# Honey as a Bioindicator: Pollution's Effects on Its Quality in Mining vs. Protected Sites
## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Correlation** & **Phenols** & **Flavonoids** & **HMF** & **Pb, mg/kg** & **Cd, mg/kg** & **Fe, mg/kg** & **Cu, mg/kg** & **Zn, mg/kg** \\ \hline _C. albicans_ & 0.60 \(\star^{10}\) & 0.24 \(\star^{6}\) & 0.34 \(\star^{5}\) & 0.72 \(\star^{3}\) & 0.69 \(\star^{4}\) & 0.47 \(\star^{5}\) & \(-\)0.78 \(\star^{11}\) & 0.53 \(\star^{4}\) \\ _A. flavus_ & \(-\)0.83 \(\star^{11}\) & \(-\)0.93 \(\star^{12}\) & 0.51 \(\star^{4}\) & \(-\)0.44 \(\star^{9}\) & 0.01 \(\star^{6}\) & \(-\)0.10 \(\star^{8}\) & 0.24 \(\star^{6}\) & 0.14 \(\star^{6}\) \\ _A. niger_ & \(-\)0.64 \(\star^{10}\) & \(-\)0.42 \(\star^{9}\) & 0.15 \(\star^{6}\) & 0.70 \(\star^{11}\) & 0.82 \(\star^{3}\) & 0.92 \(\star^{2}\) & 0.22 \(\star^{6}\) & 0.92 \(\star^{2}\) \\ _R. stolonifer_ & 0.86 \(\star^{3}\) & 0.94 \(\star^{2}\) & \(-\)0.57 \(\star^{10}\) & \(-\)0.01 \(\star^{8}\) & \(-\)0.44 \(\star^{9}\) & \(-\)0.34 \(\star^{9}\) & \(-\)0.15 \(\star^{8}\) & \(-\)0.55 \(\star^{10}\) \\ _F. oxysporum_ & \(-\)0.04 \(\star^{8}\) & \(-\)0.55 \(\star^{10}\) & 0.61 \(\star^{4}\) & \(-\)0.82 \(\star^{11}\) & \(-\)0.44 \(\star^{9}\) & \(-\)0.76 \(\star^{11}\) & \(-\)0.33 \(\star^{9}\) & \(-\)0.46 \(\star^{9}\) \\ _P. chrysogenum_ & \(-\)0.33 \(\star^{9}\) & \(-\)0.47 \(\star^{9}\) & 0.52 \(\star^{4}\) & 0.76 \(\star^{3}\) & 0.98 \(\star^{2}\) & 0.86 \(\star^{3}\) & 0.28 \(\star^{6}\) & 0.99 \(\star^{2}\) \\ _A. alternata_ & \(-\)0.97 \(\star^{12}\) & \(-\)0.51 \(\star^{10}\) & \(-\)0.15 \(\star^{8}\) & \(-\)0.04 \(\star^{3}\) & 0.08 \(\star^{6}\) & 0.32 \(\star^{5}\) & 0.79 \(\star^{3}\) & 0.28 \(\star^{6}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: \(\star^{1}\)—perfect positive correlation (r value: +1); \(\star^{22}\)—very strong positive correlation (r value: +0.9 to +10); \(\star^{3}\)—strong positive correlation (r value: +0.7 to +0.9); \(\star^{4}\)—moderate positive correlation (r value: +0.5 to +0.7); \(\star^{5}\)—weak positive correlation (r value: +0.3 to +0.5); \(\star^{6}\)—very weak positive or no correlation (r value: 0 to +0.3); \(\star^{7}\)—no linear correlation (r value: 0); \(\star^{8}\)—very weak negative or no correlation (r value: 0 to \(-\)0.3); \(\star^{9}\)—weak negative correlation (r value: -0.3 to \(-\)0.5); \(\star^{10}\)—moderate negative correlation (r value: -0.5 to \(-\)0.7); \(\star^{11}\)—strong negative correlation (r value: -0.7 to \(-\)0.9); \(\star^{12}\)—very strong negative correlation (r value: -0.9 to \(-\)1.0); \(\star^{13}\)—perfect negative correlation (r value: -1).  
\end{table} 
Table 8: Pearson correlation coefficients between IZD values and chemical parameters of honey from mining areas for different fungal strains. In the case of honey from the protected areas, the correlations were calculated and are shown in Table 10 between the IZD values for the various fungal strains and chemical parameters to highlight the possible links between composition and antifungal activity. The Pearson correlation coefficients for the fungal microorganisms (IZD) in the protected zone show distinct patterns of interaction with various chemical compounds. _C. albicans_ and _A. niger_ exhibited positive correlations with Pb, Cd, Fe, and Zn, suggesting the possible stimulatory effect of these metals on their growth, while _A. flavus_ and _A. alternata_ displayed strong negative correlations with HMF and flavonoids, indicating potential inhibitory effects of these compounds on their proliferation. Additionally, _P. chrysogenum_ showed a strong positive correlation with phenols, flavonoids, and HMF, and for the latter, this suggests its potential adaptability to this compound in the environment.