ArticlePeerJ2021
Detection of syrup adulterants in manuka and jarrah honey using HPTLC-multivariate data analysis.
Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medicinal Honeys from Oceania: An Updated Review on Their Bioactive Constituents and Health Applications.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2026Review
- Antioxidant Activity and Phenolic Compound Identification and Quantification in Western Australian Honeys.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A Comprehensive HPTLC-Based Analysis of the Impacts of Temperature on the Chemical Properties and Antioxidant Activity of Honey.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- The Development and Application of a HPTLC-Derived Database for the Identification of Phenolics in Honey.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-Performance Thin-Layer Chromatography (HPTLC) was used in a chemometric investigation of the derived sugar and organic extract profiles of two different honeys (Manuka and Jarrah) with adulterants. Each honey was adulterated with one of six different sugar syrups (rice, corn, golden, treacle, glucose and maple syrups) in five different concentrations (10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50% w/w). The chemometric analysis was based on the combined sugar and organic extract profiles' datasets. To obtain the respective sugar profiles, the amount of fructose, glucose, maltose, and sucrose present in the honey was quantified and for the organic extract profile, the honey's dichloromethane extract was investigated at 254 and 366 nm, as well as at T (Transmittance) white light and at 366 nm after derivatisation. The presence of sugar syrups, even at a concentration of only 10%, significantly influenced the honeys' sugar and organic extract profiles and multivariate data analysis of these profiles, in particular cluster analysis (CA), principal component analysis (PCA), principal component regression (PCR), partial least-squares regression (PLSR) and Machine Learning using an artificial neural network (ANN), were able to detect post-harvest syrup adulterations and to discriminate between neat and adulterated honey samples. Cluster analysis and principal component analysis, for instance, could easily differentiate between neat and adulterated honeys through the use of CA or PCA plots. In particular the presence of excess amounts of maltose and sucrose allowed for the detection of sugar adulterants and adulterated honeys by HPTLC-multivariate data analysis. Partial least-squares regression and artificial neural networking were employed, with augmented datasets, to develop optimal calibration for the adulterated honeys and to predict those accurately, which suggests a good predictive capacity of the developed model.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.