Trends in Food Science & Technology 106 (2020) 402–416

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Trends in Food Science & Technology

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

Trends in food science & technology an overview of mead production and

the physicochemical, toxicological, and sensory characteristics of mead
with a special emphasis on flavor
Małgorzata Starowicz a, Michael Granvogl b, *
a
Department of Chemistry and Biodynamics of Food, Division of Food Science, Institute of Animal Reproduction and Food Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences,
Tuwima 10, 10-748 Olsztyn 5, Poland
b
Department of Food Chemistry and Analytical Food Chemistry (170a), Institute of Food Chemistry, University of Hohenheim, Garbenstrasse 28, 70599 Stuttgart,
Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Background: Mead is a traditional alcoholic beverage obtained by fermentation of mead wort and is popularly
Honey produced at home and/or in small meaderies. Different types of mead can be distinguished based on honey-to-
Mead water ratio, addition of spices and/or fruits, and the method of wort preparation. The consumption of mead has
Alcoholic beverage
gained popularity in Europe owing to the presence of its natural and high-quality compounds. As a result, mead
Aroma-active compounds
Antioxidant properties
production has remarkably increased during the past years, and increasing attention has been paid to improve its
Sensory evaluation production parameters.
Hydroxymethylfurfural Scope and approach: In the first part of this comprehensive review, general aspects of mead production and the
characteristic parameters of alcoholic beverages, including organic acid content, pH value, ethanol content,
titratable acidity, volatile acidity, and residual sugar content are discussed. In the second part, the aroma profile
and sensory acceptability of mead, including parameters that might influence the characteristic aroma of mead,
is presented.
Key findings and conclusions: The flavor of mead mainly depends on the type of honey used for fermentation, and
the analysis of odorants is one of the most important criteria in the quality evaluation of mead. In addition, the
presence of hydroxymethylfurfural, one of the major Maillard reaction products, and of phenolic compounds is
related to the type of honey used. Furthermore, the antioxidant activity of mead significantly correlates with the
type and amount of honey used for mead preparation.

1. Introduction
Honey is used in the production of a few varieties of alcoholic bev­
erages, including “hard” ciders, flavored whiskeys, bourbon, beers, or
honey brandies. Mild honeys, such as clover honey, are generally
preferred by brewers for production of lager beer. Other floral types of
honey, including wildflower, buckwheat, sage, and orange blossom, are
used for the production of porters, stouts, herb beers, and spiced beers.
During the production of alcoholic beverages, honey can be added either
to the boiling kettle or to the fermenter (Ropa, 2014). “Hard” ciders are
made with added sugar, honey, molasses, or fruits. Honey gives a sweet,
smooth, and mellow taste as well as a pleasant floral aroma to the cider.
In addition, it increases the alcohol content of the cider owing to the
increased amount of sugars available for fermentation.
Currently, mead (also known as honey wine) is the most popular
reintroduced alcoholic beverage based on honey.
It is a traditional alcoholic beverage obtained by fermentation of
honey diluted with water, and the honey-to-water ratio is adjusted to
1:0.5, 1:1, 1:2, or 1:3 (each v:v). The final ethanol content of mead varies
from approximately 8 to 18% (Navrátil et al., 2001). Mead has been
produced since ancient times, mainly in Eastern European countries,
including Poland and Lithuania. According to data from 2013, Poland is
the biggest producer worldwide with 1.2 million liters of mead produced
annually (Comeback of honey meads, 2013). Fermentation and matu­
ration are the two most time-consuming processes in mead production,
often lasting a few months to years (Ramalhosa, Gomes, Pereira, Dias, &
Estevinho, 2011). Thereby, the ethanol content of mead strictly corre­
lates with the carbohydrate content of the honey used. In traditional

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: michael.granvogl@uni-hohenheim.de (M. Granvogl).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.09.006
Received 25 March 2020; Received in revised form 26 August 2020; Accepted 17 September 2020
Available online 22 September 2020
0924-2244/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Starowicz and M. Granvogl
mead recipes, further ingredients, including fruits, spices, and herbs, are
added. Accordingly, mead can be classified into different groups,
including pyment (made with grapes), cyser (made with apples),
melomel (made with fruits), and metheglin (made with spices)
(McConnell & Schramm, 1995). Mead can also be categorized depend­
ing on whether the wort is boiled before fermentation or not. Saccha­
romyces cerevisiae is the most commonly used yeast in mead production.
Although mead is not as popular as other alcoholic beverages owing to
its lesser availability and higher price, mead production and the number
of meaderies and home brewers have increased at a high rate in the past
few years. Interestingly, in Cuba, even a control procedure was defined
to limit mead production (Pino & Fajardo, 2011).
Therefore, increasing attention has been paid to the improvement of
the mead production parameters the past years (Cuenca et al., 2016;
Gomes et al., 2013; Iglesias et al., 2014; Schwarz et al., 2020; Sroka &
Satora, 2017). The characteristic parameters of spirit fermentation,
including organic acid content, pH value, ethanol content, titratable
acidity, volatile acidity, and residual sugar content, have been studied in
detail. However, there are fewer studies on the chemical composition
and sensory evaluation of mead available (Peepall et al., 2019; Pereira
et al., 2019). In this review, state-of-the-art information about
aroma-active compounds and sensory attributes, which are responsible
for odor modulation of selected types of mead, will be presented. In
addition to general sensory analysis, the role of hydroxymethylfurfural
(HMF) as a toxicologically relevant compound in honey mead and the
correlation between the content of phenolic compounds and antioxidant
activity of mead will also be discussed. The present review not only
summarizes contemporary knowledge about mead, but also reveals still
open gaps for previous studies.
2. Evaluation of the production process of mead
Mead is a traditional honey-based alcoholic beverage with 8–18%
alcohol content (Navrátil et al., 2001). Based on the honey-to-water
ratio used in mead production, different types of mead have been
distinguished: “półtorak” (1:0.5, v:v), “dwójniak” (1:1, v:v), “trójniak”
(1:2, v:v), and “czwórniak” (1:3, v:v) (Polish Standard, 1999). In addi­
tion, mead can also be classified based on the technological process
applied: “sycony” and “niesycony” (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development, 2013). For “sycony”, the wort is boiled, whereas this step
is omitted for “niesycony”. The presented classification is applied in
Poland; in other countries, the nomenclature differs based on further
ingredients added during mead preparation, including spices and fruit
juices. Moreover, different types of honey, including multifloral,
heather, and buckwheat can be used for mead production. The general
scheme of mead production is presented in Fig. 1. According to the
procedure described by Gupta & Sharma (2009), first, honey is diluted
with a certain amount of water. To this diluted honey solution, organic
acids (e.g., citric acid or malic acid) and/or inorganic salts, including
diammonium hydrogen phosphate, potassium bitartrate, and magne­
sium chloride, are added. In certain cases, sulfur dioxide (100 ppm) is
added to the wort to provide protection from oxidation and microbial
spoilage. Next, yeast, mostly Saccharomyces cerevisiae (3–5%), is added
to the wort to initiate fermentation. The honey wort can be boiled for 2
to 4 h before fermentation, if required. The sensory quality of preheated
mead remains acceptable for a longer period during long-term storage
compared to that of unheated mead (Gupta & Sharma, 2009). Finally,
the mead is siphoned, bottled, pasteurized, and matured in bottles for
nine months to two years.
Fermentation is the second most time-consuming step (maturation
being the first) that generally takes several weeks to accomplish.
Therefore, several studies have focused on optimizing this step. Vidrih
and Hribar (2007) have reported that fermentation of chestnut mead is
completed in 24 days, whereas the fermentation of lime and honeydew
mead takes 39 days. Mendes-Ferreira et al. (2010) demonstrated that the
fermentation period can be reduced by adding potassium bitartrate,
403
Trends in Food Science & Technology 106 (2020) 402–416
malic acid, and diammonium hydrogen phosphate to the wort. Pereira,
Dias, Andrade, Ramalhosa, & Estevinho (2009) achieved mead
fermentation within only 8 days, and Srimeena et al. (2014) achieved
fermentation of Indian rock bee (Apis dorsata) mead within a very short
period of 6 days. To enable monitoring of the fermentation process, a
novel strategy based on proton transfer reaction-mass spectrometry
(PTR-MS) was developed by Cuenca et al. (2016). PTR-MS seems to be
an effective method to control volatile compound formation during
mead fermentation, does not require sample preparation, extraction,
and concentration steps, and can be used to ensure a high sensory
quality of the final product. The advantage of PTR-MS is its applicability
to any type of mead, and the results are obtained rapidly without the
need of a chromatographic separation prior to mass spectrometry.
Literature reveals that most studies have been directed towards
optimizing fermentation parameters or improving the sensory attributes
of alcoholic honey beverages. Details of the types of honey mead
investigated till date are presented in Table 1. The different ingredients
used for mead production can influence its characteristic parameters,
including organic acid content, pH value, residual sugar content, and
ethanol content. These parameters basically depend on fermentation
conditions and botanical source of the honey. Moreover, they can
interact with each other to influence the overall quality of mead.
2.1. Organic acids
Organic acids are an important group of compounds that influence
the organoleptic properties of fermented beverages, including wines
(Mato et al., 2005). Sroka and Tuszyński (2007) demonstrated that the
organic acid content changes during fermentation of mead wort. In
Polish mead (honey-to-water ratio, 1:2 (v:v)), high amounts of capric
acid, lauric acid, and caprylic acid were detected in the first week of
fermentation. Thereafter, the concentrations of these organic acids
significantly decreased. In mead with honey-to-water ratios of 1:2 (v:v)
and 1:3 (v:v), acetic acid and formic acid were the most abundant
organic acids, and the concentrations of these acids were higher in 1:2
(v:v) mead than in 1:3 (v:v) mead. The results obtained for Polish mead
were comparable with the results obtained by Šmogrovičová et al.
(2012) for Slovak and South African mead. Hernández et al. (2015)
reported on the formation of acetic acid, formic acid, and succinic acid
in mead during fermentation, with the latter being the most abundant
organic acid in all samples. Thus, controlling the concentration of suc­
cinic acid might be a crucial step in mead production. The highest
concentration of succinic acid was noted in mead fermented with Fer­
miblanc and in pollen-supplemented mead (1.4 g L− 1). Mendes-Ferreira
et al. (2010) reported that the dominant acids responsible for the in­
crease in titratable acidity of mead are succinic acid and acetic acid.
However, in a study performed by Švecová, Bordovská, Kalvachová, &
Hájek (2015), gluconic acid (approx. 29 g L− 1) was the most abundant
organic acid in all Czech mead samples, and the content of other organic
acids were significantly lower compared to gluconic acid, and their
formation was dependent on the source of honey. It has also been re­
ported that the concentration of acetic acid in Czech mead significantly
increased after 24 days of fermentation, whereas the levels of other acids
remained constant.
2.2. pH value
The pH value of mead is strictly related to the fermentation condi­
tions; it is monitored throughout the fermentation process to determine
the progress of the process. Akalın et al. (2016) reported that the pH
values of mead prepared from different types of honey were different, e.
g., the pH value of blossom mead was 2.74 and that of
blossom-honeydew mead was 3.10. In another study, it was observed
that the pH value of soy mead (2.74) was lower than that of buckwheat
mead (3.23, which is comparable to that of commercial red wine
(Wintersteen et al., 2005)). According to Bénes et al. (2015), application
M. Starowicz and M. Granvogl Trends in Food Science & Technology 106 (2020) 402–416

Fig. 1. Flow diagram, presenting the general scheme of mead production (based on Gupta & Sharma, 2009).

404
 M. Starowicz and M. Granvogl
Table 1
Summary of honey mead investigated in up-to-date surveys.
Mead type Honey type Origin Preparation conditions Honey-to-water Strain Days of References
proportions fermentation

buckwheat mead buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum) USA low heat wort: 60 ◦ C, then put into 21 ◦ Brix S. cerevisiae 42 Wintersteen et al.
soy mead soybean ice bath for 60 min (2005)
high heat: 100 ◦ C for 10 min, then
put into ice bath for 30 min
Ethiopian honey- mandarin orange Japan no information 1:3 S. cerevisiae W4 3 Teramoto et al.
wine “Ogol” S. cerevisiae K7 (2005)
S. cerevisiae ET99
Korean honey-wine no information Korea no information 24 ◦ Brix S. sake 23 Kim et al. (2005)
S. bayanus 20
S. sake + nuruk 6
S. bayanus + 6
nuruk
cassava mead cassava Nigeria preheated (100 ◦ C for 20 min)/ 5:9 Bakery yeast 21 Ukpabi (2006)
unheated
honey mead chestnut, lime, and honeydew Slovenia no information 25% soluble solids S. cerevisiae var. bayanus strain No information Vidrih &
R2 (Lalvin) Hribsakear (2007)
honey mead with Chinese milk vetch, clover, clover + acacia, lemon, acacia Japan with/without unpolished black rice 1:4 W-4 yeast 15 Katoh et al. (2011)
black rice (Oryza sativa var. Indica cv. Shiun)
unifloral-based Campanilla morada (I. crassicaulis [Benth.] B.L. Robinson), Cuba with polyfloral pollen 25 ◦ Brix of soluble Bakery yeast 10 Pino & Fajardo
mead Romerillo de costa (V. dentate [Cav.] Spreng), citrus (Citrus solid content (2011)
spp. L.)
multifloral-based multifloral Spain pollen addition (10, 20, 30, 40, and 20-22 ◦ Brix S. cerevisiae (ENSIS-LE5) no information Roldán et al.
405

mead 50 g L-1) (2011)

sugarcane mead sugarcane Brazil ammonium sulfate, ammonium 20 ◦ Brix S. cerevisiae (Lalvin k1-1116) 17 Morales et al.
dihydrogen phosphate (2013)
longan mead longan (Dimocarpus longan) Taiwan no information 22 ◦ Brix of soluble 1) S. cerevisiae IOC 2000 22 Chen et al. (2013)
solid content 2) S. cerevisiae IOC 2000 +
Premier Cuvees (S. bayanus)
3) S. cerevisiae IOC 2000 +
S. cerevisiae IOC 2000
4) S. cerevisiae IOC 2000 +
S. cerevisiae IOC Revelation
Terroir
5) S. cerevisiae IOC 2000 +
S. cerevisiae IOC 18-2007

Trends in Food Science & Technology 106 (2020) 402–416

different strains blossom Slovakia no information 1:4 S. cerevisiae var. bayanus MM-R2, no information Bénes et al. (2015)
application MT-R1B, and FM-R-Fix1
mead from crystallized honey (Apis mellifera) Colombia different nitrogen sources: 24 ◦ Brix of soluble S. cerevisiae (UVAFERM BC) 20 Hernández et al.
crystallized honey • pollen solid content S. cerevisiae (FER BLANC AROM) (2015)
• yeast extract S. cerevisiae (Lalvin QA23)
• pollen + ammonium dihydrogen
phosphate
different types of blossom honeydew (Gossypium spp.) Turkey - Oechsle degrees: S. cerevisiae 29 Akalın et al.
honey blossom 1 0 35 (2016)
honeydew (Pinus spp.) 6 34
blossom 2 10 56
5
hydrocolloids buckwheat Poland preheated for 10 min 1:2 S. cerevisiae 25-30 Sroka and Satora
addition Johannisberg-Riesling (2017)
M. Starowicz and M. Granvogl
of different strains of S. cerevisiae did not affect the pH value, which is in
agreement with the study performed by Hernández et al. (2015), who
also did not observe significant differences in the pH value of mead
when different commercial yeasts and nitrogen sources were used.
Furthermore, supplementation of the honey wort with pollen, hydro­
colloids, inorganic salts (K2HPO4, MgSO4, and CaCl2), and vitamins
(B1–B3 and B5–B8) had no influence on the pH value of mead (Pereira,
Mendes-Ferreira, Oliveira, Estevinho, & Mendes-Faia, 2015; Roldán,
van Muiswinkel, Lasanta, Palacios, & Caro, 2011; Sroka & Satora,
2017)”. Only for the Ethiopian mead “Kuri”, high pH values (3.02–4.9)
were reported, which can be linked to the non-standardized home-­
brewed production procedure (Bahiru et al., 2001).
2.3. Ethanol concentration
The efficiency of ethanol production depends on initial sugar con­
centration, yeast strain, and time and temperature of the fermentation
process (Lin et al., 2012). A few studies also reported that the type of
honey influences the final concentration of ethanol. Wintersteen et al.
(2005) observed that the ethanol content of soy-based mead was low
(6.4%), whereas the ethanol content of buckwheat mead (11.5%) was
comparable to that of commercial wines. Akalın et al. (2017) reported
that the alcohol content of honeydew-based mead was 9.2%, whereas
that of blossom mead was 11.4%. Sroka and Satora (2017) demonstrated
that the addition of hydrocolloids, including xanthan gum, gum ghatti,
Arabic gum, and karaya gum, increased the ethanol content of mead to
12.4%, 12.8%, 13.1%, and 13.9%, respectively; however, no difference
in ethanol content was observed when carob bean gum was added
(10.9%). Similarly, Roldán, van Muiswinkel, Lasanta, Palacios, & Caro,
2011 reported that the addition of 10 g L− 1 of pollen increased the
ethanol content of mead from 9% to 12.4%. Hernández et al. (2015)
found that the ethanol content of mead was 47% when the commercial
yeast culture Uvaferm was used along with yeast extract as the nitrogen
source, whereas it was 49% when the commercial yeast culture Lalvin
QA23 was used along with pollen-ammonium dihydrogen phosphate as
the nitrogen source. These findings suggest that the final ethanol con­
centration of mead can be influenced by the yeast strain and nitrogen
source. Bénes et al. (2015) demonstrated that the use of different strains
of S. cerevisiae, including MM-R2, MT-R1B, and FM-R-Fix1, resulted in
ethanol concentrations of 17%, 14%, and 15%, respectively. Further­
more, Ukpabi (2006) reported that the ethanol content of mead pre­
pared from preheated honey (approx. 15%) was higher compared to that
prepared from unheated honey (12.7%), indicating that the thermal
treatment during the initial step of mead preparation can influence the
ethanol content in the final product.
2.4. Titratable acidity and volatile acidity
Acidity, measured in terms of tartaric acid equivalents, is an
important parameter that influences color and taste of wines (Czibulya
et al., 2015). Pereira, Mendes-Ferreira, Oliveira, Estevinho, &
Mendes-Faia, 2014 reported that the titratable acidity of honey wort
increased by almost a factor of 2 during fermentation. Wintersteen et al.
(2005) found that the acidity of home-brewed buckwheat mead (2.97 g
L− 1 of tartaric acid) and soy mead (3.89 g L− 1 of tartaric acid) was
statistically lower than those of commercial mead samples (5.90–8.80 g
L− 1 of tartaric acid). The acidity of blossom-honeydew and honeydew
mead was found to be two- to threefold higher than that of buckwheat
and soy mead (Akalın et al., 2016). Pereira, Mendes-Ferreira, Oliveira,
Estevinho, & Mendes-Faia (2014) reported that the type of honey used
406
Trends in Food Science & Technology 106 (2020) 402–416
for mead production influenced the titratable acidity of mead. However,
addition of hydrocolloids did not affect the titratable acidity of mead
(Sroka & Satora, 2017). In addition, no difference in titratable acidity
was observed after addition of either 2% or 4% of alginate to mead
fermented by S. cerevisiae strains QA23 and ICV D47 (Pereira,
Mendes-Ferreira, Oliveira, Estevinho, & Mendes-Faia, 2014).
Volatile acidity is another key parameter measured in fermented
beverages, and acetic acid is, by far, the most important volatile acid.
The amount of volatile acids in mead depends on wort composition,
yeast strain, and fermentation method. Volatile acidity increases during
fermentation owing to acetic acid formation (Sroka & Tuszyński, 2007),
which is generally after alcoholic fermentation the higher the higher the
sugar concentration was. Wintersteen et al. (2005) reported that the
volatile acidity of soy mead (0.91 g L− 1 of acetic acid) was almost twice
the volatile acidity of buckwheat mead (0.48 g L− 1). However, these
values were lower than those obtained for home-brewed soy mead and
commercial wines (1.30 and 1.90 g L− 1, respectively). Akalın et al.
(2016) reported that blossom-honeydew mead had the lowest volatile
acidity (0.240 g L− 1), and blossom mead had the highest one (0.764 g
L− 1). These results were consistent with data obtained by Gomes et al.
(2013), who reported that the volatile acidity of mead ranges between
0.12 and 0.78 g L− 1. Addition of hydrocolloids, including gum ghatti,
xanthan gum, Arabic gum, and karaya gum, decreased the volatile
acidity of buckwheat mead (honey-to-water ratio 1:2, v:v) by about 20%
compared to control mead (Sroka & Satora, 2017), which might be
related to the ability of hydrocolloids to limit stress factors. Pereira,
Mendes-Ferreira, Oliveira, Estevinho, & Mendes-Faia (2014) found that
the volatile acidity of mead did not change after addition of either 2% or
4% of alginate; however, the volatile acidity increased by 27% in mead
fermented with S. cerevisiae strains QA23 and ICV D47.
2.5. Content of residual/reducing sugars
Wintersteen et al. (2005) reported that soy mead contained a
significantly higher residual sugar content (20.6%) than buckwheat
mead (1.8%). Kim et al. (2005) demonstrated that the amount of
reducing sugars decreased rapidly within six days of fermentation,
remained constant for the following six days, and decreased again
thereafter. Bénes et al. (2015) observed that the sugar content of mead
fermented by strain MM-R2 (35 g L− 1) was 1.3 times higher compared to
those of mead fermented by strains MT-R1B and FM-R-Fix1 (26 g L− 1).
In this case, the sugar contents positively correlated with the ethanol
contents. The sugar content of the Ethiopian mead “Kuri” was found to
be very low (1.3 g L− 1) (Roger et al., 2014), which can again be linked to
the non-standardized home-brewed production. Further, it has been
reported that the addition of hydrocolloids significantly decreased the
content of reducing sugars in buckwheat mead; and the lowest reducing
sugar content (50 g L− 1) was noted in mead supplemented with karaya
gum (Sroka & Satora, 2017). Thus, the content of residual/reducing
sugars in mead influences the quality and taste of the mead. The content
of residual/reducing sugars is highly correlated with the sweetness and
the ethanol content of the final product. Gomes et al. (2015) reported
that not a high ethanol content, but a well-pronounced sweet taste of
mead led to an increased sensory acceptance of mead among consumers.
Therefore, the choice of yeast strain and time of fermentation are critical
factors for achieving the best sensory properties of mead.
M. Starowicz and M. Granvogl Trends in Food Science & Technology 106 (2020) 402–416

Table 2
Collected data of volatile compounds and their odor qualities determined in different types of mead.

407
M. Starowicz and M. Granvogl Trends in Food Science & Technology 106 (2020) 402–416

408
M. Starowicz and M. Granvogl
3. Aroma profile and sensory acceptability of different types of
mead
3.1. Volatile compounds
In alcoholic beverages, many volatile compounds are formed during
the fermentation process. The volatile compounds of spirits can be
grouped into chemical categories, including aldehydes, acids, higher
alcohols, and esters, leading to a so-called fingerprint (Procopio, Krause,
Hofmann, & Becker, 2013). Pino and Fajardo (2011) stated that the
analysis of flavor compounds is one of the important steps in the quality
evaluation of spirits. Many odorants, which contribute to the overall
aroma of foods, are generated during the Maillard reaction that occurs
during boiling of the wort. Therefore, the formation of volatile com­
pounds is mainly dependent on the content of reducing sugars and free
amino acids that can react with each other or participate in further
multiple reactions and on various parameters, including pH value, water
activity, and time and temperature of fermentation (Jousse et al., 2002).
Iglesias et al. (2014) noted that certain undesirable volatile compounds
may also be formed during mead production, which can negatively in­
fluence the aroma of mead. According to Pereira, Mendes-Ferreira,
Estevinho, and Mendes-Faia (2015), ethyl acetate, hexanoic acid, and
octanoic acid contributed to an off-flavor. An overview of volatile
compounds reported in mead is presented in Table 2.
The origin and type of honey and the fermentation process seem to
have a great impact on the composition of mead volatiles. Consistently,
the volatile profiles of low-heated and high-heated buckwheat mead
exhibited noticeable differences (Wintersteen et al., 2005). The total
amount of volatiles was significantly higher in high-heated (129.99 mg
L− 1) than in low-heated buckwheat mead (109.42 mg L− 1). This dif­
ference may be linked to the formation of Maillard-derived aroma vol­
atiles. For example, Wintersteen et al. (2005) observed that the
generation of isoamyl alcohol (3-methyl-1-butanol) was more effective
in high-heated buckwheat mead (116.73 mg L− 1) than in low-heated
buckwheat mead (104.31 mg L− 1). However, the total amount of vola­
tiles in low-heated (154.92 mg L− 1) and high-heated (151.27 mg L− 1)
soy mead were comparable. In buckwheat mead, 2-phenylethanol was
found to be a key aroma compound, beside a wide range of esters,
including isoamyl acetate (banana-like aroma), revealing high odor
activity values (OAVs; ratio of the odorant concentration to its odor
threshold) (Wintersteen et al., 2005). Zhou et al. (2012) reported on
(E)-β-damascenone, 2- and 3-methylbutanal, and 3-hydroxy-4,5-dime­
thylfuran-2(5H)-one (sotolon) as contributors to the aroma of buck­
wheat mead. Wintersteen et al. (2005) reported that heat treatment
stimulated the formation of 4-methylphenol (p-cresol), which possesses
an unpleasant phenolic, fecal, and horse stable-like odor. In this context,
heating might have a negative impact on the organoleptic properties of
the final product. In high-heated buckwheat mead, 4-methylphenol was
present at a concentration of 115.5 μg L− 1, whereas it was absent in
low-heated buckwheat mead. The concentration of 4-methylphenol in
high-heated soy mead (735.5 μg L− 1) was almost 1.4-times higher than
that in low-heated soy mead (526.5 μg L− 1). With odor thresholds in
water of 3.9 μg L− 1 and in 40% of ethanol of 89 μg/L, these differences
can lead to remarkable sensory differences – unfortunately, the authors
did not perform any sensory analysis. Pino and Fajardo (2011) reported
that in unifloral honey mead, ethyl 3-methylbutanoate and 2-phenyl­
ethyl acetate (in Romerillo de costa), and ethyl 3-methylbutanoate, hor­
tienol, and (E)-β-damascenone (in Campanilla morada and Citrus spp.)
exhibited the highest flavor dilution (FD) factor of 1024. In mead based
409
Trends in Food Science & Technology 106 (2020) 402–416
on Romerillo de costa, ethyl hexanoate, ethyl octanoate, ethyl decanoate,
ethyl (E)-cinnamate, and hortienol were also important aroma com­
pounds (FD factor of 512); in mead based on Campanilla morada, ethyl
hexanoate, ethyl octanoate, ethyl decanoate, decanal, and methyl
anthranilate; and in mead based on Citrus spp., ethyl hexanoate, ethyl
octanoate, and ethyl decanoate. It is well-known that ethyl esters of fatty
acids are formed during alcoholic fermentation by yeast.
In a study of chestnut, lime, and honeydew mead, it was found that
the concentration of acetaldehyde was the highest, whereas the con­
centration of 2-phenylethanol was the lowest (Vidrih & Hribar, 2007).
Acetaldehyde is formed during fermentation via the metabolic pathway
leading to ethanol formation from carbohydrate (pyruvate). Thus, its
concentration varies during fermentation and aging of fermented bev­
erages and is dependent on the sugar content of honey and fermentation
conditions.
Furthermore, the aroma profile of mead is influenced by the origin of
honey Manyi-Loh, Ndip, & Clarke, 2011. In Slovak mead, ethyl acetate,
2-methyl-1-butanol, and 3-methyl-1-butanol were identified as the
major contributors to the overall aroma. The same compounds were also
detected in South African mead; however, no markers have been iden­
tified for each type of mead (Šmogrovičová et al., 2012). Therefore,
there is a need for more studies correlating the geographic origin of
honey with the volatiles formed in mead. Radovic et al. (2001) previ­
ously suggested that English honeys can be identified by the presence of
1-penten-3-ol; Portuguese honeys by 2,2,6-trimethylcyclohexanone,
ethyl 2-hydroxypropanoate, and 3-hexenyl formate; Spanish honeys by
1-octen-3-ol or 2,6,6-trimethyl-2,4-cycloheptadien-1-one and the
absence of pentanal and cis-linalool oxide, while Danish honeys can be
identified based on the absence of 3-methylbutanal. However, this type
of analysis has not been reported for mead samples so far.
Teramoto, Sato, & Ueda (2005) analyzed the influence of yeast
strains on mead volatiles. In mead obtained by fermentation of man­
darin orange honey by S. cerevisiae K7, the dominant volatile compound
was 3-methyl-1-butanol (260 mg L− 1); however, when other strains of
yeast were used, 2-methyl-1-propanol and ethyl acetate (S. cerevisiae
W4: 99 mg L− 1 and 63 mg L− 1, respectively), 1-propanol (S. cerevisiae
ET99: 43 mg L− 1), and isoamyl acetate (S. cerevisiae W4: 2.6 mg L− 1)
were the major volatiles. Bénes et al. (2015) also observed that the
amounts of volatiles varied in mead fermented by different strains of
S. cerevisiae var. bayanus. MT-R1B strain led to the formation of high
amounts of isopentyl alcohol, isobutyl alcohol, ethyl acetate, and 2-phe­
nylethanol, whereas MM-R2 strain led to the formation of high amounts
of acetaldehyde and 1-propanol, in addition to ethyl acetate, isobutyl
alcohol, isopentyl alcohol, and 2-phenylethanol. During fermentation by
S. cerevisiae QA23, the pitching rate influenced the concentrations of
esters, volatile fatty acids, and phenols, but did not alter the alcohol
content significantly (Pereira et al., 2013). Knowledge about this is
important because esters contribute to a pleasant aroma, whereas phe­
nols are often linked to the formation of an off-flavor. In mead fermented
by S. cerevisiae ICV D47, the concentrations of volatile fatty acids and
phenols decreased; however, the concentrations of the desired esters
also decreased significantly. Pereira, Mendes-Ferreira, Oliveira, Este­
vinho, & Mendes-Faia, 2014 showed that the application of S. cerevisiae
QA23 immobilized in double-layer beads for mead fermentation
increased the concentrations of ethyl octanoate and ethyl decanoate,
whereas immobilized S. cerevisiae ICV D47 increased the concentration
of octanoic acid.
Roldán, van Muiswinkel, Lasanta, Palacios, & Caro, 2011 observed
that the addition of pollen significantly increased the content of volatile
M. Starowicz and M. Granvogl
compounds in mead. The concentration of 3-methyl-1-butanol increased
almost by a factor of 2, whereas the concentrations of acids and esters
increased by a factor of about 7 after addition of 10 g of pollen per L.
However, after the addition of 20, 30, 40, or 50 g of pollen per L, no
correlation between the amount of added pollen and the amounts of
volatiles was observed. It could be assumed that the concentration of
3-methyl-1-butanol increased with an increased amount of pollen added
owing to the contribution of nitrogen from pollen in 3-methyl-1-butanol
formation; however, further investigation must be carried out to better
understand this suggested mechanism. Pons and Schutze (1994)
demonstrated that pollen addition significantly increased the concen­
tration of 2-methyl-1-propanol in mead, whereas addition of both pollen
and grapes increased the concentration of 3-methyl-1-butanol without
the formation of any off-flavor compounds. Schwarz et al. (2020)
recently stated that honey is low in nitrogen and mead production
without appropriate nutrient supplementation led to a slow or incom­
plete fermentation and to the appearance of organoleptic defects in the
final product. To resolve this issue, they proposed the application of low
nitrogen-demanding yeast strains in mead fermentation. Thereby,
S. cerevisiae var. bayanus strains QA23, Spark, and AWRI-R2 were found
as the most effective producers of aromatic compounds with floral and
fruity notes (including 2-phenylethanol, 2-phenylethyl acetate, and
ethyl esters) at a nitrogen concentration of 75 mg L− 1. Short-chain fatty
acids enhanced the taste of mead and can also act as precursors of vol­
atile esters (Sroka & Tuszyński, 2007). These esters have high OAVs
indicating their high potential to contribute to the aroma of mead. Thus,
volatile compounds formed in mead, including esters of fatty acids,
greatly impact their sensory acceptability.
3.2. Characterization of the sensory acceptability of mead
The sensory profile of mead is influenced by different parameters,
including honey-to-water ratio, type of honey, yeast strain used for
fermentation, time and temperature of fermentation, and addition of
spices and fruits.
Kim et al. (2005) demonstrated that high sensory quality of mead
was achieved by the use of a mixture of Nuruk + S. sake or Nuruk +
S. bayanus, leading to a score of 5.17 and 5.20 out of 7 points, respec­
tively. Hernandez et al. (2015) reported that mead produced with the
commercial yeast Fermiblanc with pollen-ammonium dihydrogen
phosphate as the nitrogen source exhibited higher sensory acceptability
(score: 14 out of 20) than mead fermented with the commercial yeasts
Lalvin QA23 and Uvaferm (scores: 11.5 and 10). In addition, mead
produced by Fermiblanc with pollen-ammonium dihydrogen phosphate
exhibited a high aroma score (4.5 out of 6). A high value of overall
quality was also observed for mead fermented with Lalvin QA23 using
yeast extract as the nitrogen source (score: 13.5 out of 20). Roldán, van
Muiswinkel, Lasanta, Palacios, & Caro, 2011 also demonstrated that
addition of pollen improved the overall acceptability of mead. Addition
of 40 g L− 1 of pollen led to highly acceptable mead (score: 6 out of 10)
with preferred aroma and taste (score: 7 out of 10 for each). Mead
supplemented with 50 g L− 1 of pollen exhibited the highest score for
color (8 out of 10) and aroma (7.5 out of 10). Peepall et al. (2019) have
reported that different strains of lactic acid yeasts also influenced the
aroma of mead. For example, mead fermented with YH26 and YH77
exhibited high scores (35 and 34 out of 40) of a buttery aroma, mead
fermented with YH25 and YH77 high scores (31 and 34) of a tropical
aroma, mead fermented with YH27 and YH156 high scores (30 and 24)
of a banana-like odor, and mead fermented with YH156 a high score
(35) of an acetone-like aroma, that lead to the least preferred mead.
410
Trends in Food Science & Technology 106 (2020) 402–416
Mead fermented with YH82 and YH140 elicited an earthy odor (20) and
mead fermented with YH82 a fruity odor (20). This research proved that
yeast changes significantly influence the sensory quality of the final
product.
The type of honey type is another parameter that plays an important
role in the acceptance of mead. Among different types of mead con­
taining low amounts of reducing sugars (40 g L− 1), the highest sensory
acceptability was observed for lime mead, followed by honeydew and
chestnut mead. In contrast, for mead with high reducing sugar con­
centrations (80 g L− 1), the best score was achieved for chestnut mead,
followed by lime and honeydew mead (Vidrih & Hribar, 2007). The
authors reported that the panelists preferred mead with high reducing
sugar concentrations compared to those with low reducing sugar con­
centrations. These results are consistent with the findings of Gomes et al.
(2015), who reported that mead with high sugar concentrations (75 g
L− 1) exhibited a better sensory score (5.4 out of 10) than “dry” mead
(sugar concentrations, 23 g L− 1; sensory score: 2.7 out of 10).
In a study performed by Katoh et al. (2011), the best acceptability in
regard to aroma, taste, and color was observed for mead prepared from
Chinese milk vetch honey with black rice (organoleptic evaluation: very
good) and mead from acacia honey but without black rice. Other mead
made of clover, mix of clover and acacia, and lemon honeys, supple­
mented with or without black rice, showed good acceptability in terms
of aroma and color, while taste of these samples was described as “not
good”.
To achieve better mead quality and to decrease the time of fermen­
tation, certain additives are included in mead recipes. Sroka and Satora
(2017) have shown that the supplementation of honey wort with hy­
drocolloids (0.5 g L− 1) does not significantly affect the color (scores:
1.4–1.8 out of 2 vs control (1.6)) and aroma (score: 2.5–3.1 out of 4 vs
control (3.3)) but accelerates fermentation and increases the ethanol
concentration. Mead supplemented with karaya gum exhibited a
significantly lower score for taste (23% lower) compared to the control
mead, and subsequently a low overall acceptability. Additionally, the
vinegar-like aroma elicited by karaya gum might lead to the lower
acceptability. In addition, long periods of heat treatment, required for
honey pasteurization, are often associated with the formation of an
off-flavor, described as rubbery and resin-like (Gupta & Sharma, 2009).
4. Phenolic content and antioxidant potential of mead
The phenolic content of mead is strongly related to the ingredients
used for mead production. Thereby, the honey is a significant contrib­
utor to the phenolic compounds; however, their concentrations depend
on the origin and type of honey. At least 5000 flavonoids and phenolic
acids have been described in honey using different analytical methods
(Pyrzyńska & Biesaga, 2009). The main phenolic compounds in honey
include caffeic acid, p-coumaric acid, gallic acid, vanillic acid, syringic
acid, chlorogenic acid, and 4-(dimethylamino)benzoic acid; and the
dominant flavonoids in honey include apigenin, genistein, pinocembrin,
chrysin, quercetin, luteolin, kaempferol, galangin, and pinobanksin
(Cianciosi et al., 2018). The variation in bioactive compounds among
different types of honey are caused by many factors, including floral
type, geographical origin, storage conditions, harvesting technology,
and seasonal variations. These biologically active compounds possess
high antioxidant activity (Wieczorek et al., 2014). Numerous studies
have shown that honey can be used for prevention of certain diseases,
including cancer (melanoma, colorectal, prostate, renal, bladder, and
bone cancer), cardiovascular disorders, gastrointestinal tract diseases,
and neuroinflammation (El-Seedi et al., 2019; Eteraf-Oskouei & Najafi,
M. Starowicz and M. Granvogl Trends in Food Science & Technology 106 (2020) 402–416

Table 3
Phenolic compounds determination in different types of mead.

411
M. Starowicz and M. Granvogl
2013; Khan, Ul Abadin, & Rauf, 2007; Mandal & Mandal, 2011;
Samarghandian, Farkhondeh, & Samini, 2017). Further, it has been re­
ported that honey inhibits oxidation of human red blood cells (Alvar­
ez-Suarez et al., 2012; Blasa et al., 2007). These beneficial properties of
honey can also be transferred into mead, enhancing the positive prop­
erties of mead.
Švecová, Bordovská, Kalvachová, & Hájek, 2015 reported that the
addition of fruit juices, nuts, or herbal extracts significantly increased
the amount of phenols in mead. The highest content of phenols,
particularly gallic acid and caffeic acid, was observed in mead supple­
mented with black currant, whereas herbal mead was rich in ferulic acid.
Wintersteen et al. (2005) observed that the total phenolic content of
buckwheat mead (300 mg L− 1 gallic acid eq.) was almost twice the total
phenolic content of soy mead (167 mg L− 1 gallic acid eq.). In addition, it
has been reported that heat treatment influenced the content of phenolic
compounds in mead. Wintersteen et al. (2005) reported that low-heat
(60 ◦ C) and high-heat (100 ◦ C) treatment increased the total phenolic
content of soy mead. In soy mead, the concentrations of pinobanksin and
pinocembrin were 3.47 μg L− 1 and 1.18 μg L− 1 after low-heat treatment,
and 3.42 μg L− 1 and 1.24 μg L− 1 after high-heat treatment. In buckwheat
mead, the concentrations of p-coumaric acid and quercetin were 1.94 μg
L− 1 and 1.01 μg L− 1 after low-heat treatment, and 2.49 μg L− 1 and 1.49
μg L− 1 after high-heat treatment. Koguchi et al. (2009) also confirmed
high concentrations of total phenols in buckwheat mead. Dezmirean
et al. (2012) proved that both origin of honey and fermentation process
influenced the total phenolic content of mead. For example, fermented
beverages based on black locust, linden, raspberry, and multifloral
honeys had a high concentration of total phenols, whereas heather and
canola mead showed low concentrations of total phenols. Furthermore,
the flavonoid content of heather mead was also low. Kahoun et al.
(2008) analyzed the concentrations of 25 phenolic compounds in mead
supplemented with different additives, and found that mead supple­
mented with almond extract possessed the highest amounts of vanillic
acid and gallic acid, mead supplemented with sour cherry juice
possessed the highest amounts of caffeic acid and chlorogenic acid, and
412
Trends in Food Science & Technology 106 (2020) 402–416
classical mead supplemented with herbs and spices possessed the
highest amounts of ferulic acid and p-coumaric acid (Table 3). These
findings were in agreement with those reported by Socha et al. (2015),
who demonstrated that gallic acid, protocatechuic acid, and chlorogenic
acid were the dominant phenolic compounds in mead. Akalın et al.
(2017) observed that gallic acid and protocatechuic acid were the major
phenolic compounds in blossom mead; however, in one type of blossom
mead, ferulic acid and quercetin were the dominant phenolic com­
pounds. In general, phenolic acids are the main bioactive compounds in
mead, suggesting that phenolic acids are relöastable during fermenta­
tion and thermal processing. Pinocembrin, pinobanksin, and quercetin
are the major flavonoids found in mead.
It is known that phenols strongly contribute to the antioxidant
properties of foods. Wintersteen et al. (2005) reported that the antiox­
idant capacities (measured via oxygen radical absorbance capacity
(ORAC) assay) of buckwheat and soy mead were similar to those of mead
based on clover and wildflower honeys. Moreover, no changes were
noticed in the antioxidant capacity of mead after heating. This obser­
vation was in agreement with the findings of Kahoun et al. (2017), who
also observed no alterations in the antioxidant capacity of mead after
high temperature treatment and long-term storage. Katoh et al. (2011)
proved that mead supplemented with unpolished black rice grain
possessed higher 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical scav­
enging activity (0.866 mM of Trolox eq.) than mead without addition of
black rice (0.797 mM of Trolox eq.). Moreover, high DPPH radical
scavenging activity and inhibitory activity against lipid peroxidation
was detected in mead prepared with black rice compared to mead pre­
pared with polished rice (Koguchi et al., 2009). Dezmirean et al. (2012)
noticed that the antioxidant capacities of mead based on black locust,
linden, raspberry, canola, heather, or multifloral honeys were low using
the DPPH assay for analysis, whereas the antioxidant capacities of mead
based on black locust, linden, raspberry, and canola honeys were slightly
higher using the ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) assay.
Therefore, the method of analysis can be crucial for the interpretation of
the results obtained. Socha et al. (2015) reported that the antioxidant
M. Starowicz and M. Granvogl Trends in Food Science & Technology 106 (2020) 402–416

capacities of mead based on dark honeys (e.g., buckwheat honey) were
higher than those of mead based on light honeys (e.g., monofloral
honey). In a study performed by Akalın et al. (2017), the highest anti­
oxidant capacity was exhibited by mead based on blossom honey (4.13
mM of Trolox eq.), followed by mead based on blossom-honeydew
honey (3.11 mM of Trolox eq.) and honeydew honey (2.16 mM of
Trolox eq.). Thus, antioxidant capacity of mead highly correlated with
the concentration of total phenols and flavonoids in mead. Majewska
and Myszka (2009) reported that the DPPH and 2,2′ -azino-bis(3-ethyl­
benzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) (ABTS) radical scavenging abilities
were the highest for “półtorak” and the lowest for “czwórniak”. As ex­
pected, the high antioxidant capacity of “półtorak” was linked to its high
honey-to-water ratio compared to that of “czwórniak” (1:0.5 vs. 1:3, v:
v), and consequently, to its higher concentration of total phenols.
5. Hydroxymethylfurfural as a toxicologically relevant
compound in mead
In addition to desirable aroma-active compounds, certain undesir­
able toxicologically relevant compounds, e.g., hydroxymethylfurfural
(HMF), can also be formed in mead (Ameur et al., 2008). From the view
of food safety and quality, it is important to evaluate the concentrations
of these compounds in mead. The Codex Alimentarius (01/25 Alinorm,
2000) has set certain standards to limit HMF levels in food products, e.g.,
40 mg kg− 1 in honey. Despite the fact that high concentrations of HMF
might lead to cytotoxicity, Capuano & Fogliano (2011) suggested the
need for further investigations on the dietary exposure of HMF and to
extend the list of HMF-containing food products. An overview of HMF
contents in mead is presented in Table 4. Up to now, a wide spectrum of
analytical methods has been established for the determination of the
HMF content in foods, which enable a rapid control of foods in the
market (Zappalá, Fallico, Arena, & Verzera, 2005). For HMF

Table 4
HMF concentrations determined in different types of mead.
Mead samples HMF concentration References

[mg L− 1]

mead without additives in wort: 2.03 Kawa- Rygielska et al. (2019)

during fermentation: n.d.
after fermentation: n.d.
mead with chokeberry in wort: 2.68
during fermentation: n.d.
after fermentation: 2.01
mead with dandelion in wort: 7.91
during fermentation: 0.63
after fermentation: 2.27
mead with grape seeds in wort: 7.91
during fermentation: 0.63
after fermentation: 2.27
fresh mead 6.40 Kahoun et al. (2017)
mead stored at 4 ◦ C in the refrigerator for 12 weeks 6.45
mead stored at room temperature in the daylight for 12 weeks 8.92
mead prepared from multiflorous honey and yeast strains Safspirit Malt or Safspirit Fruit control: 0.83–1.84 Czabaj et al. (2017)
gentle boiling: 9.67–40.12
pasteurized: 2.07–3.33
mead prepared from honeydew honey and yeast strains Safspirit Malt or Safspirit Fruit control: 0.78–1.85
gentle boiling: 5.99–8.76
pasteurized: 1.02–2.38
commercial mead from different regions of Czech Republic 27–209 Švecová, Bordovská, Kalvachová, &
Hájek (2015)
longan mead (second inoculation after 16 days of fermentation by Premier Cuvees, Saccharomyces beginning: 21.131 Chen et al. (2013)
cerevisiae 1, S. cerevisiae 2, or S. cerevisiae 3) fermentation after 2 days: 2.518
from 2 to 22 days of fermentation:
1.517
at the end of fermentation: 1 - 2
mead from manufacturer no. 1 3.30 (mead type “sour cherry”) - 25.9 Kahoun et al. (2008)
(“traditional”)
no. 2 18.9 (“classical”) - 42.2 (“walnut”)
no. 3 5.92 (“almond”) - 15.8 (“herbal”)
no. 4 25.8 (“old”) - 62.2 (“walnut”)
no. 5 15.5 (“gold”) - 32.7 (sour cherry”)
no. 6 2.74 (“Celtic”) - 76.4 (bitter and
almond”)
no. 7 15.5 (“Carpathian”) - 158
(“Cinnamonic”)
no. 8 37.6 (“sour cherry”) - 45.1 (“almond”)
no. 9 35.0 (“sour cherry”) and 47.6
(“classical”)
no. 10 60.6 (“old Czech balm”)
no. 11 49.1 (“bitter”)
no. 12 62.0 (“bitter”)
no. 13 139 (“archival”; stored 3 years)
no. 14 4.82 (“classical”)

413
M. Starowicz and M. Granvogl
quantitation in mead, for example, high-performance liquid chroma­
tography with UV detection (HPLC-UV) was used. Kahoun et al. (2008)
reported HMF concentrations in mead between 2.7 and 158 mg L− 1,
whereas Švecová, Bordovská, Kalvachová, & Hájek (2015) found HMF
concentrations in Czech mead between 27 and 209 mg L− 1. The quality
of honey, storage conditions, and manufacturing temperatures might be
responsible for the differences between the two studies. Recently,
Kahoun et al. (2017) observed that the HMF content in mead heated at
90–100 ◦ C for 60 min was higher than that of unheated mead, which is
not surprising as HMF is well known as a Maillard reaction product.
Therefore, these researchers proposed that the maximum temperature of
heating must not exceed 80 ◦ C. Moreover, storage at room temperature
in daylight also caused a significant increase of the HMF content by 46%.
Thus, the authors recommended that in case of long-term storage, mead
bottles must be stored in dark places at lower temperatures between 11
and 15 ◦ C. Chen et al. (2013) reported that the HMF content of longan
mead decreased by 90% during the first two days of fermentation, and
the highest HMF content was observed after 22 days of fermentation
with S. cerevisiae using yeast extract as the nitrogen source (approx. 2.5
mg L− 1). Czabaj et al. (2017) found that the HMF content of “gently
boiled” (boiling for 30 min) multifloral honey mead fermented with
Safspirit fruit yeast strain decreased by 75%. The authors assumed that
this might be due to the enzymatic reactions of yeast cells converting
HMF into (a) less toxicologically relevant compound(s). Moreover, yeast
fermentation is one of the proposals to reduce the HMF content in food
products (Lee at al., 2019). Based on German data collected between
2005 and 2010, very high concentrations of HMF were noted in bever­
ages prepared from dried plums and plum juice (1022.1 and 707.1 mg
kg− 1, respectively), while lower amounts of HMF were reported for
mulled wine (13.7 mg kg− 1) and different types of juices, including
orange juice (0.4 mg kg− 1) and apple juice (7.4 mg kg− 1). The average
HMF content of honey was estimated to be 9.1 mg kg− 1 (Abraham et al.,
2011). According to the data gathered by Lee et al. (2019), the HMF
content of honey ranged between 0.34 mg kg− 1 and 58.8 mg kg− 1. In
other popular alcoholic beverages, such as beer, HMF concentrations
between 0.2 and 9.2 mg kg− 1 have been reported (Lee et al., 2019).
According to the data presented in Table 4, the highest HMF content (up
to 209 mg kg− 1) was observed in commercial mead (Švecová,
Bordovská, Kalvachová, & Hájek, 2015). Storage is another important
aspect in maintaining the quality of food products; the best storage
conditions for mead in case of HMF content was reported to be 4 ◦ C in
the refrigerator without exposure to daylight avoiding any significant
change in the HMF content, while 12 weeks of storage at room tem­
perature in daylight caused a gradual increase of 46% (Kahoun et al.,
2017).
6. Conclusion
Recently, many studies have been focused on an improvement of
mead production. The characteristic parameters of mead include pH
value, ethanol concentration, volatile acidity, titratable acidity,
reducing sugar content, and organic acid content. These parameters are
monitored during fermentation to control the fermentation process and
achieve a high-quality product. Moreover, preheating (e.g., pasteuriza­
tion) and low-heat treatment (sometimes described as gentle boiling)
also enhance the quality of mead. Mead obatined by high-heat treatment
contain high concentration of volatiles; however, the amounts of un­
desirable compounds, including HMF, are also increased. The elevated
temperature treatment can significantly decrease the phenolic content of
mead. Furthermore, storage of mead at low temperatures (about 4 ◦ C)
without daylight exposure increases the shelf-life of mead. Few studies
414
Trends in Food Science & Technology 106 (2020) 402–416
have been dedicated to the application of different yeast strains in mead
production; however, in general, S. cerevisiae is the most commonly used
yeast in honey wort fermentation. Accumulating evidence suggests that
the type of honey and yeast strain and fermentation conditions signifi­
cantly influence the formation of volatile compounds/odorants, partic­
ularly aldehydes, acids, higher alcohols, and esters.
The high acceptability of mead among consumers is mainly owing to
its high sugar content aligned with a well pronounced aroma. However,
it is important to note that every type of honey does not guarantee high
sensory acceptance of the corresponding mead. Therefore, future work
must be directed towards investigating the aroma-active compounds in
mead to provide a better understanding of the molecules that are
responsible for the overall aroma of the respective mead. Honey is an
important source of polyphenols and is responsible for the high total
phenolic content and antioxidant potential of mead. Moreover, the total
polyphenol content of mead is further increased by the addition of herbs
and spices during mead preparation.
Declaration of competing interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by post-doc grants to Małgorzata Starowicz
by KNOW Consortium “Healthy Animal - Safe Food”, MS & HE Decision
No. 05–1/KNOW2/2015.
References
Abraham, K., Gürtler, R., Berg, K., Heinemeyer, G., Lampen, A., & Appel, K. E. (2011).
Toxicology risk assessment of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural in food. Molecular Nutrition &
Food Research, 55, 667–678.
Akalın, H., Bayram, M., & Anlı, R. E. (2017). Determination of some individual phenolic
compounds and antioxidant capacity of mead produced from different types of
honey. Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 123, 167–174.
Codex Alimentarius, Alinorm 01/25. (2000). Draft revised standard for honey at step 8 of
the Codex procedure. www.codexalimentarius.net.
Alvarez-Suarez, J. M., Giampieri, F., González-Paramás, A. M., Damiani, E., Astolfi, P.,
Martinez-Sanchez, G., Bompadre, S., Quiles, J. L., Santos-Buelga, C., & Battino, M.
(2012). Phenolics from monofloral honeys protect human erythrocyte membranes
against oxidative damage. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50, 1508–1516.
Ameur, L. A., Rega, B., Giampaoli, P., Trystram, G., & Birlouez-Aragon, I. (2008). The
fate of furfurals and other volatile markers during the baking process of a model
cookie. Food Chemistry, 111, 758–763.
Bahiru, B., Mehari, T., & Ashenafi, M. (2001). Chemical and nutritional properties of ,tej‘,
an indigenous Ethiopian honey wine: variations within and between production
units. Journal of Food Technology in Africa, 6, 104–108.
Bénes, I., Furdíková, K., & Šmogrovičová, D. (2015). Influence of Saccharomyces cerevisiae
strain on the profile of volatile organic compounds of blossom honey mead. Czech
Journal of Food Sciences, 33, 334–339.
Blasa, M., Candiracci, M., Accorsi, A., Piacentini, M. P., & Piatti, E. (2007). Honey
flavonoids as protection agents against oxidative damage to human red blood cells.
Food Chemistry, 104, 1635–1640.
Capuano, E., & Fogliano, V. (2011). Acrylamide and 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF): a
review on metabolism, toxicity, occurrence in food and mitigation strategies. LWT-
Food Science and Technology, 44, 793–810.
Chen, C.-H., Wu, Y.-L., Lo, D., & Wu, M.-C. (2013). Physicochemical property changes
during the fermentation of longan (Dimocarpus longan) mead and its aroma
composition using multiple yeast inoculations. Journal of the Institute of Brewery, 119,
303–308.
Cianciosi, D., Forbes-Hernández, T. Y., Afrin, S., Gasparrini, M., Reboredo- Rodriguez, P.,
Manna, P. P., Zhang, J., Bravo Lamas, L., Martinez Flórez, S., Agudo Toyos, P.,
Quiles, J. L., Giampieri, F., & Battino, M. (2018). Phenolic compounds in honey and
their associated health benefits: a review. Molecules, 23, 2322.
Comeback of honey meads. (19.10.2013). www.forbes.pl/wiadomosci/polska-najwieks
zym-producentem-miodow-pitnych/lzc44lh (in Polish).
Cuenca, M., Ciesa, F., Romano, A., Robatscher, P., Scampicchio, M., & Biasioli, F. (2016).
Mead fermentation monitoring by proton transfer reaction mass spectrometry and
medium infrared probe. European Food Research and Technology, 242, 1755–1762.
M. Starowicz and M. Granvogl
Czabaj, S., Kawa-Rygielska, J., Kucharska, A. Z., & Kliks, J. (2017). Effects of mead wort
heat treatment on the mead fermentation process and antioxidant activity. Molecules,
22, 803.
Czibulya, Z., Horvátha, I., Kollárb, L., Nikfardjam, M. P., & Kunsági-Mátéa, S. (2015). The
effect of temperature, pH, and ionic strength on color stability of red wine.
Tetrahedron, 71, 3027–3031.
Dezmirean, G. I., Mărghitaş, L. A., Bobiş, O., Dezmirean, D. S., Bonta, V., & Erler, S.
(2012). Botanical origin causes changes in nutritional profile and antioxidant
activity of fermented products obtained from honey. Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry, 60, 8028–8035.
El-Seedi, H. R., Khalifa, S. A. M., El-Wahed, A. A., Gao, R., Guo, Z., Tahir, H. E., …
Abbas, G. (2020). Honeybee products: an updated review of neurological actions.
Trends in Food Science & Technology, 101, 17–27.
Eteraf-Oskouei, T., & Najafi, M. (2013). Traditional and modern uses of natural honey in
human diseases: a review. Iranian Journal of Basic Medicinal Science, 16, 731–742.
Gomes, T., Barradas, C., Dias, T., Verdial, J., Sá Morais, J., Ramalhosa, E., &
Estevinho, L. M. (2013). Optimization of mead production using response surface
methodology. Food Chemistry and Toxicology, 59, 680–686.
Gomes, T., Dias, T., Cadavez, V., Verdial, J., Morais, J. S., Ramalhosa, E., &
Estevinho, L. M. (2015). Influence of sweetness and ethanol content on mead
acceptability. Polish Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences, 65, 137–142.
Gupta, J. K., & Sharma, R. (2009). Production technology and quality characteristics of
mead and fruity-honey wines: a review. Natural Product Radiance, 8, 345–355.
Hernández, C. Y., Serratoa, J. C., & Quicazan, M. C. (2015). Evaluation of
physicochemical and sensory aspects of mead, produced by different nitrogen
sources and commercial yeast. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 43, 1–6.
Iglesias, A., Pascoal, A., Choupina, A. B., Carvalho, C. A., Feás, X., & Estevinho, L. M.
(2014). Developments in the fermentation process and quality improvement
strategies for mead production. Molecules, 19, 12577–12590.
Jousse, F., Jongen, W., Agterof, W., Russell, S., & Braat, P. (2002). Simplified kinetic
scheme of flavor formation by the Maillard reaction. Journal of Food Science, 67,
2534–2542.
Kahoun, D., Řezková, S., & Královský, J. (2017). Effect of heat treatment and storage
conditions on mead composition. Food Chemistry, 219, 357–363.
Kahoun, D., Řezková, S., Veškrnová, K., Královský, J., & Holčapek, M. (2008).
Determination of phenolic compounds and hydroxymethylfurfural in meads using
high performance liquid chromatography with coulometric-array and UV detection.
Journal of Chromatography A, 1202, 19–33.
Katoh, T., Koguchi, M., Saigusa, N., & Teramoto, Y. (2011). Production and antioxidative
activity of mead made from various types of honey and black rice (Oryza sativa var.
Indica cv. Shiun). Food Science and Technology Research, 17, 149–154.
Kawa-Rygielska, J., Adamenko, K., Kucharska, A. Z., & Szatkowska, K. (2019). Fruit and
herbal meads - chemical composition and antioxidant properties. Food Chemistry,
283, 19–27.
Khan, F. R., Ul Abadin, Z., & Rauf, N. (2007). Honey: nutritional and medicinal value.
International Journal of Clinical Practice, 10, 1705–1707.
Kim, S.-J., Jung, S.-T., Park, Y.-M., Cho, K.-H., & Ma, S.-J. (2005). Fermentation and
sensory characteristics of Korean traditional honey wine from Saccaromyces sake,
Saccaromyces bayanus and Nuruk. Korean Journal of Food Preservatives, 12, 190–194.
Koguchi, M., Saigusa, N., & Teramoto, Y. (2009). Production and antioxidant activity of
mead made from honey and black rice (Oryza sativa var. Indica cv. Shiun). Journal of
the Institute of Brewing, 115, 238–242.
Lee, C.-H., Chen, K. T., Lin, J.-A., Chen, Y.-T., Chen, Y.-A., Wu, J.-T., & Hsieh, C.-W.
(2019). Recent advances in processing technology to reduce 5-hydroxymethylfur­
fural in foods. Trends in Food Science & Nutrition, 93, 271–280.
Lin, Y., Zhang, W., Li, C., Sakakibara, K., Tanaka, S., & Kong, H. (2012). Factors affecting
ethanol fermentation using Saccharomyces cerevisiae BY4742. Biomass and Bioenergy,
47, 395–401.
Majewska, E., & Myszka, A. (2009). Antioxidant activity of honey meads. Bromatologia I
Chemia Toksykologiczna, 3, 875–879 (in Polish).
Mandal, M. D., & Mandal, S. (2011). Honey: its medicinal property and antibacterial
activity. Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Biomedicine, 1, 154–160.
Manyi-Loh, C. E., Ndip, R. N., & Clarke, A. M. (2011). Volatile compounds in honey: a
review on their involvement in aroma, botanical origin determination and potential
biomedical activities. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 12, 9514–9532.
Mato, I., Suárez-Luque, S., & Huidobro, J. F. (2005). A review of the analytical methods
to determine organic acids in grape juices and wines. Food Research International, 38,
1175–1188.
McConnell, D. S., & Schramm, K. D. (1995). Mead success: ingredients, processes and
techniques. Zygmurgy, 4, 33–39.
Mendes-Ferreira, A., Cosme, F., Barbosa, C., Falco, V., Inês, A., & Mendes-Faia, A. (2010).
Optimization of honey-must preparation and alcoholic fermentation by
Saccharomyces cerevisiae for mead production. International Journal of Food
Microbiology, 144, 193–198.
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. (22.05.2013). Rozporządzenie w sprawie
rodzajów fermentowanych napojów winiarskich oraz szczegółowych wymagań
organoleptycznych, fizycznych i chemicznych, jakie powinny spełniać te napoje (in
Polish).
415
Trends in Food Science & Technology 106 (2020) 402–416
Morales, E. M., Alcarde, V. E., & Angelis, D. F. (2009). Mead features fermented by
Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Lalvin k1-1116). African Journal of Biotechnology, 12,
199–204.
Navrátil, M., Šturdík, E., & Gemeiner, P. (2001). Batch and continuous mead production
with pectate immobilised, ethanol-tolerant yeast. Biotechnology Letters, 23, 977–982.
Peepall, C., Nickens, D. G., Vinciguerra, J., & Bochman, M. L. (2019). An organoleptic
survey of meads made with lactic acid-producing yeasts. Food Microbiology, 82,
398–408.
Pereira, A. P., Dias, T., Andrade, J., Ramalhosa, E., & Estevinho, L. M. (2009). Mead
production: selection and characterization assays of Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains.
Food Chemistry and Toxicology, 47, 2057–2063.
Pereira, A. P., Mendes-Ferreira, A., Dias, T., Oliveira, J. M., Estevinho, L. M., & Mendes-
Faia, A. (2019). Volatile composition and sensory properties of mead.
Microorganisms, 7, 404.
Pereira, A. P., Mendes-Ferreira, A., Estevinho, L. M., & Mendes-Faia, A. (2015).
Improvement of mead fermentation by honey-must supplementation. Journal of the
Institute of Brewing, 121, 405–410.
Pereira, A. P., Mendes-Ferreira, A., Oliveira, J. M., Estevinho, L. M., & Mendes-Faia, A.
(2013). High-cell-density fermentation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae for the
optimisation of mead production. Food Microbiology, 33, 114–123.
Pereira, A. P., Mendes-Ferreira, A., Oliveira, J. M., Estevinho, L. M., & Mendes-Faia, A.
(2014). Effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells immobilization on mead production.
LWT - Food Science and Technology, 56, 21–30.
Pereira, A. P., Mendes-Ferreira, A., Oliveira, J. M., Estevinho, L. M., & Mendes-Faia, A.
(2015). Mead production: effect of nitrogen supplementation on growth,
fermentation profile and aroma formation by yeasts in mead fermentation. Journal of
the Institute of Brewing, 121, 122–128.
Pino, J. A., & Fajardo, M. (2011). Volatile composition and key flavor compounds of
spirits from unifloral honeys. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 46,
994–1000.
Polish Norm. PN-A-79123:1999 “Honey mead” (in Polish) http://sklep.pkn.pl/pn-a-791
23-1999p.html. assessed 12.02.2018.
Pons, M.-N., & Schutze, S. (1994). On-line monitoring of volatile compounds in honey
fermentation. Journal of Fermentation and Bioengineering, 78, 450–454.
Procopio, S., Krause, D., Hofmann, T., & Becker, T. (2013). Significant amino acids in
aroma compound profiling during yeast fermentation analyzed by PLS regression.
LWT - Food Science and Technology, 51, 423–432.
Pyrzyńska, K., & Biesaga, M. (2009). Analysis of phenolic acids and flavonoids in honey.
Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 28, 893–902.
Radovic, B. S., Careri, M., Mangia, A., Musci, M., Gerboles, M., & Anklam, E. (2001).
Contribution of dynamic headspace GC-MS analysis of aroma compounds to
authenticity testing of honey. Food Chemistry, 72, 511–520.
Ramalhosa, E., Gomes, T., Pereira, A. P., Dias, T., & Estevinho, L. M. (2011). Mead
production: tradition versus modernity. In R. S. Jackson (Ed.), Advances in food and
nutrition research (Vol. 63, pp. 101–118). San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press.
Roger, D. D., Daoudou, B., James, B., & Etoa, F. (2014). Artinasal production of “Kuri” an
honey made alcoholic beverage from Adamaoua Cameroon. Global Journal of
Scientific Researches, 2, 65–70.
Roldán, A., van Muiswinkel, G. C. J., Lasanta, C., Palacios, V., & Caro, I. (2011). Influence
of pollen addition on mead elaboration: physicochemical and sensory characteristics.
Food Chemistry, 126, 574–582.
Ropa, D. (2014). Using honey in beverages: from tea to juice to beer to distilled spirits.
www.BeveragesWithHoney.com (11.01.2018).
Samarghandian, S., Farkhondeh, T., & Samini, F. (2017). Honey and health: a review of
recent clinical research. Pharmacognosy Research, 9, 121–127.
Schwarz, L. V., Marcon, A. R., Longaray Delamare, A. P., Agostini, F., Moura, S., &
Echeverrigaray, S. (2020). Selection of low nitrogen demand yeast strains and their
impact on the physicochemical and volatile composition of mead. Journal of Food
Science & Technology, 57, 2840–2851.
Šmogrovičová, D., Nádaský, P., Tandlich, R., Wilhelmi, B. S., & Cambray, G. (2012).
Analytical and aroma profiles of Slovak and South African meads. Czech Journal of
Food Sciences, 30, 241–246.
Socha, R., Pająk, P., Fortuna, T., & Buksa, K. (2015). Phenolic profile and antioxidant
activity of Polish meads. International Journal of Food Properties, 18, 2713–2725.
Srimeena, N., Gunasekaran, S., & Murugesan, R. (2014). Optimization of fermentation
conditions for producing Indian rock bee (Apis dorsata) mead using response surface
methodology. Journal of Applied and Natural Science, 6, 366–370.
Sroka, P., & Satora, P. (2017). The influence of hydrocolloids on mead wort
fermentation. Food Hydrocolloids, 63, 233–239.
Sroka, P., & Tuszyński, T. (2007). Changes in organic acid contents during mead wort
fermentation. Food Chemistry, 104, 1250–1257.
Švecová, B., Bordovská, M., Kalvachová, D., & Hájek, T. (2015). Analysis of Czech meads:
sugar content, organic acids content and selected phenolic compounds content.
Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 38, 80–88.
Teramoto, Y., Sato, R., & Ueda, S. (2005). Characteristics of fermentation yeast isolated
from traditional Ethiopian honey wine ogol. African Journal of Biotechnology, 4,
160–163.
M. Starowicz and M. Granvogl
Ukpabi, U. J. (2006). Quality evaluation of meads produced with cassava (Manihot
esculenta) floral honey under farm conditions in Nigeria. Tropical and Subtropical
Agroecosystems, 6, 37–41.
Vidrih, R., & Hribar, J. (2007). Studies on the sensory properties of mead and the
formation of aroma compounds related to the type of honey. Acta Alimentaria, 36,
151–162.
Wieczorek, J., Pietrzak, M., Pomianowski, J., & Wieczorek, Z. (2014). Honey as a source
of bioactive compounds. Polish Journal of Natural Sciences, 29, 275–285.
416
Trends in Food Science & Technology 106 (2020) 402–416
Wintersteen, C. L., Andrae, L. M., & Engeseth, N. J. (2005). Effect of heat treatment on
antioxidant capacity and flavor volatiles of mead. Journal of Food Science, 70,
C119–C126.
Zappalá, M., Fallico, B., Arena, E., & Verzera, A. (2005). Methods for the determination
of HMF in honey: a comparison. Food Control, 16, 273–277.
Zhou, J., Li, P., Cheng, N., Gao, H., Wang, B., Wie, Y., & Cao, W. (2012). Protective
effects of buckwheat honey on DNA damage induced by hydroxyl radicals. Food
Chemistry and Toxicology, 50, 2766–2773.