Mal J Nutr 22(3): 413 -420, 2016

Comparison of Antioxidant Contents of Thai Honeys to Manuka Honey
Bundit T1, Anothai T2 Pattaramart P3, Roongpet T4 & Chuleeporn S5


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Natural honey has been valued in traditional medicine having demonstrated many antioxidant properties. The aim of this study was to compare the antioxidant activities of 12 types of honey from Thailand and manuka honey from New Zealand.
Methods: Antioxidant contents of phenolic content, ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP), ascorbic acid content, 2, 2-diphenyl-1- picrylhydrazyl (DPPH), and Trolox Equivalent Antioxidant Capacity (TEAC) were determined in Thai and manuka honey samples.
Results: All of the 12 types of Thai (n=54) and manuka (n=3) honey varied in range for phenolic content (210-1,519, 563-785 mg GAE/kg), FRAP value (600-9,183, 3,866-4,933 μM Fe(II)/ kg), ascorbic acid content (103-386, 913-1,212 mg/kg), DPPH radical scavenging activity (25-528, 259-310 mg Trolox/kg) and TEAC content (96-636, 328-421 mg Trolox/kg). Mangosteen honey had the highest content of phenolics (1,495±20 mg GAE/kg), FRAP value (9,083±100 μM Fe(II)/kg), DPPH radical scavenging activity (522±6 mg Trolox/kg) and TEAC content (632±3 mgTrolox/kg).
Conclusion: Antioxidant activities in mangosteen and rambutan honey presented significantly higher values than manuka honey in terms of phenolic content, DPPH and TEAC. Manuka honey contained the highest vitamin C content (1,194±18 mg/ kg). However, the values for antioxidant properties were dependent on source of honey. Some honeys from Thailand were found to be a better source of antioxidant properties compared to manuka honey.

Keywords: Antioxidants, free radicals, honey, Thailand

Download full article

March 1995, Vol1 No.1
September 1995, Vol1 No.2
March 1996, Vol2 No.1
September 1996, Vol2 No.2
March 1997, Vol3 No.1
September 1997, Vol3 No.2
December 1998, Vol4 No.1&2
December 1999, Vol5 No.1&2
March 2000, Vol6 No.1
September 2000, Vol6 No.2
Mar/Sept 2001, Vol7 No.1&2
March 2002, Vol8, No.1
September 2002, Vol8, No.2
March 2003, Vol9 No.1
September 2003, Vol9 No.2
March 2004, Vol10 No.1
September 2004, Vol10 No. 2
2005, Vol 11 No.1
2005, Vo l11 No.2
2006, Vol 12 No.1
2006, Vol 12 No.2
2007, Vol 13 No.1
2007, Vol 13 No.2
March 2008, Vol 14 No.1
2008, Vol 14 No.2
2009, Vol 15 No.1
2009, Vol 15 No.2
2010, Vol 16(1)

2010, Vol 16(2)

2010, Vol 16(3)

2011, Vol 17(1)

2011, Vol 17(2)

2011, Vol 17(3)

2012, Vol 18(1)

2012, Vol 18(2)

2012, Vol 18(3)

2013, Vol 19(1)

2013, Vol 19(2)

2013, Vol 19(3)

2014, Vol 20(1)

2014, Vol 20(2)

2014, Vol 20(3)

2015, Vol 21(1)

2015, Vol 21(2)

2015, Vol 21(3)

2016, Vol 22(1)

2016, Vol 22(2)

2016, Vol 22 Supplement

2016, Vol 22(3)