Detection of key factors affecting specific optical rotation determination in honey

Figures & data

Table 1. Eleven apparent critical factors (ACFs) considered for two levels of fold-over experimental design at resolution IV level, and experimental ranges expressed in coded and actual units.

Tabla 1. Once factores críticos aparentes (FCA) para los dos niveles del diseño experimental de resolución IV y rangos experimentales expresados en unidades codificadas y reales.

	Symbol		Levels
ACFs	Code	Actual	−1	+1
Honey type Source	X1	HT	Blossom	Honeydew
Liquefaction temperature (ºC)	X2	TL	30	40
Liquefaction time (min)	X3	LT	30	60
Prefiltering	X4	FI	Yes	No
Sample weight (g)^a	X5	SWP	10	13
Dilution volume of water (ml)	X6	WV	25	75
Carrez I volume (ml)	X7	CIV	5	10
Carrez II volume (ml)	X8	CIIV	5	10
Final filtering (µ)	X9	FF	10–12	2–3
Polarimeter tube length (cm)	X10	PTL	10	20
Polarimeter reading system	X11	PRS	Manual	Automatic

^aHumidity for blossom and honeydew honeys were 18.7% and 17.2%, respectively. According to the specific optical rotation determination method (Bogdanov et al., 1997), weight of sample (g) included in calculation equation corresponds to dry matter. Thus, levels for this factor in blossom honey sample correlate with 8.13 g and 10.57 g dry matter (low and high levels, respectively) and with 8.28 and 10.76 g dry matter (low and high levels, respectively) for honeydew honey.

^aLa humedad de las mieles florales y mielatos fue de 18.7% y 17.2%, respectivamente. De acuerdo con el método de determinación de la rotación óptica específica (Bogdanov, 1997), el peso de la muestra (g) incluido en la ecuación de cálculo corresponde a la materia seca. Por lo tanto, los niveles para este factor en la muestra de miel floral se correlacionan con 8.13 g y 10.57 g de materia seca (niveles bajo y alto, respectivamente) y con 8.28 g y 10.76 g de materia seca (niveles bajo y alto, respectivamente) para la miel de mielato.

Table 2. Results obtained for SOR (R₁), pH (R₂) and EC (R₃) of working solutions in each experimental trial.

Tabla 2. Resultados obtenidos para la ROE (R₁), pH (R₂) y CE (R₃) de las soluciones de trabajo en cada prueba experimental.

Run	Trial	X1	X2	X3	X4	X5	X6	X7	X8	X9	X10	X11	R1^a	R2^a	R3^a
13	1	−1	−1	1	−1	−1	1	1	1	1	−1	−1	−6.13	5.11	5.16
22	2	1	−1	−1	1	−1	1	1	1	−1	−1	1	7.07	5.17	5.41
2	3	1	1	1	1	−1	1	1	−1	1	−1	−1	14.13	4.79	4.90
5	4	1	−1	1	−1	1	−1	1	−1	−1	−1	1	4.66	4.94	6.30
28	5	−1	1	−1	1	1	1	−1	−1	1	−1	1	−3.44	5.07	3.12
4	6	−1	1	1	1	1	−1	1	1	−1	−1	1	−0.96	5.07	4.55
12	7	−1	−1	−1	−1	−1	−1	−1	−1	−1	−1	−1	−2.15	5.13	3.46
20	8	1	−1	1	−1	−1	−1	1	1	−1	1	−1	2.58	5.13	5.20
29	9	1	1	1	−1	−1	1	−1	1	−1	1	1	6.61	5.09	4.57
32	10	1	1	−1	1	−1	−1	−1	1	−1	−1	−1	3.99	4.22	4.39
17	11	1	−1	−1	−1	1	1	−1	1	1	−1	1	5.84	5.09	4.41
9	12	−1	−1	1	−1	1	1	1	−1	1	1	1	−3.60	5.18	4.46
3	13	−1	−1	−1	1	1	−1	1	−1	1	−1	−1	−1.70	5.12	3.40
15	14	−1	−1	1	1	1	1	−1	1	−1	−1	−1	−8.94	4.99	4.27
1	15	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	7.21	5.03	5.05
7	16	1	−1	−1	−1	−1	1	−1	−1	1	1	−1	3.34	5.32	3.43
21	17	1	1	−1	−1	−1	−1	1	−1	1	1	1	1.90	5.13	5.44
25	18	−1	1	1	−1	−1	−1	−1	1	1	−1	1	−1.72	5.44	4.47
30	19	−1	−1	−1	1	−1	−1	1	1	1	1	1	−1.00	5.07	5.27
6	20	1	−1	1	1	−1	−1	−1	−1	1	−1	1	2.07	5.23	3.34
16	21	−1	−1	−1	−1	1	−1	−1	1	−1	1	1	−1.74	5.05	4.76
23	22	−1	1	−1	−1	1	1	1	1	−1	1	−1	−4.49	5.20	4.95
27	23	1	1	1	−1	1	1	−1	−1	−1	−1	−1	6.71	5.11	3.75
31	24	1	1	−1	1	1	−1	−1	−1	−1	1	1	2.69	5.06	4.14
14	25	1	−1	1	1	1	−1	−1	1	1	1	−1	2.32	4.64	4.16
10	26	−1	1	−1	−1	−1	1	1	−1	−1	−1	1	−4.93	5.62	4.39
18	27	−1	1	−1	1	−1	1	−1	1	1	1	−1	−6.64	5.05	4.85
24	28	−1	−1	1	1	−1	1	−1	−1	−1	1	1	−2.92	5.09	3.62
26	29	−1	1	1	1	−1	−1	1	−1	−1	1	−1	−1.35	5.15	4.24
11	30	1	1	−1	−1	1	−1	1	1	1	−1	−1	3.76	4.51	5.14
19	31	−1	1	1	−1	1	−1	−1	−1	1	1	−1	−2.02	5.21	3.35
8	32	1	−1	−1	1	1	1	1	−1	−1	1	−1	5.75	5.19	4.69

^aMean values of three measurements.

^aValores medios de tres medidas.

Table 3. Effects in terms of coded factors for each response obtained on SOR (R₁), pH (R₂) and EC (R₃) of working solutions. A strong effect was considered when p < 0.15 and the factor was considered an apparent critical factor (ACF).

Tabla 3. Efectos en términos de factores codificados para cada respuesta obtenida en la ROE (R1), pH (R2) y CE (R3) de las soluciones de trabajo. Se consideró un efecto fuerte cuando p < 0.15 y el factor se consideró factor crítico aparente (FCA).

	Responses
Factors	R1	R2	R3
X1	8.29	−0.18	0.37
X2
X3
X4		−0.14	−0.24
X5
X6		0.12
X7			0.90
X8		−0.15	0.66
X9
X10
X11		0.16	0.25
R^2	0.76	0.54	0.72

Figure 1. SOR values obtained for both manual (a) and automatic (b) systems.

Figura 1. Valores de la ROE obtenidos usando los sistemas manual (a) y automático (b).

Figure 2. Linear combination proposed to classify blossom and honeydew honeys.

Figura 2. Combinación lineal propuesta para clasificar las mieles de flores y mielatos.

Bogdanov, S., 16 other members of the International Honey Commission. (1997). Harmonised methods of the European Honey Commission. Apidologie, (extra issue), 1–59.

 Google Scholar