## 3 Results and Discussion
### Stepwise LDA Based on ATR-FTIR Spectra
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Classification Results 1,2**} \\ \hline  & & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Predicted Group Membership**} \\ \cline{3-8}  & & **Label** & **Fir Honey** & **Thyme Honey** & **Pine Honey** & **Citrus Honey** & **Total** \\ \hline  & & Fir honey & 12 & 0 & 2 & 0 & 14 \\  & Count & \begin{tabular}{c} Thyme honey \\ Pine honey \\ Citrus honey \\ \end{tabular} & 0 & 20 & 0 & 0 & 20 \\  & Count & \begin{tabular}{c} Pine honey \\ Citrus honey \\ \end{tabular} & 0 & 0 & 12 & 2 & 14 \\ \cline{2-8} Original & & \begin{tabular}{c} Fir honey \\ Type honey \\ Citrus honey \\ \end{tabular} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 14 & 14 \\ \cline{2-8}  & \% & \begin{tabular}{c} Fir honey \\ Type honey \\ Citrus honey \\ \end{tabular} & 0.0 & 100.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 100.0 \\  & & \begin{tabular}{c} Pine honey \\ Citrus honey \\ \end{tabular} & 0.0 & 0.0 & 85.7 & 14.3 & 100.0 \\ \hline  & & \begin{tabular}{c} Fun honey \\ Type honey \\ Citrus honey \\ \end{tabular} & 12 & 0 & 2 & 0 & 14 \\ \cline{2-8}  & Count & \begin{tabular}{c} Thyme honey \\ Pine honey \\ Citrus honey \\ \end{tabular} & 2 & 17 & 0 & 1 & 20 \\  & Count & \begin{tabular}{c} Pine honey \\ Citrus honey \\ \end{tabular} & 0 & 0 & 12 & 2 & 14 \\ \cline{2-8} Cross-validated 3 & & \begin{tabular}{c} Fir honey \\ Type honey \\ Citrus honey \\ \end{tabular} & 85.7 & 0.0 & 14.3 & 0.0 & 100.0 \\  & \% & \begin{tabular}{c} Thyme honey \\ Pine honey \\ Citrus honey \\ \end{tabular} & 10.0 & 85.0 & 0.0 & 5.0 & 100.0 \\  & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Pine honey \\ Citrus honey \\ \end{tabular} & 0.0 & 0.0 & 85.7 & 14.3 & 100.0 \\  &
\begin{tabular}{c} Citrus honey \\ \end{tabular} & 0.0 & 21.4 & 7.1 & 71.4 & 100.0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}   
* 93.5% of original grouped cases correctly classified. 2 82.3% of cross-validated grouped cases correctly classified, 3 cross validation is done only for those cases in the analysis. In cross validation, each case is classified by the functions derived from all cases other than that case. Figure 8: Discrimination results based on FTIR spectroscopy. The LDA algorithm has not been previously applied for the discrimination of the four monofloral honey groups. [PERSON] et al. [18] successfully performed a principal component analysis (PCA) discrimination of eight different honey botanical origins from Turkey. [PERSON] et al. [17] also reported a satisfactory classification among multifloral and monofloral honey when ATR-FTIR was coupled with PCA. Finally, [PERSON] et al. [48] applied a random forest algorithm to the classification of 80 samples of asphodel, eucalyptus, thistle, and strawberry tree honey, thereby achieving an average accuracy of 87% in a cross-validation context. The findings indicate a high discrimination rate of FTIR spectroscopy in combination with chemometrics as a more powerful authentication tool compared to the developed statistical model based on volatile compounds. The above results highlight the importance of FTIR spectroscopy in combination with chemometrics as an authentication tool with potential application in the industry. This is of great importance as it comprises a rapid, environmentally friendly, and low-cost technique, without the requirement of specialized staff and tedious sample pretreatment.