BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Peter Borst <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Peter Borst <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 1 Mar 2001 16:34:13 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (6 lines)
Four honey samples were analyzed, one each from Armada, Michigan; Phoenix, Arizona; Braunschweig, Germany; and Mouchard, France. The respective honey types were: wildflower (pH value:3.63), mesquite (pH value:3.42), pine forest (pH value:4.44)and lavender (pH value:3.38). Each honey sample was analyzed for a variety of possible pesticide contaminants by means of GC/MS [gas chromatography mass spectrometry]. In addition, a detailed sugar profile was determined for two of the samples using LC/MS [liquid chromatography mass spectrometry]. The tests were performed by Shrader Laboratories, 3814 Vinewood, Detroit, MI 48208 <http://www.shraderlabs.com/>.

Conclusions from the analyses show no detectable pesticide contamination for any sample. The list of materials tested for is extensive, and includes among others, aldrin, lindane, chlordane, dieldrin, endosulfan, endrin, toxaphene, heptachlor, and methoxychlor.

http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~mts/apishtm/apis_2000/apjul_2000.htm#2

ATOM RSS1 RSS2