Journals / Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences / 2020 / Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 4

Investigation of propolis in terms of hygienic quality, some pathogenic bacteria and Nosema spp

Pages
838–844
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

According to the results, 14 (14%) of total coliform group, 5 (5%) E. coli, 38 (38%) S. aureus, 11 (11%) C. botulinum and 8 (8%) Nosema spp. were found to be positive.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Propolis collected from plants by honeybees is used for the construction and protection of hives.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study aims to explore propolis’s initial bacteriological and parasitological flora using 5 different parameters (total coliform group, Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Clostridium botulinum and Nosema spp.).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the results, 14 (14%) of total coliform group, 5 (5%) E. coli, 38 (38%) S. aureus, 11 (11%) C. botulinum and 8 (8%) Nosema spp. were found to be positive.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Propolis collected from plants by honeybees is used for the construction and protection of hives. In addition, propolis has been used in the treatment of many diseases since ancient times because of its antimicrobial, antiseptic, antiinflammatory and antioxidant properties. Despite all these positive health effects, propolis can be microbiologically risky for many reasons such as environmental contamination and insufficient personnel hygiene. Therefore, chemical, physical, antimicrobial properties as well as microbiological properties are among the parameters to be investigated. This study aims to explore propolis’s initial bacteriological and parasitological flora using 5 different parameters (total coliform group, Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Clostridium botulinum and Nosema spp.). For this purpose, 100 propolis samples produced in Bolu and its districts were collected. Another objective is to determine the bacteriological/parasitological risk factors and contamination ways of the aforementioned pathogens in the propolis producing process. According to the results, 14 (14%) of total coliform group, 5 (5%) E. coli, 38 (38%) S. aureus, 11 (11%) C. botulinum and 8 (8%) Nosema spp. were found to be positive. The data obtained shows that propolis can be contaminated with some microorganisms and parasites during both production and collection processes.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKKAYA, H., BAYRAKAL, G. M., DÜMEN, E. (2022). Investigation of propolis in terms of hygienic quality, some pathogenic bacteria and Nosema spp. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 4, 838–844. https://ajindex.com/articles/614685

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Ghisalberti EL. Propolis: a review. Bee World 1979; 60 (2): 59- 84. doi: 10.1080/0005772X.1979.11097738 2. Burdock GA. Review of the biological properties and toxicity of bee propolis (propolis). Food and Chemical Toxicology 1998; 36 (4): 347-363. doi: 10.1016/S0278-6915(97)00145-2 3. Marcucci MC. Propolis: chemical composition, biological properties and therapeutic activity. Apidologie 1995; 26 (2): 83-99. doi: 10.1051/apido:19950202 4. Bankova V, De Castro S, Marcucci M. Propolis: recent advances in chemistry and plant origin. Apidologie 2000; 31 (1): 3-15. doi: 10.1051/apido:2000102 5. Castaldo S, Capasso F. Propolis, an old remedy used in modern medicine. Fitoterapia 2002; 73 (1): 1-6. doi: 10.1016/S0367- 326X(02)00185-5 6. Kuropatnicki AK, Szliszka E, Krol W. Historical aspects of propolis research in modern times. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2013; 1-11. doi: 10.1155/2013/964149 7. Zabaiou N, Fouache A, Trousson A, Baron S, Zellagui A et al. Biological properties of propolis extracts: something new from an ancient product. Chemistry and Physics of Lipids 2017; 207: 214-222. doi: 10.1016/j.chemphyslip.2017.04.005 8. Kujumgiev A, Tsvetkova I, Serkedjieva Y, Bankova V, Christov R et al. Antibacterial, antifungal and antiviral activity of propolis of different geographic origin. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 1999; 64 (3): 235-240. doi: 10.1016/S0378-8741(98)00131-7 9. Banskota AH, Tezuka Y, Kadota S. Recent progress in pharmacological research of propolis. Phytotherapy Research 2001; 15: 561-571. doi: 10.1002/ptr.1029 10. Pasupuleti VR, Sammugam L, Ramesh N, Gan SH. Honey, propolis, and royal jelly: a comprehensive review of their biological actions and health benefits. Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 2017; 2017: 1-21. doi: 10.1155/2017/1259510 11. Oršolić N, Sirovina D, Končić MZ, Lacković G, Gregorović G. Effect of croatian propolis on diabetic nephropathy and liver toxicity in mice. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2012; 12 (1): 117. doi: 10.1186/1472-6882-12-117 12. Miguel MG, Antunes MD. Is propolis safe as an alternative medicine? Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences 2011; 3 (4): 479-495. doi: 10.4103/0975-7406.90101. 13. Krell R. Value-added Products from Beekeeping. No. 124. Rome, Italy: Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 1996. 14. Woisky RG, Salatino A. Analysis of propolis: some parameters and procedures for chemical quality control. Journal of Apicultural Research 1998; 3