a nutraceutical product since ancient times due to its nutritional and medicinal properties. Honey rheology influences its organoleptic properties and is relevant for processing and quality control. This review summarizes the rheological behaviour of honeys of different botanical source(s) and geographical locations that has been described in the literature, focusing on the relation between rheological parameters, honey composition (moisture, water activity, sugar content, presence of colloidal matter) and experimental conditions (temperature, time, stress, shear rate). Both liquid and crystallized honeys have been addressed. Firstly, the main mathematical models used to describe honey rheological behaviour are presented highlighting moisture and temperature effects. Then, rheological data from the literature regarding distinct honey types from different countries is analysed and results are compared. Although most honeys are Newtonian fluids, interesting shear-thinning and thixotropic as well as anti-thixotropic behaviour have been described for some types of honey. Rheological parameters have also been successfully applied to identify honey adulteration and to discriminate between different honey types. Several chemometric techniques have also been employed to obtain the complex relationships between honey physicochemical and rheological properties, including partial least squares (PLS), principal component analysis (PCA) and artificial neural networks (ANN).

Indexed as

adulterationhoneymoisturerheologytemperatureviscosity

Identifiers

PMID34441487
PMCPMC8391245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.