Pollens used by honey bees as a primary protein source has been attracted attention due to their positive health effects. The geographical and botanical origin of honeybee pollens affect their nutritional value as well as bioactive and bioaccessibility properties. This study investigated the bioactive and bioaccessibility properties (total phenolic content, total flavonoid content and antioxidant activity) of some honeybee pollens collected from different seaside regions of Turkey. Results indicated that total phenolic content, total flavonoid and total antioxidant (DPPH and CUPRAC) were between 3.9 and 9.2 mg GAE/g, 1.2–1.9 mg CAE/g sample, 1.7–17.6 mg TEAC/g and 0.68–3.04 mg TEAC/g, respectively. As for the bioaccessible fraction (IN) of collected pollens was 0.24–0.37 mg GAE/g for total phenolic, 0.01–0.08 TEAC/g for total flavonoid, 0.01–0.38 mg TEAC/g for DPPH and 0.01–0.4 mg TEAC/g for CUPRAC. Maximum recovery (%) was obtained for the sample collected from Canakkale city of Turkey for total phenolics (7.3%), total flavonoids (5.9%) and DPPH (6.6%). The results of the present study showed that bee pollen can be used as a resource of bioactive compounds in the daily diet due to the bioaccessibility properties and be added to formulation of the different food products to improve functionality.
Bee pollen Bioactivity Bioaccessibility Functional properties In vitro
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access
V.A.S. de Arruda, A.A.S. Pereira, L.M. Estevinho, L.B. de Almeida-Muradian, Food Chem. Toxicol. 51, 143–148 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
L.M. Estevinho, S. Rodrigues, A.P. Pereira, X. Feás, Int. J. Food. Sci. Technol. 47(2), 429–435 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
B.W. LeBlanc, O.K. Davis, S. Boue, A. DeLucca, T. Deeby, Food Chem. 115(4), 1299–1305 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
B. Yesiltas, E. Capanoglu, E. Firatligil-Durmus, A.E. Sunay, T. Samanci, D. Boyacioglu, J. Apic. Res. 53(1), 101–108 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
M. Morais, L. Moreira, X. Feás, L.M. Estevinho, Food Chem. Toxicol. 49(5), 1096–1101 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar