Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 73 (2018) 91–102

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Food Composition and Analysis

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jfca

Review

Physicochemical properties of stingless bee honey from around the globe: A T

comprehensive review
Abid Nordina, Nur Qisya Afifah Veronica Sainika, Shiplu Roy Chowdhuryb, Aminuddin Bin Saimc,
⁎
Ruszymah Bt Hj Idrusa,
a
Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre, Jalan Yaacob Latif, Bandar Tun Razak, 56000 Cheras, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
b
Tissue Engineering Centre, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre, Jalan Yaacob Latif, Bandar Tun Razak, 56000 Cheras, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
c
Ear, Nose & Throat Consultant Clinic, Ampang Puteri Specialist Hospital, Ampang, Selangor, 68000, Malaysia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Stingless bee honey has been reported to not meet the quality standards set for honey. In response, researchers
Food analysis from Venezuela and Malaysia have proposed unique quality standards for stingless bee honey. The aim of this
Food composition review is to compile the available data on the physicochemical properties of stingless bee honey already studied
Stingless bee from all over the world to propose a harmonized global quality standard for stingless bee. The literature review
Honey
resulted in the inclusion of 40 studies, assessing 522 honey samples, from 67 different species of stingless bee,
Meliponiculture
habituating 12 countries from all over the world. Taking into account the variety of bee species and the geo-
Physicochemical characteristics
Quality standards graphical origin for the collection of honey, enormous variability in terms of honey’s moisture content, free
Quality criteria acidity, pH, hydroxymethylfurfural content, ash content, electrical conductivity, sugar content, enzyme activity,
nitrogen content, soluble solids, minerals composition, phenolic compound, and color were observed. Stingless
bee honey possessed greater moisture content, higher acidity, lower sugar composition, and lower enzyme ac-
tivity in stingless bees compared to Apis mellifera bees. This review justifies the need for a more harmonized
standard of this food product, which will include stingless bee honey from around the globe.

1. Introduction
As the name suggests, the stingless bee species lacks a sting. They
belong to the same family as the sting bee, Hymenoptera, but differ at
the subfamily level. While the sting bee belongs to the Apis subfamily,
the stingless bee belongs to the Meliponinae subfamily. Both bees
produce honey and other bee by-products, such as pollen, bees wax,
propolis and royal jelly (Rasmussen and Cameron, 2010). The most
commonly-known honey in the world comes from the sting bee species
Apis mellifera. Unlike their counterpart, stingless bees store their honey
in vertical pots made of cerumen (Abd Jalil et al., 2017; Vit et al.,
2004). Cerumen, as it is exclusively known, is different to Apis mellifera
propolis. Propolis is a natural resinous and waxy product that is pro-
duced by mixing beeswax and resins collected from a variety of plant
parts by Apis mellifera bees. In contrast, cerumen is a mixture that is
similar to propolis but with the addition of the mandibular secretion of
the stingless bee during its construction (Simone-Finstrom and Spivak,
2010).
Stingless bees habituate the warm and humid forests around the
globe. There are approximately 500 stingless bee species and 64 dif-
ferent genera have been identified (Michener, 2013). They are dis-
tributed in Latin America (Melipona, Tetragonisca, Scaptotrigona, and
Plebeia), the mainland of Australia (Tetragonula), Africa (Meliponula),
and tropical parts of Asia (Lepidotrigona, Tetrigona, Homotrigona, Li-
sotrigona) (Biluca et al., 2016; Chuttong et al., 2016; Oddo et al., 2008;
Souza et al., 2006). Hence, beekeeping practice with the stingless bee is
a better-known tradition in tropical countries such as Malaysia, Thai-
land, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil and Australia.
In addition to their abundance in tropical climates, the relatively
easy management of stingless bee farming has facilitated its popularity
among beekeepers. Because it does not sting, it is easier to extract the
honey, pollen, and propolis compared with the extraction of sting bee
honey, which requires proper safety equipment and training (Abd Jalil
et al., 2017). Furthermore, the stingless bees are not obnoxious in
choosing the place to build their hive. As a result, it is easier to build an
artificial hive to manipulate the colony and increase the honey pro-
duction compared to the honey bees, which are often lost and ismore
vulnerable to diseases (Abd Jalil et al., 2017).

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ruszymah@ppukm.ukm.edu.my (R.B.H. Idrus).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2018.06.002
Received 5 February 2018; Received in revised form 27 May 2018; Accepted 1 June 2018
Available online 01 June 2018
0889-1575/ © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
A. Nordin et al. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 73 (2018) 91–102

According to the Codex Alimentarius (2001), honey is the natural
sweet substance produced by honey bees from the nectar of plants or
from secretions of living parts of plants or excretions of plant sucking
insects on the living parts of plants, which the bees collect, transform by
combining with specific substances of their own, deposit, dehydrate,
store and leave in the honey comb to ripen and mature. However, this
definition is specific to the honey produced by Apis mellifera bee and
may not apply to the stingless bee honey. Accordingly, quality stan-
dards have been laid out for Apis mellifera honey by the International
Honey Commission (2009). Many have reported that stingless bee
honey did not meet these quality standards, stressing the need for an
exclusive standard of its own (Biluca et al., 2016; Chuttong et al., 2016;
Oddo et al., 2008; Moniruzzaman et al., 2014; Vit et al., 1994; Gonnet
et al., 1964). However, due to the insufficient knowledge of its com-
position, establishing quality standards for the stingless bee is difficult.
In Malaysia, efforts to establish Malaysian stingless bee honey
quality standards have been initiated since the first official re-
introduction of the stingless bee farming economy by the Malaysian
Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI) in 2012.
This started when Moniruzzaman et al.’s study in 2014 revealed dif-
ferences in some of the physicochemical properties of Malaysian
honeys, including stingless bee, against the parameters set by the
International Honey Commission. The journey has been fruitful and in
2017 the Malaysian Standards authority announced a new quality
standard for honey produced by stingless bees.
Liberalization of food trade, growing consumer demand, develop-
ments in food science and technology, and improvements in transport
and communication, has all led to the expansion of the world economy.
Parallel to this, the international trade in fresh and processed food,
including stingless bee honey, is inevitable. Thus, a harmonized quality
standard that applies to the stingless bee honey coming from different
countries is of paramount importance.
The goal of this review is to provide a current overview of the re-
ported physicochemical properties of stingless bee honey from coun-
tries all over the world.. We seek to utilize this review to facilitate the
effort of setting a more harmonized international standard for honey
produced by the stingless bee species.
2. Methods of review
To ensure the inclusion of all of the available reports on the phy-
sicochemical properties of stingless bee honey, a literature search was
done by employing the Scopus (published between 1823 to May 2018)
database with the combination of the following two sets of keywords
(1) stingless OR meliponini OR trigona OR stingless bee honey AND (2)
physic* OR chem* OR physicochemical*. Because physicochemical
properties of honey are also very relevant to its therapeutic benefit, the
literature search was supplemented with search results from the
Medline medical database (published between 1865 to May 2018),
which was accessed via the Ebscohost search engine using similar
keywords. A manual search was also done using Google Scholar to
further supplement the aforementioned search result. Snowball refer-
encing was also done from appropriate review articles obtained from
the search results.
quality. In 2001, the Codex Alimentarius was revised and the para-
meters for honey quality were set (International Honey Commission,
2009).
A good quality honey should have a moisture content that is not
more than 20 g/100 g, and a sum of both fructose and glucose that is
not less than 60 g/100 g, sucrose content that is not more than 5 g/
100 g, free acidity of not more than 50 milliequivalents acid per 1 kg
(meq/kg), ash content that is not more than 0.5 g/100 g, diastase ac-
tivity that is not less than 8 diastase number (DN), hydro-
xymethylfurfural (HMF) content that is not more than 40 mg/kg, and
electrical conductivity of not more than 0.8 mS/cm, and some other
parameters with slight exception for certain types of honey as listed in
the Codex Alimentarius.
However, the IHC standard for honey has been found to be un-
favorable to the honey produced by stingless bees. A study done by
Gonnet et al. in 1964 observed a higher moisture, invertase activity,
and free acidity as well as a lower pH, and the lack of diastase in
stingless bee honey. Several other studies have also supported the un-
suitability of the IHC honey standard to be used with stingless bee
honey (Biluca et al., 2016; Chuttong et al., 2016; Oddo et al., 2008;
Moniruzzaman et al., 2014; Vit et al., 1994). In response, a quality
standard for medicinal use of Meliponinae (stingless bee) honey in
Guatemala, Mexico, and Venezuela has been proposed by Vit et al.
(2004). In this proposal, honey to be used for medicine should have a
moisture content that is not more than 30 g/100 g, sum of fructose and
glucose that is not less than 50 g/100 g, sucrose content that is not more
than 6 g/100 g, free acidity that is not more than 85 meq/kg, ash con-
tent that is not more than 0.5 g/100 g, HMF content that is not more
than 40 mg/kg, and diastase activity that is not less than 3 DN (Vit
et al., 2004).
In 2017, the quality standards for Malaysian stingless bees was
published by the Department of Malaysian Standards to regulate the
sale and distribution of the stingless bee honey in Malaysia. According
to the Malaysian Standard, a good quality stingless bee honey shall
have moisture content that is not more than 35 g/100 g, sum of fructose
and glucose that is not more than 85 g/100 g, sucrose content that is not
more than 7.5 g/100 g, maltose content that is not more than 9.5 g/
100 g, ash content that is not more 1.0 g/100 g, HMF content that is not
more than 30 mg/kg, pH within 2.5 and 3.8, and shall contain naturally
occurring plant phenolic (Malaysian Standards, 2017). Comparison
between the three standards are presented in Table 1.
4. Bee species
About 500 species of stingless bee are currently identified around
the globe (Michener, 2013). The stingless bee belongs to the family
Hymenoptera and subfamily Meliponinae. They are further divided into
three tribes: Meliponini, Trigonini and Lestrimelitta (Michener, 2000).
The findings from the literature search is intriguing, unlike Apis
Table 1
Quality standards for honey.
Parameter IHC Standards Vit et al. Malaysian
(2004) Standards

3. Honey standards Moisture (g/100 g) max 20 max 30 max 35

Sum of Fructose and min 60 min 50 max 85
Honey contains approximately 200 distinct chemical compounds Glucose (g/100 g)
Sucrose (g/100 g) max 5 max 6 max 7.5
(Ramanauskiene et al., 2012). Each honey’s composition and properties
Maltose (g/100 g) Not applicable Not applicable max 9.5
are unique and are dependent to the floral and geographical origin of Free Acidity (meq/100 g) max 50 max 85 Not applicable
the nectar that the bee collected (Tomas-Barberan et al., 1992). Many Ash Content (g/100 g) max 0.5 max 0.5 max 1.0
techniques—such as pollen identification, gas chromatography spec- HMF Content (mg/kg) max 40 max 40 max 30
trometry, and identification of selected chemical parameters—have Diastase Activity (DN) min 8 min 3 Not applicable
pH Not applicable Not applicable 2.5 – 3.8
been employed to determine the floral and geographical origin of honey
Presence of plant Not applicable Not applicable Present
(Anklam et al., 1998). In 1990, an International Honey Commission phenolics
(IHC) was formed to revise the analytical method use to assess honey

92
A. Nordin et al. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 73 (2018) 91–102

Table 2 Table 2 (continued)

List of stingless bee species included in the review.
Bee species Source
Bee species Source
Tetragonisca angustula Puciarelli et al., 2014; Anacleto et al., 2009;
Cephalotrigona capitata Almeida and Marchini, 2004. Rodriguez et al., 2009; Almeida and Marchini, 2004;
Frieseomelitta aff varia Vit et al., 1994. Santiesteban-Hernandez et al., 2003; Denadai et al.,
Geniotrigona thoracica Tuksitha et al., 2018; Abu Bakar et al., 2017. 2002; Grajales et al., 2001; Rodrigues et al., 1998;
Heterotrigona Tuksitha et al., 2018. Vit et al., 1998.
erythrogastra Tetragonula fuscobalteata Chuttong et al., 2016.
Heterotrigona itama Tuksitha et al., 2018; Abu Bakar et al., 2017; Kek Tetragonula laeviceps Suntiparapop et al., 2012.
et al., 2017. Tetragonula laeviceps- Chuttong et al., 2016.
Homotrigona fimbriata Chuttong et al., 2016. pagdeni complex
Hypotrigona sp. Nweze et al., 2017. Tetragonula testaceitarsis Chuttong et al., 2016.
Lepidotrigona doipaensis Chuttong et al., 2016. Tetrigona apicalis Chuttong et al., 2016.
Lepidotrigona flavibasis Chuttong et al., 2016. Tetrigona melanoleuca Chuttong et al., 2016.
Lepidotrigona terminata Chuttong et al., 2016. Trigona angustula latreille Fuenmayor et al., 2012.
Lisotrigona furva Chuttong et al., 2016. Trigona fuscipennis Biluca et al., 2016.
Melipona asilvai Souza et al., 2004. Trigona sp. Issaro et al., 2013.
Melipona beecheii Alvarez-Suarez et al., 2018, Onyenso et al., 2011, Trigonalaeviceps Smith Issaro et al., 2013.
Santiesteban-Hernandez et al., 2003, Grajales et al., Trigonapagdenis Schwarz Issaro et al., 2013.
2001.
Melipona bicolor Biluca et al., 2016.
Melipona capixaba Lage et al., 2012.
Melipona compressipes Almeida-Muradian et al., 2007; Villas et al., 2004;
mellifera, the most commonly studied sting bee honey species, each of
Souza et al., 1998; Vit et al., 1994; Gonnet et al., the studies found focused on honey produced by different species of
1964. stingless bee. A total of 40 journal articles and conference proceedings
Melipona crinita Rodriguez et al., 2009. were identified, reporting physicochemical data of 522 honey samples.
Melipona eburnea Rodriguez et al., 2009.
A total of 67 different species of stingless bee from 20 different sub-
Melipona fasciculata Fernandes et al., 2018, Lemos et al., 2017.
Melipona favosa Vit et al., 1998, 1994. genera were investigated. The list of the different species is available in
Melipona flavolineata Lemos et al., 2017. Table 2.
Melipona grandis Rodriguez et al., 2009.
Melipona ilota Rodriguez et al., 2009.
Melipona lateralis Vit et al., 1998.
5. Geographical origin
kangarumensis
Melipona mandacaia Alves et al., 2005.
Melipona marginata Biluca et al., 2016. A significant portion of the articles that we obtained reported ana-
Melipona mondury Biluca et al., 2016; Lage et al., 2012. lysis on stingless bee honey that originated from the neotropical regions
Melipona paraensis Vit et al., 1998. of Central and South America (Alvárez-Suárez et al., 2018; Fernandes
Melipona quadrifasciata Biluca et al., 2016; Carvalho et al., 2009; Almeida
and Marchini, 2004.
et al., 2018; do Vale et al., 2017; Gomes et al., 2017; Lemos et al., 2018;
Melipona quadrifasciata Gonnet et al., 1964. Biluca et al., 2016; Jimenez et al., 2016; Sousa et al., 2016; Pucciarelli
anthidioides et al., 2014; Almeida-Muradian et al., 2013; Silva et al., 2013;
Melipona rufiventris Lage et al., 2012. Fuenmayor et al., 2012; Lage et al., 2012; Anacleto et al., 2009;
Melipona rufiventris Biluca et al., 2016.
Carvalho et al., 2009; Guerrini et al., 2009; Rodriguez-Malavera et al.,
mondury
Melipona scutellaris Biluca et al., 2016; Carvalho et al., 2009; 2009; Almeida-Muradian et al., 2007; Vit et al., 1998). This might be
Evangelista-Rodrigues et al., 2005; Marchini et al., due to the more abundant occurrence of stingless bees in the region.
1998. There is also ample information regarding the history of the cultivation
Melipona scutellaris Sousa et al., 2016. of stingless bee honey by the Mayan civilization, which may correlate to
latrelle
Melipona seminigra Almeida-Muradian et al., 2007; Villas-Boas and
the Central and South American scientist’s motivation to study them
Malaspina 2005. (Weaver and Weaver, 2015). Countries from the regions include Ar-
Melipona seminigra Silva et al., 2013. gentina (Puciarreli et al., 2014), Brazil (Fernandes et al., 2018; do Vale
merrillae et al., 2017; Gomes et al., 2017; Lemos et al., 2018; Biluca et al., 2016;
Melipona solani Grajales et al., 2001.
Sousa et al., 2016; Almeida-Muradian et al., 2013; Silva et al., 2013;
Melipona sp. Do Vale et al., 2017; Gomes et al., 2017; Nweze
et al., 2017. Lage et al., 2012; Anacleto et al., 2009; Carvalho et al., 2009; Almeida-
Melipona subnitida Almeida-Muradian 2013. Muradian et al., 2007; Alves et al., 2005; Evangelista-Rodrigues et al.,
Melipona subnitida ducke Sousa et al., 2016. 2005; Almeida and Marchini, 2004; Souza et al., 2004; Villas-Boas and
Melipona trinitatis Vit et al., 1994. Malaspina, 2004; Denadai et al., 2002; Marchini et al., 1998; Rodrigues
Nannotrigona melanocera Rodriguez et al., 2009.
Partamona epiphytophila Rodriguez et al., 2009.
et al., 1998; Souza and Bazlen, 1998; Gonnet et al., 1964), Cuba (Al-
Partamona sp. Santiesteban-Hernandez et al., 2003. varez-Suarez et al., 2018), Colombia (Fuenmayor 2012), Ecuador
Pleibeia droryana Almeida and Marchini, 2004. (Guerrini et al., 2009), Mexico (Jimenez et al., 2016; Santiesteban-
Ptilotrigona lurida Rodriguez et al., 2009. Hernandez et al., 2003; Grajales et al., 2001), Peru (Rodriguez-
Scaptotrigona bicuntata Biluca et al., 2016.
Malavera et al., 2009), and Venezuela (Vit et al., 1998, 1994). Each
Scaptotrigona mexicana Jimenez et al., 2016.
Scaptotrigona pachysoma Santiesteban-Hernandez et al., 2003. honey sample was collected from differing provinces in each country,
Scaptotrigona polystica Rodriguez et al., 2009. resulting in a more widespread sampling of the honey’s geographical
Scaptotrigona postica Gonnet et al., 1964. origin.
Scaptotrigona sp. Lemos et al., 2017. Apart from the American countries, the data discussed in this review
Scaura latitarsis Rodriguez et al., 2009.
Tetragona carbonaria Onyenso et al., 2011, Oddo et al., 2008.
also come from Thailand (Chuttong et al., 2016; Issaro et al., 2013;
Tetragona clavipes Biluca et al., 2016. Suntiparapop 2012), Malaysia (Tukshita et al., 2018, Abu Bakar et al.,
Tetragonilla collina Chuttong et al., 2016. 2017; Kek et al., 2017), Nigeria (Onyenso et al., 2011, Nweze et al.,
2017), and Australia (Oddo et al., 2008). In all four countries, the re-
introduction of Meliponiculture is rather new, despite years of un-
documented traditional Meliponiculture locally. Nevertheless, with the

93
A. Nordin et al. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 73 (2018) 91–102

Fig. 1. Map of the world indicating the geographical origin of stingless bee honey discussed in the review.

inclusion of all available data from all over the world, it is our intention
to set this review as a guide for establishing international standards of
stingless bee honey. Fig. 1 presents the geographical origin of the honey
samples included in this review.
6. Honey’s physicochemical properties
The most studied stingless bee species is Tetragonula angustula,
which is known locally in Argentina as Yateí. A total of 88 honey
samples, as analysed by nine research teams were found (Pucciarelli
et al., 2014; Anacleto et al., 2009, Rodriguez-Malavera et al., 2009,
Almeida and Marchini, 2004, Santiesteban-Hernandez et al., 2003;
Denadai et al., 2002; Grajales et al., 2001; Rodrigues et al., 1998; Vit
et al., 1998). The Yateí habitat covers the tropical and subtropical re-
gions of the American continent from Argentina to Panama and Mexico,
leading to its popularity among American researchers (Nogueira-Neto,
1997). As expected, the physicochemical properties reported varies
greatly due to the enormous variation in bee species and geographical
origin. Table 3,4 and 5 contains all of the compiled data that will be
discussed in this review.
Although the parameters chosen by each investigator varies slightly,
some common ground was apparent. It is noticeable that the honey’s
moisture is the most common parameter measured in stingless bee
honey (498 samples). This is followed by free acidity (472 samples),
sugar profile (447 samples), pH (430 samples), HMF (360 samples), ash
content (341 samples), and electrical conductivity (304 samples). Less
common parameters include enzyme activity (218 samples), nitrogen,
soluble solids (88 samples), color (71 samples), minerals (65 samples),
and phenolic compound (44 samples) (Alvarez-Suarez et al., 2018;
Fernandes et al., 2018; Tukshita et al., 2018; Abu Bakar et al., 2017; do
Vale et al., 2017; Gomes et al., 2017; Kek et al., 2017; Lemos et al.,
2018; Nweze et al., 2017; Biluca et al., 2016; Chuttong et al., 2016;
Jimenez et al., 2016; Sousa et al., 2016; Pucciarelli et al., 2014;
Almeida-Muradian et al., 2013; Issaro et al., 2013; Silva et al., 2013;
Fuenmayor et al., 2012; Lage et al., 2012; Suntiparapop et al., 2012;
Onyenso et al., 2011; Anacleto et al., 2009; Carvalho et al., 2009;
Guerrini et al., 2009; Rodriguez-Malavera et al., 2009; Oddo et al.,
2008; Almeida-Muradian et al., 2007; Alves et al., 2005; Evangelista-
Rodrigues et al., 2005; Almeida and Marchini, 2004; Souza et al., 2004;
Villas-Boas and Malaspina, 2004; Santiesteban-Hernandez et al., 2003;
Denadai et al., 2002; Marchini et al., 1998; Rodrigues et al., 1998;
Souza and Bazlen, 1998; Vit et al., 1998, 1994; Gonnet et al., 1964).
6.1. Moisture
Honey’s moisture content has been reported to be dependent on the
environmental factors during harvesting and storage. Honey with a
high-water content translates to a greater fermentation potential, re-
sulting in more difficult preservation and storage (Babarinde et al.,
2011). Stingless bee honey has been reported to contain greater water
content compared to Apis mellifera honey (Almeida-Muradian et al.,
2013; Souza et al., 2006; Vit et al., 1998). The higher water content in
stingless bee honey may be related to the nature of their habitat; that is,
the humid tropical jungle. The moisture content reported in stingless
bee goes from as low as 13.26 g/100 g to as high as 45.8 g/100 g, with a
mean of 28.6 g/100 g and a standard deviation of 5.7 g/100 g (Table 3).
The honey with the lowest moisture content comes from the species
Trigona sp. from Thailand, while the honey with the highest moisture
content comes from the species Partamona epiphytophila originated from
Peru (Issaro et al., 2013, Rodriguez et al., 2009).
The threshold set for good quality honey by the IHC in terms of
moisture is 20 g/100 g, which applies to Apis mellifera honey. However,
out of the 498 honey samples with moisture data available, 97% of
them do not comply with this threshold. Specific to the stingless bee
species, Vit et al. (2004), offered a slightly higher threshold of 30 g/
100 g. The Malaysian Standards have an even higher threshold at 35 g/
100 g. Both of these standards do more justice to the honey of stingless
bee species. However, the presence of 74 samples of honey from Brazil,
Peru and Thailand, that presented moisture content up to 47 g/100 g
may indicate that a more harmonized international standard is required
(Biluca et al., 2016; Chuttong et al., 2016; Rodriguez-Malavera et al.,
2009; Gonnet et al., 1964).
6.2. Free acidity
The free acidity of honey correlates to the presence of organic acids
in honey. High acidity may indicate the fermentation of sugars into
organic acids (Sancho et al., 2013). In accordance to the known high
moisture content of stingless bee honey, free acidity values were also
frequently reported to be higher in stingless bee honey compared to the
Apis mellifera honey (Almeida-Muradian et al., 2013; Souza et al., 2006;
Vit et al., 1998). Free acidity among the stingless bee honey has been
reported to range from 5.9 meq/kg to 592 meq/kg. This brings about a
mean of 73.59 meq/kg and standard deviation of 101.53 meq/kg
(Table 3). The lowest free acidity value was measured in Melipona

94
A. Nordin et al. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 73 (2018) 91–102

Table 3
Common parameter for physicochemical data of stingless bee honey.
Bee species # Moisture (g/ Free Acidity pH HMF (mg/ Ash (g/ Electrical Conductivity Source
100 g) (mEq/kg) kg) 100 g) (ms/cm)

Cephalotrigona capitata 1 27 31.5 3.62 3.4 0.52 – Almeida and Marchini, 2004
Frieseomelitta aff varia 7 19.9 73 – 1.1 0.76 – Vit et al., 1994
Geniotrigona thoracica 1 28.17 – 3.36 – – – Abu Bakar et al., 2017
Heterotrigona itama 1 28.43 – 3.32 – 0.438 – Abu Bakar et al., 2017
3 – – – – 0.08 – Kek et al., 2017
Homotrigona fimbriata 1 41 528 3.3 46 1 2.6 Chuttong et al., 2016
Hypotrigona sp. 3 17.5 35.57 3.75 16.58 – 0.303 Nweze et al., 2017
Lepidotrigona doipaensis 2 31.5 197.5 3.5 2.3 0.512 1.193 Chuttong et al., 2016
Lepidotrigona flavibasis 4 28 168 3.7 8.5 0.51 1.3 Chuttong et al., 2016
Lepidotrigona terminata 1 30 194 3.5 – 0.245 0.78 Chuttong et al., 2016
Lisotrigona furva 2 28 53 3.6 0.215 0.183 0.345 Chuttong et al., 2016
Melipona asilvai 11 29.5 41.6 3.27 2.4 – – Souza et al., 2004
Melipona beecheii 8 28.62 41.52 3.2 9.23 0.46 0.58 Alvarez-Suarez et al., 2018
1 26.51 – 4.26 – – – Onyenso et al., 2011
1 24 28 4.5 64.8 – 0.55 Grajales et al., 2001
1 27 5.9 4.18 5.4 – 0.66 Santiesban-Hernandez et al.,
2003
Melipona bicolor 5 34.68 91.62 3.766 < 0.31 – 0.576 Biluca et al., 2016
Melipona capixaba 9 30.51 79.28 3.62 – – – Lage et al., 2012
Melipona compressipes 2 26.7 23.88 3.74 – – – Almeida-Muradian et al.,
2007
1 22.3 25.1 3.65 35.8 – – Gonnet et al., 1964
8 24.6 39 3.46 1.2 0.22 – Villas et al., 2004
1 25 45.8 4.06 30.5 – 8.77 Souza et al., 1998
5 23.4 48.4 – 1 0.3 – Vit et al., 1994
Melipona crinita 2 28.8 – – – – – Rodriguez et al., 2009
Melipona eburnea 1 23.8 – – – – – Rodriguez et al., 2009
Melipona fasciculata 20 25.45 29.05 4.35 – 0.32 – Fernandes et al., 2018
4 29.03 18.91 4.56 17.81 – – Lemos et al., 2017
Melipona favosa 14 25.2 62.9 – 1.2 0.29 – Vit et al., 1994
6 24.2 36.8 – 17.1 0.15 2.06 Vit et al., 1998
Melipona flavolineata 4 35.11 143.67 3.41 34.62 – – Lemos et al., 2017
Melipona grandis 5 27.5 – – – – – Rodriguez et al., 2009
Melipona ilota 1 28 – – – – – Rodriguez et al., 2009
Melipona lateralis kangarumensis 3 28.8 40.7 – 3.9 0.11 1.65 Vit et al., 1998
Melipona mandacaia 20 28.8 43.5 3.27 5.8 – 3.52 Alves et al., 2005
Melipona marginata 6 32.65 79.82 3.67 < 0.31 – 0.437 Biluca et al., 2016
Melipona mondury 11 61.51 4.19 – – – Lage et al., 2012
2 29.75 61.1 5.19 < 0.31 – 0.69 Biluca et al., 2016
Melipona paraensis 4 26.4 30.4 4.29 3.4 0.14 1.37 Vit et al., 1998
Melipona quadrifasciata 12 32.47 42.53 3.71 5.2 0.335 Biluca et al., 2016
1 25.2 6.25 6.64 1.27 0.393 0.596 Carvalho et al., 2009
1 30 28 3.74 1.45 0.146 0.217 Carvalho et al., 2009
1 34 16.5 4.52 1 0.54 – Almeida and Marchini, 2004
Melipona quadrifasciata 1 41.9 103.3 3.35 31.5 – – Gonnet et al., 1964
anthidioides
Melipona rufiventris 7 – 42 4.24 – – Lage et al., 2012
Melipona rufiventris mondury 1 27.7 38.2 4.21 < 0.31 – 0.25 Biluca et al., 2016
Melipona scutellaris 1 23.4 28.7 4.52 < 0.31 – 0.15 Biluca et al., 2016
2 28 40.38 3.55 1.77 0.181 0.268 Carvalho et al., 2009
1 25.3 28.3 4.66 18.9 0.17 – Evangelista et al., 2005
6 28.4 8.9 3.15 0.4 0.01 3.39 Marchini et al., 1998
Melipona scutellaris latrelle 12 25.5 42.75 3.83 – 0.165 0.524 Sousa et al., 2016
Melipona seminigra 2 30.4 26.54 3.78 – – – Almeida-Muradian et al.,
2007
8 26 79 3.53 0.8 0.15 – Villas et al., 2004
Melipona solani 1 25 85 4 78.5 – 0.62 Grajales et al., 2001
Melipona sp. 16 38.7 35.7 3.6 8.6 0.38 0.392 Do Vale et al., 2017
9 24.46 – 3.24 – 0.098 – Gomes et al., 2017
3 13.86 12.59 4.21 5.5 – 0.238 Nweze et al., 2017
Melipona subnitida 24 24.8 32.49 – 7.56 0.02 0.102 Almeida et al., 2013
Melipona subnitida ducke 12 26.4 42.65 3.95 – 0.198 0.514 Sousa et al., 2016
Melipona trinitatis 4 25.7 24.2 – 1.3 0.12 – Vit et al., 1994
Nannotrigona melanocera 1 33.4 – – – – – Rodriguez et al., 2009
Partamona epiphytophila 1 45.8 – – – – – Rodriguez et al., 2009
Partamona sp. 1 34.1 23.7 3.42 2.4 – 0.81 Santiesteban-Hernandez
et al., 2003
Pleibeia droryana 1 31 52 3.83 7.6 1.18 – Almeida and Marchini, 2004
Ptilotrigona lurida 1 35.2 – – – – – Rodriguez et al., 2009
Scaptotrigona bicuntata 2 23.95 48.95 4.48 < 0.31 0.63 Biluca et al., 2016
Scaptotrigona mexicana 12 23.94 – 3.75 12.61 0.499 0.285 Jimenez et al., 2016
4 24.7 76.7 4.05 42 – 0.76 Grajales et al., 2001
(continued on next page)

95
A. Nordin et al. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 73 (2018) 91–102

Table 3 (continued)

Bee species # Moisture (g/ Free Acidity pH HMF (mg/ Ash (g/ Electrical Conductivity Source
100 g) (mEq/kg) kg) 100 g) (ms/cm)

Scaptotrigona pachysoma 1 26.9 6.6 3.94 1.1 – 0.49 Santiesteban-Hernandez

et al., 2003
Scaptotrigona polystica 1 33 – – – – – Rodriguez et al., 2009
Scaptotrigona postica 1 26.5 83.7 3.4 18.9 – – Gonnet et al., 1964
Scaptotrigona sp. 3 30.22 60.98 3.89 24.71 – – Lemos et al., 2017
Scaura latitarsis 1 20.8 – – – – – Rodriguez et al., 2009
Tetragona carbonaria 8 26.5 128.9 4 1.2 0.48 1.64 Oddo et al., 2008
Tetragona clavipes 1 25.2 91.2 4.28 < 0.31 – 1.01 Biluca et al., 2016
Tetragonilla collina 1 28 25 3.9 5.9 0.245 0.435 Chuttong et al., 2016
Tetragonisca angustula 28 24 79 3.72 – – – Puciarelli et al., 2014
20 24.37 45.23 4.1 9.39 0.39 0.134 Anacleto et al., 2009
1 28.9 – – – – – Rodriguez et al., 2009
3 23.2 48.3 – 9.8 0.38 7.32 Vit et al., 1998
5 26 – – 5 – – Rodrigues et al., 1998
1 25.5 26 3.69 8.1 0.32 – Almeida and Marchini, 2004
1 26.7 7.7 3.88 4.3 – 0.78 Santiesteban-Hernandez
et al., 2003
25 23.7 109 3.8 – 0.45 – Denadai et al., 2002
4 23.2 57.5 4.35 39.1 – 1.1 Grajales et al., 2001
Tetragonula fuscobalteata 2 26 96.5 3.7 22 0.67 1.35 Chuttong et al., 2016
Tetragonula laeviceps 19 26.98 81.37 3.62 1.07 0.27 0.62 Suntiparapop et al., 2012
Tetragonula laeviceps-pagdeni 10 28 76 3.6 5.4 0.22 0.587 Chuttong et al., 2016
complex
Tetragonula testaceitarsis 2 30.5 70.5 3.6 2.95 0.205 0.59 Chuttong et al., 2016
Tetrigona apicalis 2 42 495 3.2 0.26 1.4 2.6 Chuttong et al., 2016
Tetrigona melanoleuca 1 43 592 3.4 28 3.1 2.8 Chuttong et al., 2016
Trigona angustula latreille 44 24.3 39.2 4.2 1.3 0.205 0.658 Fuenmayor et al., 2012
Trigona fuscipennis 1 34.4 46.7 3.44 < 0.31 – 0.31 Biluca et al., 2016
Trigona sp. 1 13.26 78.14 3.35 3.18 0.2 0.57 Issaro et al., 2013
Trigonalaeviceps Smith 1 15.73 50.83 3.44 3.32 0.14 0.57 Issaro et al., 2013
Trigonapagdenis Schwarz 1 14.66 20 4.01 3.97 0.22 0.45 Issaro et al., 2013
Average 27.68 73.59 3.85 12.12 0.404 1.160
Standard Deviation 5.8 101.53 0.53 16.22 0.49 1.60

beechei honey from Mexico (Santiesteban et al., 2003) and the highest
free acidity value was obtained from Tetrigona melanoleuca honey from
Thailand (Chuttong et al., 2016). Majority of stingless bee honey
samples with available free acidity data comply with the set standards
by the IHC which is free acidity of not more than 50 meq/kg. Never-
theless, a significant portion of 40.4% out of the 472 stingless bee
honey samples presented in this review still do not comply to the
standard. The threshold set for Scaptotrigona species by Vit et al.
(2004), is more lenient at 85 meq/kg, resulting in the inclusion of 88%
percent of the total sample into the standard compliant group.
6.3. pH
Honey is acidic in nature, with a pH ranging from 3.2 to 4.5
(Solayman et al., 2016). Honey pH has been useful in the determination
its geographical origin (Acquarone et al., 2007). Overall, the pH of
stingless bee honey ranges from 3.15 to 6.64. The mean for pH was 3.85
with a standard deviation of 0.53 (Table 1). The lowest pH value, 3.15,
was detected from the honey of Melipona scutellaris from Brazil
(Marchini et al., 1998). The highest pH value was detected from honey
of Melipona quadrifasciata from Brazil (Carvalho et al., 2009). There is
no standard in terms of pH for honey set by the IHC or Vit et al (2004).
However, the Malaysian Standard has set an acceptable pH range of 2.5
to 3.8 for stingless bee honey. Considering the range set by Malaysian
Standard, 176 out of the 430 samples (40.9%) with pH data available
were not compliant. A harmonized international standard may offer a
more lenient pH range but a lot of validation needs to be done on the
currently available data.
6.4. Hydroxymethylfurfural content
Hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) content is widely recognised as a
parameter of honey freshness. HMF is usually absent in a freshly har-
vested sample and it tends to increase over time. HMF is a breakdown
product of simple sugars, especially fructose. Several factors have been
reported to affect HMF content including heating, storage condition, pH
of honey, and adulteration of honey with simple sugars from an ex-
ternal source (Pasias et al., 2017). The available data on HMF revealed
a highest value of HMF at 78.5 mg/kg in Melipona solani from Mexico
(Grajales et al., 2001). HMF content has been set to be not more than
40 mg/kg in a good quality Apis mellifera honey. The same value was
also suggested by Vit et al. for the stingless bee species. In the Malaysian
Standard, the threshold was reduced to be lower than 30 mg/kg.18
samples from Brazil, Mexico, and Thailand are found to be non-com-
pliant with the Malaysian Standards threshold (Lemos et al., 2018;
Chuttong et al., 2016; Grajales et al., 2001; Gonnet et al., 1964),.
Stingless bee honeys are often subjected to accusation of adulteration
due to their high HMF content. In reality, their naturally higher
moisture content directly influences their HMF content. However,
stingless bee honey has been reported to be more resistant to HMF
formation than Apis mellifera honey when subjected to thermal treat-
ment (Biluca et al., 2014). Consequently, a revision of the HMF stan-
dard set for stingless bee is of paramount importance.
6.5. Ash content
The ash content of honey correlates to its mineral content and is
influenced by the composition of source plant nectar. The original
nectar-bearing plant absorbs minerals from the soil, which eventually
end up in the nectar (Felsner et al., 2004). This gives an insight into the
quality of honey in terms of inorganic contaminants, such as pesticides
(Moniruzzaman et al., 2014). The ash content of stingless bee honey
ranges from as low as 0.01 g/100 g to as high as 3.1 g/100 g honey
(Table 3). The mean value was 0.40 g/100 g, with a standard deviation

96
A. Nordin et al. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 73 (2018) 91–102

Table 4
Sugar profile of stingless bee.
Bee species # Total Reducing Sugar Fructose (g/ Glucose (g/ Maltose (g/ Sucrose (g/ Source
(g/100 g) 100 g) 100 g) 100 g) 100 g)

Frieseomelitta aff varia 7 61 – – – 4.8 Vit et al., 1994

Geniotrigona thoracica 1 29.64 12.01 17.63 35.3 – Tukshita et al., 2018.
1 71.52 – – – – Abu Bakar et al., 2017
Heterotrigona itama 1 40.5 19.5 21 33.7 – Tukshita et al., 2018.
1 70.74 – – – – Abu Bakar et al., 2017
3 24.99 15.77 9.22 – 32.33 Kek et al., 2017
Heterotrigona erythrogastra 1 27.2 12.3 14.9 45.2 – Tukshita et al., 2018.
Homotrigona fimbriata 1 22 7.4 15 – – Chuttong et al., 2016
Hypotrigona sp. 3 60.49 – – – 1.83 Nweze et al., 2017
Lepidotrigona doipaensis 2 38.5 12 11.9 – – Chuttong et al., 2016
Lepidotrigona flavibasis 4 68 16 13 39 – Chuttong et al., 2016
Lepidotrigona terminata 1 66 8.1 4.9 53 – Chuttong et al., 2016
Lisotrigona furva 2 62.5 33.5 26.5 0.6 – Chuttong et al., 2016
Melipona asilvai 11 68.9 – – – 4.7 Souza et al., 2004
Melipona beecheii 1 69.21 – – – 1.6 Onyenso et al., 2011
1 68 – – – 1.6 Santiesban-Hernandez et al.,
2003
Melipona bicolor 5 60.14 32.84 27.22 – < 0.074 Biluca et al., 2016
Melipona compressipes 2 31.38 29.02 – 0.15 Almeida-Muradian et al., 2007
8 65.3 – – – 3.5 Villas et al., 2004
5 75.7 – – – 1.6 Vit et al., 1994
Melipona fasciculata 20 51.35 – – – Fernandes et al., 2018
4 70.57 – – – 2.17 Lemos et al., 2017
Melipona favosa 14 72.1 – – – 1.5 Vit et al., 1994
6 70.3 – – – 2 Vit et al., 1998
Melipona flavolineata 4 59.31 – – – 5.52 Lemos et al., 2017
Melipona lateralis kangarumensis 3 64.8 – – – 1.1 Vit et al., 1998
Melipona mandacaia 20 74.8 – – – 2.9 Alves et al., 2005
Melipona marginata 8 64.49 36.25 28.24 – < 0.074 Biluca et al., 2016
Melipona paraensis 4 60.8 – – – 1.2 Vit et al., 1998
Melipona quadrifasciata 12 61.77 34.71 27.42 – Biluca et al., 2016
2 60.24 – – – 1.3 Carvalho et al., 2009
Melipona rufiventris mondury 1 65.6 35.6 30.1 – < 0.074 Biluca et al., 2016
Melipona scutellaris 1 62.7 – – – < 0.074 Biluca et al., 2016
2 55.45 – – – 2.14 Carvalho et al., 2009
Melipona scutellaris latrelle 12 67.38 54.3 42.43 – 2.4 Sousa et al., 2016
Melipona seminigra 2 – 31.84 29.6 – 0.18 Almeida-Muradian et al., 2007
8 65.4 – – – 3 Villas et al., 2004
Melipona sp. 16 49.4 – – – 3.8 Do Vale et al., 2017
9 59.21 – – – Gomes et al., 2017
3 75.64 – – – 5.06 Nweze et al., 2017
Melipona subnitida 24 – 29.21 21.76 – 4.86 Almeida et al., 2013
Melipona subnitida ducke 12 67.63 54.38 42.73 – 1.85 Sousa et al., 2016
Melipona trinitatis 4 73.7 – – – 1.5 Vit et al., 1994
Partamona sp. 1 62.5 – – – 1.1 Santiesteban-Hernandez et al.,
2003
Scaptotrigona bicuntata 2 62.95 35.65 27.2 – < 0.074 Biluca et al., 2016
Scaptotrigona mexicana 12 56.48 – – – Jimenez et al., 2016
Scaptotrigona pachysoma 1 70.1 – – – 2 Santiesteban-Hernandez et al.,
2003
Scaptotrigona sp. 3 62.34 – – – 4.83 Lemos et al., 2017
Tetragona carbonaria 8 – 17.5 24.5 20.3 1.8 Oddo et al., 2008
Tetragona clavipes 1 48.6 40.2 8.21 – < 0.074 Biluca et al., 2016
Tetragonilla collina 1 52 26 26 – – Chuttong et al., 2016
Tetragonisca angustula 28 – 24 19 – – Puciarelli et al., 2014
20 55.46 – – – 0.95 Anacleto et al., 2009
3 65.9 – – – 2.1 Vit et al., 1998
5 58.7 – – – Rodrigues et al., 1998
1 70 – – – 2.4 Santiesteban-Hernandez et al.,
2003
25 58 – – – 2.4 Denadai et al., 2002
Tetragonula fuscobalteata 2 32.5 21 31.5 – Chuttong et al., 2016
Tetragonula laeviceps 19 47.87 27.08 20.8 – 19.15 Suntiparapop et al., 2012
Tetragonula laeviceps-pagdeni 10 29 17 12 37 0.025 Chuttong et al., 2016
complex
Tetragonula testaceitarsis 2 41 22 19 – – Chuttong et al., 2016
Tetrigona apicalis 2 12.5 6.75 5.9 – – Chuttong et al., 2016
Tetrigona melanoleuca 1 15 6 8.9 – – Chuttong et al., 2016
Trigona angustula latreille 44 – 23.5 30.1 – – Fuenmayor et al., 2012
Trigona fuscipennis 1 56.6 36.22 20.4 – < 0.074 Biluca et al., 2016
Trigona sp. 1 29.34 – – – – Issaro et al., 2013
Trigonalaeviceps Smith 1 27.37 – – – – Issaro et al., 2013
Trigonapagdenis Schwarz 1 41.64 – – – – Issaro et al., 2013
(continued on next page)

97
A. Nordin et al.
Table 4 (continued)
Bee species # Total Reducing Sugar Fructose (g/
(g/100 g) 100 g)
Average 55.79 25.16
Standard Deviation 16.23 12.78
0.48 g/100 g. The lowest ash content was observed in Melipona scu-
tellaris honey from Brazil and the highest ash content was observed in
Tetrigona melanoleuca from Thailand (Chuttong et al., 2016; Marchini
et al., 1998). Both the IHC and Vit et al. set the ash content threshold at
not more than 0.5 g/100 g for a good quality honey from both Apis
mellifera and Meliponinae species. Almost all of the samples (94%)
comply with the standards. The Malaysian Standards have set an even
higher threshold at 1.0 g/100 g resulting in a better inclusion of 99%.
Only one sample from Brazil and two samples from Thailand did not
comply with the Malaysian Standards (Chuttong et al., 2016; Almeida
and Marchini, 2004). The Tetrigona melanoleuca honey from Thailand
reported the highest ash content of 3.1 g/100 g, which was probably
influenced by the composition of the original nectar-producing plant
(Chuttong et al., 2016).
6.6. Electrical conductivity
The electrical conductivity of the honey is directly related to its
concentration of mineral, salts, organic acids and proteins (Solayman
and other 2016). This parameter compliments the other parameters
used in the determination of honey floral origin (Acquarone et al.,
2007). In stingless bees, electrical conductivity ranges from 0.102 ms/
cm to 8.770 ms/cm (Table 3). The lowest electrical conductivity value
was observed in the Melipona subnitida honey collected from Brazil
(Almeida-Muradian et al., 2013). In contrast, the highest electrical
conductivity value was observed in Melipona compressipes honey col-
lected also from Brazil. The electrical conductivity brings about a mean
of 1.160 ms/cm with standard deviation of 1.6 ms/cm, which shows
that there is a huge variability between the samples. The IHC re-
commended that electrical conductivity should not be more than
0.8 ms/cm. However, it is not mentioned in either Vit et al. (2004)
proposal or the Malaysia Standard, suggesting the unsuitability of this
parameter for a stingless bee honey standard.
6.7. Sugar content
Carbohydrates in the form of sugars are the major constituents of
honey (Sato and Miyata, 2000). The reducing sugars fructose and glu-
cose were frequently reported to make up the majority portion of sugar
in honey (Solayman et al., 2016). In stingless bee honey, the sum of
reducing sugars goes from 12.5 g/100 g to 75.7 g/100 g, with the mean
of 57.79 g/100 g and standard deviation of 16.23 g/100 g (Table 4). The
lowest reducing sugars content was detected in the honey of Tetrigona
apicalis from Thailand while the highest reducing sugars content was
detected in the honey of Melipona compressipes from Venezuela
(Chuttong et al., 2016; Vit et al., 1994).
According to the standards set by the IHC, a good quality honey
should have the sum of both fructose and glucose that is not less than
60 g/100 g. Stingless bees have been reported to contain lower sugar
content compared to Apis mellifera honey. In response, Vit et al. has
lowered the threshold for stingless bee at 50 g/100 g. For Malaysian
Standards, a maximum threshold was set to regulate honey adultera-
tion. In Malaysia, a marketed honey should not have a sum of fructose
and glucose that is more than 85 g/100 g. Considering IHC standards,
40.7% of the honey samples with the sum of fructose and glucose
content data did not comply with the standards. Vit et al. (2004) pro-
posal does more justice to stingless bee honey because it includes 96%
of the honey samples. With Malaysian Standards, all honey samples in
98
Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 73 (2018) 91–102
Glucose (g/ Maltose (g/ Sucrose (g/ Source
100 g) 100 g) 100 g)
21.49 33.01 3.65
9.72 16.11 5.8
the review are compliant to the standard set.
Apart from the reducing sugars, other sugars, such as sucrose and
maltose, were also reported in honey. Their presence is often reported
in lower content compared to fructose and glucose, or sometimes were
not detected at all (Solayman et al., 2016; Sousa et al., 2016). In terms
of sucrose, their detection in stingless bee honey goes from 0.025 g/
100 g to 32.33 g/100 g, with a mean of 3.6 g/100 g and standard de-
viation of 5.8 g/100 g (Table 4).
According to the standards set by the IHC, a good quality honey
should have a sucrose content that is not more than 5 g/100 g. Vit et al.
has increased the threshold for sucrose a little higher at 6 g/100 g to
accommodate the slightly higher sucrose content reported in stingless
bee honey. For Malaysian Standards, the maximum threshold of 7.5 g/
100 g sucrose was set to regulate honey adulteration. In terms of su-
crose, only Tetragonula laeviceps from Thailand and Heterotrigona itama
from Malaysia did not comply with the standard set by all three groups
(Kek et al., 2017; Suntiparapop et al., 2012).
For maltose, the value goes from 0.6 g/100 g to 53 g/100 g with a
mean of 29.98 g/100 g and standard deviation of 20.11 g/100 g in
stingless bee (Table 4). Only the Malaysian Standards set a threshold for
maltose, a maximum of 9.5 g/100 g. Only two groups measured maltose
in honey; that is, those from Thailand and Australia (Chuttong et al.,
2016; Oddo et al., 2008). Out of all the maltose data, only maltose
content from Lisotrigona furva species from Thailand complied to the
Malaysian Standards (Chuttong et al., 2016).
6.8. Enzyme activity
Two key enzymes have been selected for the validation of honey
quality: diastase and invertase. Diastase is the common name for the
enzyme alpha-amylase. It is naturally present in honey and the activity
tends to reduce over time. Hence, diastase activity is usually used as an
indicator of honey’s freshness (Pasias et al., 2017). There are 217 honey
samples which have diastase activity data. The value goes from 0.15 DN
to 32.28 DN, with the mean of 7.08 DN and standard deviation of 8.01
DN (Table 5). The lowest diastase activity was reported with Tetrigona
melanoleuca honey from Thailand and the highest diastase activity was
reported with Tetragonisca angustula honey from Brazil. The set stan-
dard for diastase activity by IHC is no less than 8 DN. The lack of
diastase in stingless bee honey has been reported previously (Vit and
Pulcini 1996; Gonnet et al., 1964). Accordingly, the standards set for
stingless bee by Vit et al. reduced the threshold for diastase to 3 DN.
There is no standard set in terms of bee enzyme by the Malaysian
Standards.
The sucrose-hydrolytic enzyme, invertase has a key role in trans-
forming the sucrose of nectar into the glucose and fructose in honey (Vit
and Pucini, 1996). In terms of invertase, only two studies—Oddo
(2008) and Vit (1998)—measured this parameter. The enzyme is also
not included in all of the honey quality standards, probably because
invertase is more susceptible to heat damage than is diastase. This leads
to a shorter half-life, rendering it difficult to be utilized as a quality
parameter (Oddo et al., 1999).
6.9. Nitrogen
The nitrogen measurement represents the brute protein content in
honey. This protein can include the enzymes that are crucial in the
formation of the honey (Anklam, 1998). The nitrogen content is
A. Nordin et al. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 73 (2018) 91–102

Table 5
Less common parameter for physicochemical data of stingless bee honey.
Bee species # Diastase (DN) Invertase (IU) Nitrogen (mg/100 g) Soluble Solids (Brix) Color (pFund) Source

Frieseomelitta aff varia 7 7.8 – 134.12 – – Vit et al., 1994

Lepidotrigona doipaensis 2 1.6 – – – – Chuttong et al., 2016
Lepidotrigona flavibasis 4 3.1 – – – – Chuttong et al., 2016
Lepidotrigona terminata 1 0.29 – – – – Chuttong et al., 2016
Melipona beecheii 8 1.3 – – – – Alvarez-Suarez et al., 2018
Melipona bicolor 5 <3 – – 64.56 – Biluca et al., 2016
Melipona capixaba 9 – – – 68.23 – Lage et al., 2012
Melipona compressipes 8 7.9 – 448 – – Villas et al., 2004
5 1.1 – 489.4 – – Vit et al., 1994
Melipona crinita 2 – – 370 – 88 Rodriguez et al., 2009
Melipona eburnea 1 – – 650 – 103 Rodriguez et al., 2009
Melipona favosa 14 0.9 – 406.6 – – Vit et al., 1994
6 2.9 90.1 708.7 – – Vit et al., 1998
Melipona grandis 5 – – 350 – 38 Rodriguez et al., 2009
Melipona ilota 1 – – 300 – 26 Rodriguez et al., 2009
Melipona lateralis kangarumensis 3 2.8 58.9 234.2 – – Vit et al., 1998
Melipona marginata 1 <3 – – 66.32 – Biluca et al., 2016
Melipona mondury 11 – – – 68.09 – Lage et al., 2012
1 13.5 – – 69.35 – Biluca et al., 2016
Melipona paraensis 4 2.9 19.8 143.4 – – Vit et al., 1998
Melipona quadrifasciata 12 <3 – – 66.43 – Biluca et al., 2016
1 1.77 – – – – Carvalho et al., 2009
Melipona rufiventris 7 – – 74.12 – Lage et al., 2012
Melipona rufiventris mondury 1 <3 – – 71.7 – Biluca et al., 2016
Melipona scutellaris 1 <3 – – 75.8 – Biluca et al., 2016
1 2.16 – – – – Carvalho et al., 2009
1 3.01 – – – – Carvalho et al., 2009
6 – 816 – – Marchini et al., 1998
Melipona scutellaris latrelle 12 – 375 73.15 74.83 Sousa et al., 2016
8 5 – 560 – Villas et al., 2004
Melipona sp. 16 15.63 – – Do Vale et al., 2017
Melipona subnitida 24 – – 280 – 70 Almeida et al., 2013
Melipona subnitida ducke 12 – – 350 72.55 60.23 Sousa et al., 2016
Melipona trinitatis 4 1 – 478.2 – Vit et al., 1994
Nannotrigona melanocera 1 – – 146 – 150 Rodriguez et al., 2009
Partamona epiphytophila 1 – – 126 – 78 Rodriguez et al., 2009
Ptilotrigona lurida 1 – – 288 – 120 Rodriguez et al., 2009
Scaptotrigona bicuntata 2 4.34 – – 75.1 Biluca et al., 2016
Scaptotrigona mexicana 12 – – – 72.57 Jimenez et al., 2016
Scaptotrigona polystica 1 – 115 – 128 Rodriguez et al., 2009
Scaptotrigona postica 1 – 24.6 – – Gonnet et al., 1964
Scaura latitarsis 1 – 113 – 130 Rodriguez et al., 2009
Tetragona carbonaria 8 0.4 5.7 – – 84.6 Oddo et al., 2008
Tetragona clavipes 1 19.1 – – 73.4 – Biluca et al., 2016
Tetragonilla collina 1 0.34 – – – – Chuttong et al., 2016
Tetragonisca angustula 20 32.28 – 370 – – Anacleto et al., 2009
1 – – 107 – 150 Rodriguez et al., 2009
3 23 50.1 142.27 – – Vit et al., 1998
5 17.9 – – Rodrigues et al., 1998
25 – – 144 – – Denadai et al., 2002
1 4.7 – – – – Chuttong et al., 2016
Tetragonula laeviceps-pagdeni complex 10 0.63 – – – – Chuttong et al., 2016
Tetragonula testaceitarsis 2 0.22 – – – – Chuttong et al., 2016
Tetrigona apicalis 1 4.9 – – – – Chuttong et al., 2016
Tetrigona melanoleuca 1 0.15 – – – – Chuttong et al., 2016
Trigona angustula latreille 44 16.7 – – – – Fuenmayor et al., 2012
Trigona fuscipennis 1 <3 – – 64.5 – Biluca et al., 2016
Trigona sp. 1 16.67 – 173.8 – – Issaro et al., 2013
Trigonalaeviceps Smith 1 13.64 – 178.7 – – Issaro et al., 2013
Trigonapagdenis Schwarz 1 11.11 – 136.4 – – Issaro et al., 2013
Average 7.08 41.5 314.96 70.39 92.90
Standard Deviation 8.01 30.9 194.77 3.83 38.92

typically reduced or absent in adulterated, overheated or excessively 6.10. Soluble solids

stored honey (Almeida-Muradian et al., 2013). In stingless bees, ni-
trogen content reported ranges from 107 mg/100 g to 816 mg/100 g
with the mean of 323 mg/100 g and standard deviation of 184 mg/
100 g (Table 5). The lowest nitrogen content reported in Tetragonisca
angustula honey from Peru and the highest nitrogen content was ob-
served in Melipona scutellaris honey from Brazil. No standard has been
set regarding the nitrogen content of honey.
The soluble solids in honey include sugars, organic acids, and mi-
nerals. The value of this parameter reveals the relationship between the
water and sugar content (Biluca et al., 2016). In general, the soluble
solids value in stingless bee honey is lower than Apis mellifera honey
due to the higher water content and lower sugar content. This is ap-
parent because the value ranges from 64.5 Brix to 75.8 Brix in stingless
bee compared to Apis mellifera honey that ranges from 78.77 Brix to

99
A. Nordin et al. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 73 (2018) 91–102

316.92 Brix. In stingless bee, the soluble solid values have a mean of Table 7
70.39 Brix and a standard deviation of 3.83 Brix (Table 5). The lowest Phenolic compounds detected in stingless bee honey.
value of soluble solids was detected in the honey of Melipona bicolor and Phenolic compound Melipona seminigra Melipona beecheii
the highest value of soluble solids was detected in the honey of Melipona
scutellaris (Biluca et al., 2016). Both stingless bee species originated Coumaric acid Yes Yes
Luteolin Yes Yes
from Brazil. This parameter is not regarded in any of the quality stan-
Gallic acid Yes No
dards for honey. 3,4 Dihydroxybenzoic acid Yes No
4-Hydroxybenzoic acid Yes No
Vanillic acid Yes No
6.11. Minerals
Salicylic acid Yes No
Syringic acid Yes No
In Apis mellifera honey, the mineral content of the honey is fre- Cinnamic acid Yes No
quently reported to relate the nutritional benefit of honey (Solayman Catechol Yes No
trans,trans Abscisic Yes No
et al., 2016). In stingless bee honey, mineral content was evaluated in
cis, trans Absicic Yes No
65 samples. A total of 14 minerals had been studied by 6 research Taxifolin Yes No
groups, potassium (K), sodium (Na), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), Naringenin Yes No
manganese (Mn), phosphorus (P), iron (Fe), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), Dihydrocaffeic acid No Yes
barium (Ba), cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), arsenic (As), and mercury (Hg) C-pentosyl-C-hexosyl-apigenin No Yes
Quercetin deoxyhexosyl hexoside No Yes
(Abu Bakar et al., 2017; Kek et al., 2017; Lemos et al., 2018; Biluca
Apigenin trihexoside No Yes
et al., 2016; Fuenmayor et al., 2012, Onyenso et al., 2011). Four major Kaempferol deoxyhexosyl hexoside No Yes
minerals were detected in stingless bee honey, which are K, Na, Ca, and Isorhamnetin deoxyhexosyl hexoside No Yes
Mg. The most abundant minerals in stingless bee honey was found to be Quercetin No Yes
K, ranging from 45.9 mg/100 g to 1357.76 mg/100 g. This is followed Isorhamnetin No Yes
Bis-methylated quercetin No Yes
by Na, ranging from 0.78 mg/100 g to 589.7 mg/100 g. Next is Ca, Apigenin No Yes
ranging from 3.85 mg/100 g to 199.6 mg/100 g, and finally Mg, ran- Kaempferol No Yes
ging from 1.15 mg/100 g to 73.76 mg/100 g. Table 6 illustrated the Methyl luteolin No Yes
minerals content in stingless bee honey. No specific standards have Methyl quercetin No Yes
been set in terms of the mineral content of stingless bee honey.

honey samples. However, only two phenolic compounds, coumaric acid

6.12. Phenolic compound
According to the Malaysian Standards, the presence of plant phe-
nolic is an indicator of a good quality stingless bee honey. Benzoic acid,
phenylpropanoic acid, 4-hydroxybenzoic acid, 4-hydroxyphenylacetic
acid, vanilic acid, protocatechuic acid, and p-coumaric acid are among
the suggested indicators of a good quality honey (Malaysian Standards,
2017). Two studies reported the presence of individual phenolic com-
pound in their stingless bee honey sample (Alvarez-Suarez et al., 2018,
Silva et al., 2013). Both studies detected the presence of 14 different
phenolic compounds in their Melipona seminigra and Melipona beecheii
and luteolin, were shared by both samples. Table 7 illustrate the phe-
nolic compound detected in stingless bee honey. Detection of coumaric
acid in both honey samples qualify them to be of good quality following
Malaysian standards (Malaysian Standards, 2017). However, detection
of 4-hydroxybenzoic acid and vanilic acid in Melipona seminigra sug-
gested a superior quality according to the Malaysian Standards (Silva
et al., 2013). Hence, a more harmonized standard in terms of phenolic
compound of the stingless bee is also of a paramount importance.

Table 6
Mineral content of stingless bee honey.
Bee Species K (mg/100 g) Na (mg/ Ca (mg/ Mg (mg/ Mn (mg/ P (mg/ Fe (mg/ Cu (mg/ Zn (mg/ Ba (mg/ Reference
100 g) 100 g) 100 g) 100 g) 100 g) 100 g) 100 g) 100 g) 100 g)

Geniotrigona thoracica 352.53 – 84.12 51.61 – – – – 3.61 – Abu Bakar et al.,

2017
Heterotrigona itama 539.46 – 135.78 31.61 – – – – 4.72 – Abu Bakar et al.,
2017
732.2 589.7 191.9 33.81 – 0.21 6.57 1.766 2.16 – Kek et al., 2017
Melipona beecheii – 11.96 26.51 – – 1.03 – – – – Onyenso et al.,
2011
Melipona bicolor 126.12 4.75 14.79 5.96 0.70 – – – – – Biluca et al., 2016
Melipona fasciculata 448.80 555.07 44.42 12.37 0.17 – – 0.02 – 0.68 Lemos et al., 2017
Melipona flavolineata 127.52 235.28 58.41 28.73 5.51 25.61 – 0.15 – 0.15 Lemos et al., 2017
Melipona marginata 109.06 6.942 11.052 4.17 0.37 – – – – – Biluca et al., 2016
Melipona mondury 194.5 9.335 21.03 9.785 1.12 – – – – Biluca et al., 2016
Melipona quadrifasciata 87.33 4.96 8.03 3.56 0.61 – – – – – Biluca et al., 2016
Melipona rufiventris 45.9 2.25 5.78 2.32 < 0.91 – – – – – Biluca et al., 2016
mondury
Melipona scutellaris < 10.55 0.78 8.24 2.11 < 0.91 – – – – – Biluca et al., 2016
Scaptotrigona bicuntata 168 6.31 10.32 4.45 0.26 – – – – – Biluca et al., 2016
Scaptotrigona sp. 1357.76 212.62 124.82 73.76 1.69 23.69 – 0.53 – 0.12 Lemos et al., 2017
Tetragona clavipes 278 9.04 15.9 7.71 < 0.91 – – – – – Biluca et al., 2016
Trigona angustula 576.6 155.0 199.6 56.0 – – 5.8 0.9 19.6 – Fuenmayor et al.,
latreille 2012
Trigona carbonaria – 12.67 25.43 – – 0.76 – – – – Onyenso et al.,
2011
Trigona fuscipennis 49.2 2.66 3.85 1.15 < 0.91 – – – – – Biluca et al., 2016

100
A. Nordin et al.
6.13. Color
Honey’s color can vary from straw yellow to almost black. This
property is dependent to the mineral content, pollen and phenolic
content of the honey (Solayman et al., 2016). Honey’s color varies
greatly according to its geographical origin (Bertoncelj et al., 2007).
The method of production and agricultural practices also can influence
the color of honey (Almeida-Muradian and other 2013). In stingless
bees, the honey color ranges from 26 Pfund to 150 Pfund when mea-
sured using a photometer (Table 5). The data has a mean of 92.9 Pfund
and a standard deviation of 38.92 Pfund. The highest intensity of color
was detected in Tetragonisca angustula honey from Brazil and the lowest
intensity of color was detected in Melipona ilota from Peru. There is no
standard set for honey in terms of color.
7. Strength and limitation
A literature search using predefined keywords in two separate da-
tabases has allowed us to obtain all of the available reports on the
stingless bee honey composition. However, the search strategy might
miss some studies that did not use standard keywords during indexing.
The search might also miss studies that look into the composition of
stingless bee honey as a secondary outcome. The compiled literature
revealed a variation of stingless bee honey species, making interpreta-
tion of the results difficult. However, this review might be a guide to
start the standardization of studies done on stingless bee honey around
the globe.
8. Conclusion
This review has revealed significant difference in terms of stingless
bee species of interest that was selected by researchers from different
part of the globe. In general, the current data on stingless bee supported
previously reported greater moisture content, higher acidity, lower
sugar composition, and lower enzyme activity in stingless bees com-
pared to Apis mellifera bees. The current data reiterates the need for an
exclusive standard of quality for stingless bee and validates the pre-
viously available standards from Latin America and Malaysia. A har-
monized international standard is proposed to better accommodate
stingless bee honey from all over the world.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
(UKM). We would like to acknowledge the UKM library for access to the
scientific databases. UKM also provided financial support in the form
scholarship (Zamalah UKM) for Abid Nordin to pursue his PhD degree.
We would also like to acknowledge AMRUS Medik Sdn. Bhd. for fi-
nancial support in the form of research grant (FF-2017-20).
References
Abd Jalil, M.A., Kasmuri, A.R., Haid, H., 2017. Stingless bee honey, the natural wound
healer: a review. Skin. Pharmacol. Physiol. 30, 66–75.
Abu Bakar, M., Sanusi, S., Abu Bakar, F., Cong, O., Mian, Z., 2017. Physicochemical and
antioxidant potential of raw unprocessed honey from Malaysian stingless bees. Pak. J.
Nutr. 16 (11), 888–894.
Acquarone, C., Buera, P., Elizalde, B., 2007. Pattern of pH and electrical conductivity
upon honey dilution as a complementary tool for discriminating geographical origin
of honeys. Food Chem. 101, 695–703.
Almeida, D., Marchini, L.C., 2004. Physicochemical and pollinic composition of honey
samples of stingless bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Meliponini) from the Cerrado of
Pirassununga campus, University of São Paulo, in Pirassununga, State of São Paulo,
Brazil. Proc. 8th Int. Conf. on Tropical Bees and VI Encontro sobre Abelhas. pp. 585.
Almeida-Muradian, L.B., Matsuda, A.H., Bastos, D.H.M., 2007. Physicochemical para-
meters of Amazon Melipona honey. Quim Nova 30 (3), 707–708.
Almeida-Muradian, L.B., Stramm, K.M., Horita, A., Barth, O.M., Freitas, A.S., Estevinho,
L.M., 2013. Comparative study of the physicochemical and palynological character-
istics of honey from Melipona subnitida and Apis Mellifera. Int. Food Sci. Technol.
48, 1698–1706.
101
Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 73 (2018) 91–102
Alvárez-Suárez, J.M., Giampieri, F., Brenciani, A., Mazzoni, L., Gasparrini, M., Gonzalez-
Paramas, A.M., Santos-Buelga, C., Morroni, G., Simoni, S., Forbes-Hernandez, T.Y.,
Afrin, S., Givanetti, E., Battino, M., 2018. Apis mellifera vs Melipona beecheii cuban
polifloral honeys: a comparison base on their physicochemical parameters, chemical
composition and biology properties. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 87, 272–279.
Alves, R.M.O., Carvalho, C.A.L., Souza, B.A., Sodré, G.S., Marchini, L.C., 2005.
Características físico-químicas de amostras de mel de Melipona mandacaia Smith
(Hymenoptera: Apidae). Ciênc Tecnol Aliment 25, 644–650.
Anacleto, D.A., Souza, B.A., Marchini, L.C., 2009. Composition of the honey of samples
originated from Jatai bees (Tetragonisca angustula latreille, 1811). Cienc Technol
Aliment 29 (3), 535–541.
Anklam, E., 1998. A review of the analytical methods to determine the geographical and
botanical origin of honey. Food Chem. 63 (4), 549–562.
Babarinde, G.O., Babarinde, S.A., Adegbola, D.O., Ajayeoba, S.I., 2011. Effects of har-
vesting methods on physicochemical and microbial qualities of honey. J. Food Sci.
Technol. 48 (5), 628–634.
Bertoncelj, J., Dobersek, U., Jamnik, M., Golob, T., 2007. Evaluation of the phenolic
content, antioxidant activity and colour of Slovenian honey. Food Chem. 105,
822–828.
Biluca, F.C., Braghini, F., Gonzaga, L.V., Costa, A.C.O., Fett, R., 2016. Physicochemical
profiles, minerals, and bioactive compounds of stingless bee honey (Meliponinae). J.
Food Comp. Anal. 50, 61–69.
Carvalho, C.A.L., Sodre, G.S., Fonseca, A.A.O., Alves, R.M.O., Souza, B.A., Clarton, L.,
2009. Physicochemical characteristics and sensory profile of honey samples from
stingless bees (Apidae: Meliponinae) submitted to a dehumidification process. A
Acad. Bras Cienc 81 (1), 143–149.
Chuttong, B., Chanbang, Y., Sringarm, K., Burgett, M., 2016. Physicochemical profiles of
stingless bee (Apidae: Meliponini) honey from South East Asia (Thailand). Food
Chem. 192, 149–155.
Codex Alimentarius Commission, 2001. Alinorm 41/10: revised standard for honey.
Alinorm 1, 19–26.
Denadai, J.M., Ramos-Filho, M.M., Costa, D.C., 2002. Caracterização físico-química de
mel de abelhas Jataí (Tetragonisca angustula) do município de Campo Grande - MS.
Obtenção de parâmetros para análise de rotina. Anais XIV Cong. Bras. de
Apicultura. 80.
do Vale, M.A.D., Fábio Augusto Gomes, F.A., dos Santos, B.R.C., Ferreira, J.B., 2017.
Honey quality of Melipona sp. bees in Acre, Brazil. Acta Agron 67 (2), 201–207.
Evangelista-Rodrígues, A., Silva, E.M., Beserra, E.M., Rodrígues, M.L., 2005. Análise
físicoquímica dos méis das abelhas Apis mellifera e Melipona scutellaris produzidos
em duas regiões no Estado de Paraíba. Ciênc Rural 35, 1166–1171.
Felsner, M.L., Cano, C.B., Bruns, R.E., Watanabe, H.M., Almeida-Muradian, L.B., Matos,
J.R., 2004. Characterization of monofloral honeys by ash contents through a hier-
archical design. J. Food Comp. Anal. 17, 737–747.
Fernandes, R.T., Rosa, I.G., Conti-Silva, A.C., 2018. Microbiological and physical-che-
mical characteristics of honeys from the bee Melipona fasciculata produced in two
regions of Brazil. Ciênc Rural 48 (5), e20180025.
Fuenmayor, C.A., Zuluaga-Dominguez, C.M., Diaz-Moreno, A.C., Quicazan, M.C., 2012.
Miel de angelita: Nutritional composition and physicochemical properties of
Tetragonisca angustula honey. Intercencia 37, 142–147.
Gomes, V.V., Dourado, G.S., Costa, S.C., Lima, A.K.O., Silva, D.S., Bandeira, A.M.,
Vasconcelos, A.A., Taube, P.S., 2017. Evaluation of the quality of honey commer-
cialized in Western Pará. Braz. Rev. Virtual Quim 9 (2), 815–826.
Gonnet, M., Lavie, P., Nogueira-Neto, P., 1964. Étude de quelques characteristiques des
miels récoltés para certains méliponines brésiliens. Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. Paris
258, 3107–3109.
Grajales, C.J., Rincón, R.M., Vandame, R., Santiesteban, N.A., Guzmán, D., 2001.
Características físicas, químicas y efecto microbiológico de mieles de Meliponinos y
Apis mellifera de la región Soconusco, Chiapas. II Seminario Mexicano sobre Abejas
sin Aguijón, Mérida, Mexico, pp. 61–66.
Guerrini, A., Bruni, R., Maietti, S., Poli, F., Rossi, D., Paganetto, G., Muzzoli, M.,
Scalvenzi, L., Sacchetti, G., 2009. Ecuadorian stingless bee (Meliponinae) honey: a
chemical and functional profile of an ancient health product. Food Chem. 114,
1413–1420.
International Honey Commission, 2009. Harmonised Methods of the International Honey
Commission. 63 pp. Swiss Bee Research Centre, Bern: FAM, Liebefeld.
Issaro, N., Weerakul, T., Machana, S., Ornnim, P., Phanudulkitti, C., Srijan, T.,
Laiwattanaphaisal, J., Pattarapanich, C., 2013. Stingless bee honey II: qualitative and
quantitative studies on honey produced by three stingless bee species collected from a
mangosteen garden in Chantaburi province, Thailand. Thai J. Pharm. Sci. 38 Suppl.
Jimenez, M., Beristain, C.I., Azuara, E., Mendoza, M.R., Pascual, L.A., 2016.
Physicochemical and antioxidant properties of honey from Scaptotrigona mexicana
bee. J. Apic. Res. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00218839.2016.1205294.
Kek, S., Chin, N., Yusof, Y., Tan, S., Chua, L., 2017. Classification of entomological origin
of honey based on its physicochemical and antioxidant properties. In J. Food Prop. 20
(sup3), S2723–S2738.
Lage, L.G.A., Coelho, L.L., Resende, H.C., Tavares, M.G., Campos, L.A.O., Fernandes-
Salomao, T.M., 2012. Honey physicochemical properties of three species of the
brazilian Melipona. A Acad. Bras Cienc 84 (3), 605–608.
Lemos, M., Venturieri, G., Dantas Filho, H., Dantas, K., 2018. Evaluation of the physi-
cochemical parameters and inorganic constituents of honeys from the amazon region.
J. Api Res. 57 (1), 135–144.
Malaysian Standards, 2017. Kelulut (Stingless Bee) Honey – Specification. Department of
Standards Malaysia. MS, pp. 2683.
Marchini, L.C., Carvalho, C.A.L., Alves, R.M.O., Teixeira, G.M., Rubia, V.R., 1998.
Características físico-químicas de amostras de méis da abelha Uruçu (Melipona scu-
tellaris). XII Congresso Brasileiro de Apicultura 201.
A. Nordin et al.
Michener, C.D., 2000. The Bees of the World. The Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore, Maryland, USA, pp. 913.
Michener, C.D., 2013. The meliponini. In: Vit, P., Pedro, S.R.M., Roubik, D.W. (Eds.), Pot-
Honey: A Legacy of Stingless Bees. Springer, New York, pp. 3–17.
Moniruzzaman, M., Chowdhury, M.A.Z., Abdur Rahman, M., Sulaiman, S.A., Siew, H.G.,
2014. Determination of mineral, trace element, and pesticide levels in honey samples
originating from different regions of Malaysia compared to manuka honey. Biomed.
Res. Int. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/359890. Article ID 359890, 10 pages.
Nogeuira-Neto, P., 1997. Carateristicas diversas, distribuicao geografica e aclimatacao.
In: Nogueira-Neto, P. (Ed.), Vida e criacao de abelhas indigenas sem ferrao. Sao
Paulo, Noguerapis, pp. 33–38.
Nweze, J.A., Okafor, J.I., Nweze, E.I., Nweze, J.E., 2017. Evaluation of physicochemical
and antioxidant properties of two stingless bee honeys: a comparison with Apis
mellifera honey from Nsukka. Niger. BMC Res. Notes 10, 566.
Oddo, L.P., Piazza, M.G., Pulcini, P., 1999. Invertase activity in honey. Apidologie 30,
57–65.
Oddo, L.P., Heard, T.A., Rodriguez-Malaver, A., Perez, R.A., Fernandez-Muino, M.,
Sancho, M.T., Sesta, G., Lusco, L., Vit, P., 2008. Composition and antioxidant activity
of trigona carbonaria honey from Australia. J. Med. Food 11 (4), 789–794.
Onyenso, A.L., Akachuku, C.O., 2011. Physico-chemical properties of honeys produced by
two stingless bee species—Trigonacarbonaria and Melipona Beecheii in South-
Eastern Nigeria. J. Agric. For. Soc. Sci. 9 (1), 19–26.
Pasias, I.N., Kiriakou, I.K., Proestos, C., 2017. HMF and diastase activity in honeys: a fully
validated approach and a chemometric analysis for identification of honey freshness
and adulteration. Food Chem. 229, 425–431.
Puciarelli, A.B., Schapovaloff, M.E., Kummritz, S., Senuk, I.A., Brumovsky, L.A.,
Dallagnol, A.M., 2014. Microbiological and physicochemical analysis of yatei
(Tetragonisca angustula) honey for assessing quality standards and commercializa-
tion. Rev. Argent Microbiol. 46 (4), 325–332.
Ramanauskiene, K., Stelmakiene, A., Briedis, V., Ivanauskas, L., Jakštas, V., 2012. The
quantitative analysis of biologically active compounds in Lithuanian honey. Food
Chem. 132, 1544–1548.
Rasmussen, C., Cameron, S.A., 2010. Global stingless bee phylogeny supports ancient
divergence, vicariance, and long distance dispersal. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 99, 206–232.
Rodrigues, A.C.L., Marchini, L.C., Carvalho, C.A.L., 1998. Análises de mel de Apis mel-
lifera L. 1758 e Tetragonisca angustula (Latreille, 1811) coletado em Piracicaba-SP.
Rev. Agric. 73, 255–262.
Rodríguez-Malavera, A.J., Rasmussen, C., Gutiérrez, M.G., Gild, F., Nieves, B., Vit, P.,
2009. Properties of honey from ten species of Peruvian stingless bees. NPC 4 (9),
1221–1226.
Sancho, M.T., Mato, I., Huidobro, J.F., Fernández-Muiño, M.A., Pascual-Maté, A., 2013.
Nonaromatic organic acids of honeys. In: Vit, P., Pedro, S.R.M., Roubik, D.W. (Eds.),
Pot-Honey: A Legacy of Stingless Bees. Springer, New York, pp. 447–458.
Santiesteban-Hernández, A., Cuadriello, J.A., Loper, G., 2003. Comparación de
parámetros físico-químicos de mieles de abejas sin aguijón y Apis mellifera de la
región del Sonocusco, Chiapas, México. III Seminario Mesoamericano sobre Abejas
sin Aguijón. Tapachula, Mexico, pp. 60–61.
Sato, T., Miyata, G., 2000. The nutraceutical benefit, part 3: honey. Nutrition 16,
102
Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 73 (2018) 91–102
468–469.
Silva, I.A.A., Silva, T.M.S., Camara, C.A., Queiroz, N., Magnani, M., Novais, J.S.,
Soledade, L.E.B., Oliveira Lima, E., Souza, A.L., Souza, A.G., 2013. Phenolic profile,
antioxidant activity and palynological analysis of stingless bee honey from
Amazonas, Northern Brazil. Food Chem. 141, 3552–3558.
Simone-Finstrom, M., Spivak, M., 2010. Propolis and bee health: the natural history and
significance of resin use by honey bees. Apidologie 41, 295–311.
Solayman, M., Islam, M.A., Paul, S., Ali, Y., Khalil, M.I., Alam, N., Gan, S.H., 2016.
Physicochemical properties, minerals, trace elements, and heavy metals in honey of
different origins: a comprehensive review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 15,
219–233.
Sousa, J.M.B., Souza, E.L., Marques, G., Toledo Benassi, M., Gullon, B., Pintado, M.M.,
Magnani, M., 2016. Sugar profile, physicochemical and sensory aspects of monofloral
honeys produced by different stingless bee species in Brazilian semi-arid region. Food
Sci. Technol. 65, 645–651.
Souza, D.C., Bazlen, K., 1998. Análises preliminares de características físico-químicas de
méis de tiúba (melipona compressipes). Anais XII Cong. Bras. de Apicultura.
267–268.
Souza, B.A., Carvalho, C.A.L., Sodre, G.S., Marchini, L.C., 2004. Caracteristicasfisico-
quimicas de amostrasde mel de Melipona asilvai (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Cienc Rural
34, 1623–1624.
Souza, B., Roubik, D., Barth, O., Heard, T., Enriquez, E., Carvalho, C., Villas-Boas, J.,
Marchini, L., Locatelli, J., Persano-Oddo, L., Almeida-Muradian, L., Bogdanov, S., Vit,
P., 2006. Composition of stingless bee honey: setting quality standards. Interciencia
31, 867–875.
Suntiparapop, K., Prapaipong, P., Chantawannakul, P., 2012. Chemical and biological
properties of honey from Thai stingless bee (Tetragonula leaviceps). J. Apic. Res. 51
(1), 45–52.
Tomas-Barberan, F.A., Ferreres, F., Garcia-Viguera, C., Tomas-Lorente, F., 1992.
Flavonoids in honey of different geographical origin. Lebensmittel Untersuchung und
Forschung 196, 38–44.
Tuksitha, L., Chen, Y., Chen, Y., Wong, K., Peng, C., 2018. Antioxidant and antibacterial
capacity of stingless bee honey from Borneo (Sarawak). J Asia Pac. Entomol 21 (2),
563–570.
Villas-Bôas, J.K., Malaspina, O., 2005. Parâmetros físico-químicos propostos para o
controle de qualidade do mel de abelhas sem ferrão no Brasil. Mensagem Doce 82,
6–16.
Vit, P., Pucini, P., 1996. Diastase and invertase activities in Meliponini and Trigonini
honeys from Venezuela. J. Apic. Res. 35 (2), 57–62.
Vit, P., Bogdanov, S., Kilchenmann, V., 1994. Composition of Venezuelan honeys from
stingless bee (Apidae: Meliponinae) and Apis mellifera L. Apidologie 25, 278–288.
Vit, P., Persano Oddo, L., Marano, M.L., Salas de Mejías, E., 1998. Venezuelan stingless
bee honeys characterized by multivariate analysis of physicochemical properties.
Apidologie 29, 377–389.
Vit, P., Medina, M., Enriquez, M.E., 2004. Quality standards for medicinal uses of
Meliponinae honey in Guatemala, Mexico and Venezuela. Bee World. 85 (11), 2–5.
Weaver, N., Weaver, E.C., 2015. Beekeeping with the stingless Bee Meupona Beecheii, by
the Yucatecan Maya. Bee World 62 (1), 7–19.