## 4 Discussion
### Antimicrobial Activity
(2001) conducted studies according to which honey from six floral sources was used (treated or untreated with catalase) against bacterial strains _Escherichia coli_, _Staphylococcus typhimurium_, _Staphylococcus sounei_, _Listeria monocytogenes_, _Staphylococcus aureus_ and _Bacillus cereus_. It has been shown that _Staphylococcus aureus_ was the most sensitive for all types of honey analyzed [73]. Our results showed that _S. flexueri_, _S. typhimurium_ and _E. coli_ proved to be one of the most susceptible strains at the activity of samples taken during Harvest I. So, concerning _S. flexueri_, the most effective samples with MIC values influenced by concentration presented in gray color, proved to be C (0.923-0.878), B (0.922-0.882), R (0.849-0.705), CL (0.789-0.646) and CI (0.753-0.714), compared to the positive control which presented an OD of 0.956. We want to highlight that the inhibition effect was present at all four concentrations tested, in case of the effective samples. The same trend is present for samples taken during Harvest II, in case of C, B, R, CL, CI and M. All the values for Harvest III have proven a lower absorbance value compared to Harvest I, thus, a better inhibitory effect, M developing also an inhibitory activity with values ranging from 0.942-0.829. Regarding the antibacterial effect, _P. aeruginosa_ was the least susceptible strain. Of all samples tested during Harvest II, antibacterial activity with proven effect was present only in R 75 and R 100 and all four concentrations tested of M III (0.927-0.998). Compared to all the other strains tested, the effect present in Harvest II decreased in Harvest III, with only a few singular concentrations inhibiting the growth of the ATCC strain (C 100, T 75, T 100, R 100, M 75 and M 100). In our research, _E coli_ proved to be the most sensitive strain, being the most susceptible to most of the samples tested in Harvest II and also in Harvest III. Only R, J and CL proved MIC values but with a potentiating effect, while all the other tested samples proved MIC values with obvious inhibitory effect, correlated to concentration. In case of _S. typhimurium_, in Harvest II, the antibacterial effect was present only in a few samples, the same effect being recognized in Harvest III, as follows: B, T, O and M for Harvest II and C, B, R, O in case of Harvest III. The good news was that the effect was better in Harvest III, data sustained by values that proved an inhibitory effect in all for concentrations tested. The difference was present only in case of M sample, in which the inhibitory effect in Harvest II decreased in Harvest III. In our research, _H. influenzae_ type B (ATCC 100211) was more resistant to the antibacterial effect of samples tested in Harvest II, being susceptible only to CL (0.764-0.538), C 75 and C 100 (1.233-1.103) and M for all four concentrations tested (1.127-1.273). In samples tested during Harvest III, C, T, R, O, CL, CI and M proved MIC values, with inhibitory effect, proved in all tested concentrations. Concerning the antifungal effect, C. _parapsilopsis_ proved to be more susceptible, while C. albicans showed less sensitivity to all tested samples. In case of C. _parapsilopsis_, for Harvest II, T, O, CL and M 100 demonstrated MIC values correlated with the increase of concentration. C, T, R, O, CL and M maintained the same efficacy in Harvest III, with lower OD values compared to the ones obtained for Harvest II, as presented in Table 3. _C. albicans_, on the other hand, proved to be resistant, presenting MIC values which decrease alongside the increase of concentration for all tested samples, both in Harvest II and Harvest III. Through these values we can conclude that the essential oils present in the diet of bees produced honey with antibacterial effect increased after two weeks after administration.