MICROBIOLOGICAL COMPARISON BETWEEN HONEY IN JAR AND HONEY IN COMB FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION

Main Article Content

F. Tomassetti *
M. Milito
E. Dell’Aira
L. De Santis
G. Migliore
G. Formato
(*) Corresponding Author:
F. Tomassetti | lucia.zoppi@pagepress.org

Abstract

The Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Regioni Lazio e Toscana, during August-July 2007 analyzed, for the microbial aspects, 37 samples of jar honey and 53 samples of honey in comb obtained from 37 farms of Latium Region. In the jar honey there weren’t values up to 1*103 colony-forming unit (CFU)/g of bacteria mesophiles, while in the honey in comb it was not up to 2*103 CFU/g. Bacillus cereus was found in 22 samples (41,5%) of honey in comb and in 18 samples (48,6%) of jar honey; Clostridium perfringens was found in 6 (11,3%) samples of honey in comb and in 6 samples (16,2%) of jar honey; Clostridium baratii was found in 1 (1,9%) sample of honey in comb and in 1 sample (2,7%) of jar honey; coagulase-positive staphylococci were found in 4 (11,3%) samples of honey in comb and in 4 samples (10,8%) of jar honey; Clostridium sordelli was found in 2 samples (3,8%) of honey in comb and in 1 sample (2,7%) of jar honey. Only 2 samples of honey in comb and 1 sample of jar honey had yeasts up to 1000 CFU/g. Finally, 9 samples (24,3%) of jar honey and 16 samples (30,2%) of honey in jar were positives for moulds.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

PlumX Metrics

PlumX Metrics provide insights into the ways people interact with individual pieces of research output (articles, conference proceedings, book chapters, and many more) in the online environment. Examples include, when research is mentioned in the news or is tweeted about. Collectively known as PlumX Metrics, these metrics are divided into five categories to help make sense of the huge amounts of data involved and to enable analysis by comparing like with like.


Article Details