Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35889431›Full record

ArticleMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Comparison of Volatile Profiles of Meads and Related Unifloral Honeys: Traceability Markers.

Piotr M Kuś, Sławomir Czabaj, Igor Jerković

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. 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

3 authors.

Piotr M KuśDepartment of Pharmacognosy and Herbal Medicines, Faculty of Pharmacy, Wrocław Medical University, ul. Borowska 211a, 50-556 Wrocław, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-7368-1076
Sławomir CzabajDepartment of Biosystem Engineering and Chemical Processes, Opole University of Technology, ul. Stanisława Mikołajczyka 5, 45-271 Opole, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-5138-6853
Igor JerkovićDepartment or Organic Chemistry, Faculty of Chemistry and Technology, University of Split, Ruđera Boškovića 35, 21000 Split, Croatia.ORCID 0000-0002-0727-6662

Funding

National Science Center DEC-2014/15/N/NZ9/04058
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Volatile profiles of unifloral honeys and meads prepared in different ways (boiled-saturated, not boiled-unsaturated) were investigated by headspace solid-phase micro extraction (HS-SPME) and dehydration homogeneous liquid-liquid extraction (DHLLE) followed by GC-FID/MS analyses. The obtained data were analyzed by principal component analysis (PCA) to evaluate the differences between the investigated products. The volatile profiles of honey as well as the boiled and the not boiled meads prepared from it showed significant discrepancies. The meads contained more aliphatic acids and esters but fewer monoterpenes and aliphatic hydrocarbons than the honey. Significant/substantial differences were found between the boiled (more aliphatic alcohols and acids) and the not boiled meads (more aliphatic hydrocarbons and esters). Some compounds related to yeast metabolism, such as tryptophol, may be considered markers of honey fermentation. This research allowed us to identify chemical markers of botanical origin, retained and detectable in the meads: 4-isopropenylcyclohexa-1,3-diene-1-carboxylic acid and 4-(1-hydroxy-2-propanyl)cyclohexa-1,3-diene-1-carboxylic acid for linden; valeric acid, γ-valerolactone,

Indexed as

HoneyVolatile Organic CompoundsBiomarkersCarboxylic AcidsLiquid-Liquid ExtractionSolid Phase MicroextractionTiliaBiomarkersCarboxylic AcidsVolatile Organic Compoundsauthenticityhoney wineliquid–liquid extractionmeadquality control

Identifiers

PMID35889431
PMCPMC9321920

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.