# Honey as a Bioindicator: Pollution's Effects on Its Quality in Mining vs. Protected Sites
## 3 Results  
Table 3 presents the results of the physico-chemical evaluation of the honey samples, highlighting key parameters, such as the moisture content, water activity, phenols and flavonoids contents, HMF, and sugar composition. The physico-chemical analyses revealed a moisture content ranging from 16.42% to 18.03%, complying with the maximum limit of 20% set by Directive 2001/110/EC [47]. The samples showed water activity values ranging from 0.528 to 0.592, while the phenolic content varied between 59.73 and 96.49 mg GAE/100 g, and the flavonoid content ranged from 2.30 to 5.45 mg QE/100 g. The sugar content in the samples varied between a minimum of 1.89% and a maximum of 3.68%, while the inverted sugar content ranged from 72.23% to 80.97%. The HMF content ranged from 0.49 to 1.10 mg/kg across the analyzed samples. Table 4 presents the concentrations of heavy metals detected in the honey samples analyzed, providing insight into potential environmental contamination. The values determined for the heavy metals in the analyzed samples (S1-S4 from mining areas and samples SS1-SS4 from protected areas) show significant variations depending on the location. The lead concentrations were highest in sample S1 (0.607 mg/kg), suggesting a strong industrial or mining influence. Cadmium was present in small amounts in the samples, but its presence, even at low levels, indicates anthropogenic influences, such as traffic or pesticide use. Iron appeared in high concentrations in sample S1--12.131 mg/kg, indicating a significant contribution from geological or industrial-mining sources. Copper showed moderate values, with the highest found in S4 (0.545 mg/kg), pointing to local \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sample** & **H, \%** & **a\({}_{\text{w}}\)** & **Phenols,** & **Flavonoids,** & **Sugar,** & **Inverted** & **HMF,** \\
**No.** & & & **mg GAE/100 g** & **mg QE/100 g** & **\%** & **Sugar, \%** & **mg/100 g** \\ \hline S1 & 16.53 \(\pm\) 0.52 & 0.583 \(\pm\) 0.011 & 70.39 \(\pm\) 0.47 & 4.11 \(\pm\) 0.20 & 2.29 \(\pm\) 0.33 & 72.23 \(\pm\) 1.39 & 0.59 \(\pm\) 0.10 \\ SS1 & 17.18 \(\pm\) 0.18 & 0.547 \(\pm\) 0.013 & 82.14 \(\pm\) 0.61 & 4.26 \(\pm\) 0.18 & 2.84 \(\pm\) 0.30 & 79.99 \(\pm\) 2.80 & 0.76 \(\pm\) 0.14 \\ S2 & 16.42 \(\pm\) 0.39 & 0.528 \(\pm\) 0.026 & 63.84 \(\pm\) 0.30 & 2.30 \(\pm\) 0.11 & 2.88 \(\pm\) 0.28 & 78.96 \(\pm\) 2.44 & 1.10 \(\pm\) 0.23 \\ SS2 & 17.09 \(\pm\) 0.31 & 0.569 \(\pm\) 0.018 & 72.67 \(\pm\) 0.52 & 2.67 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 2.68 \(\pm\) 0.36 & 78.44 \(\pm\) 1.05 & 0.92 \(\pm\) 0.20 \\ S3 & 16.74 \(\pm\) 0.20 & 0.571 \(\pm\) 0.023 & 84.91 \(\pm\) 0.86 & 4.08 \(\pm\) 0.23 & 3.68 \(\pm\) 0.41 & 79.11 \(\pm\) 2.67 & 0.80 \(\pm\) 0.16 \\ SS3 & 16.90 \(\pm\) 0.44 & 0.535 \(\pm\) 0.009 & 96.49 \(\pm\) 1.03 & 5.45 \(\pm\) 0.17 & 3.65 \(\pm\) 0.77 & 78.47 \(\pm\) 2.53 & 1.03 \(\pm\) 0.12 \\ S4 & 18.03 \(\pm\) 0.57 & 0.592 \(\pm\) 0.014 & 59.73 \(\pm\) 0.26 & 3.08 \(\pm\) 0.10 & 1.89 \(\pm\) 0.20 & 80.97 \(\pm\) 3.31 & 0.68 \(\pm\) 0.10 \\ S54 & 17.25 \(\pm\) 0.26 & 0.560 \(\pm\) 0.015 & 63.20 \(\pm\) 0.44 & 3.31 \(\pm\) 0.15 & 3.16 \(\pm\) 0.63 & 79.15 \(\pm\) 2.02 & 0.49 \(\pm\) 0.15 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Abbreviations: H—moisture content: \(a_{w}\)—water activity; HMF—hydroxymethylfurral content. Note: All values are expressed as mean \(\pm\) standard deviation (\(n=3\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Physico-chemical evaluation of honey samples. mining activities. Zinc was present in considerable amounts in samples S2 and S1 (6.17 and 5.25 mg/kg, respectively), which, although potentially reflecting a natural presence, also suggests possible environmental contamination. Overall, the lower values in the samples from protected areas compared to those from mining zones may indicate a different distribution of metals between phases, influenced by solubility, pH, the impact of mining areas, or organic matter content. All the analyzed samples were classified as polyfloral honey, exhibiting a diversified palynological profile without a dominant floral taxon (>45%).