# Comparison of Volatile Profiles of Meads and Related Uniflorl Honeys: Traceability Markers
## 2 Results and Discussion
### Headspace Profiles of the Investigated Mead and the Corresponding Honey Samples  
The GC-FID/MS analyses of HS-SPME extracts allowed us to identify 115 compounds from different chemical groups in honey and mead (Table 1). In general, the major compound groups dominating the headspace profiles were monoterpenes, benzene derivatives and aliphatic compounds. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**No. **} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Compound**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**RI\({}^{1}\)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Backwheat**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Canola**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Linden**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Honeydew**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Control**} \\ \cline{3-19}  & & \multirow{2}{*}{**Compound**} & & \multirow{2}{*}{**RI\({}^{1}\)**} & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**A**} & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**B**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**C**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**A**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**B**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**C**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**A**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**B**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**C**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**A**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**B**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**C**} \\ \cline{3-19}  & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**No. **} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Compound**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**RI\({}^{1}\)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**A**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**B**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**C**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**A**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**B**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**C**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**A**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**B**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**C**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**A**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**B**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**C**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**A**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**B**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**C**} \\ \hline
31 & 1,8-Cineole & 1037 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & 0.93 & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
32 & \(\gamma\)-Terpinene & 1063 & - & - & - & - & - & 0.33 & 0.20 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
33 & _trans_-Linaloxide & 1077 & 5.52 & - & - & - & 5.86 & - & - & 0.13 & 0.32 & 1.54 & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
34 & _cis_-Linaloxide & 1091 & 3.51 & - & - & 5.17 & - & - & - & - & - & 0.21 & - & - & - & - & - \\
35 & 1-Methyl-4(1-methylmethyl)-benzene (p-Cymeneene) & 1092 & - & - & - & - & - & - & 2.42 & 0.73 & 0.80 & - & - & 0.16 & - & 0.38 & 0.38 & 0.38 \\
36 & & 1102 & - & - & - & 0.47 & - & 0.25 & - & - & 3.80 & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
37 & & 1016 & 9.79 & - & - & 14.15 & 0.11 & 0.20 & 3.91 & 0.39 & 0.39 & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
38 & _trans_-W-MATH  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**No. **} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Compound**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**RI\({}^{1}\)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Buckwheat**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Canola**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Linden**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Honeydew**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Control**} \\ \cline{3-19}  & & **A** & **B** & **C** & **A** & **B** & **C** & **A** & **B** & **C** & **A** & **B** & **C** & **A** & **B** & **C** & **A** & **B** & **C** \\ \hline  & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
88 & Nonanoic acid & 1283 & 2.77 & - & - & - & 0.68 & & & - & - & - & 6.73 & - & - & - & - & - \\
89 & Decanoic acid & 1379 & 0.21 & 0.10 & 12.96 & 0.10 & 0.31 & 12.55 & - & 0.92 & 132.01 & 0.71 & 2.51 & 9.09 & - & 0.92 & 1.17 \\
90 & Dodecanoic acid & 1573 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & 0.27 & - & - & - & - & - & 0.00 \\
91 & Hexadecanoic acid & 1967 & - & - & 0.30 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\ \hline \multicolumn{19}{c}{_Aliphatic acid esters_}  
The comparison between headspace profiles of the meads and the corresponding unif floral honeys showed relevant differences (Figures 1 and 2). The total percentage of highly volatile monoterenes and norisoprenoids that were present in the honey dramatically decreased in the mead.