Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=UTF-8 |
Date: |
Wed, 22 Apr 2020 19:17:08 +0000 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Message-ID: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Felipe,
Thank you for your very helpful comments. I obviously was mistaken in assuming the % reported were solids content. My fault of course for assuming when no units were given. Bad error on my part.
I do have some questions. The first is simply idle curiosity. Is the LC column used a size exclusion resin? Second, is it fair to look at the reported values and say there is pretty strong evidence that this particular sample in almost all bee keeper added sugar with only perhaps 10 or 20% actual honey present? I see the paper that Bill cited cautions that this method is not robust enough to determine % adulteration and can easily understand why they gave this limitation due to the large number of possible sugars that could be used to adulterate honey, some of which are from C3 plants. But, in this case the results are pretty extreme and make me think most of the sugars are from a C4 plant. Also, why is Beltsville reporting four significant figures when the cited paper pretty clearly indicates that three significant figures are the most justified?'
While this whole honey adulteration issue is a real and growing concern, I also worry about better detection methods simply leading to more clever cheating that is harder to detect. Do you care to comment on other techniques such as NMR that may make such clever cheating a lot tougher?
Dick
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
|
|