# Honey as a Bioindicator: Pollution's Effects on Its Quality in Mining vs. Protected Sites
## 3 Results
The IZDs varied between 7 and 12 mm, with the most sensitive strains being those of _R. stolonifer_ and _P. chrysogenum_. In the case of _R. stolonifer_, the most effective sample was SS3, from a protected area, with a diameter of 12 mm, close to that produced by the antifungal vorionazole (16 mm). A 12 mm IZD was also produced for _P. chrysogenum_ by the same sample. And, in the case of the fungal strains, it could be observed that the inhibition produced by the honey samples from the protected areas was more intense than that of those from the mining areas. To understand the relationship between the chemical composition of the honey originating from mining areas and its antimicrobial efficacy, a correlation analysis was performed, shown in Table 7, between the inhibition zone diameter (IZD) determined for the various bacterial strains and the content of the bioactive compounds (phenols, flavonoids), HMF, and heavy metals (Pb, Cd, Fe, Cu, and Zn). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Fungal**} & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**Sample**} & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**Synthetic Antibiotic**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & **S1** & **SS1** & **S2** & **SS2** & **S3** & **SS3** & **S4** & **SS4** & **Voriconazole, 1 ug** \\ \hline _C. albicans_ & 9 & 10 & 9 & 10 & 9 & 9 & 8 & 9 & 37 \\ \hline _A. flavus_ & 8 & 9 & 9 & 9 & 8 & 9 & 9 & 10 & 43 \\ \hline _A. niger_ & 9 & 10 & 9 & 10 & 7 & 9 & 8 & 9 & 45 \\ \hline _R.stolonifer_ & 10 & 11 & 8 & 10 & 11 & 12 & 9 & 9 & 16 \\ \hline _F. oxysporum_ & 8 & 9 & 9 & 10 & 9 & 10 & 9 & 11 & 29 \\ \hline _P. chrysogenum_ & 10 & 11 & 11 & 11 & 8 & 12 & 8 & 9 & 18 \\ \hline _A. alternata_ & 9 & 10 & 9 & 9 & 7 & 8 & 10 & 11 & 16 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Antifungal activity of honey samples against the used strain—inhibition zone diameter (mm). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Correlation IZD** & **Phenols** & **Flavonoids** & **HMF** & **Pb, mg/kg** & **Cd, mg/kg** & **Fe, mg/kg** & **Cu, mg/kg** & **Zn, mg/kg** \\ \hline _E. coli_ & \(-0.36\)* & \(-0.74\)* & \({}^{+11}\) & \(0.81\)*3 & \(0.44\)*5 & \(0.64\)*4 & \(0.57\)*4 & \(-0.45\)*9 & \(0.84\)*3 \\ _S. enteritidis_ & \(0.27\)*8 & \(0.25\)*6 & \(-0.27\)*8 & \(-0.89\)*11 & \(-0.77\)*11 & \(-0.96\)*12 & \(0.15\)*6 & \(-0.99\)*12 \\ _P. aeruginosa_ & \(-0.88\)*11 & \(-0.29\)*8 & \(-0.39\)*9 & \(0.01\)*6 & \(-0.50\)*10 & \(0.32\)*5 & \(0.91\)*2 & \(0.19\)*6 \\ _S. aureus_ & \(-0.36\)*9 & \(-0.84\)*11 & \(0.92\)*2 & \(0.21\)*5 & \(0.52\)*4 & \(0.35\)*5 & \(-0.50\)*10 & \(0.68\)*4 \\ _S. epidermidis_ & \(0.64\)*4 & \(0.42\)*5 & \(-0.15\)*8 & \(-0.70\)*10 & \(-0.43\)*9 & \(-0.92\)*12 & \(-0.22\)*8 & \(-0.92\)*12 \\ _B. cereus_ & \(-0.60\)*10 & \(-0.24\)*8 & \(-0.34\)*9 & \(-0.72\)*11 & \(-0.96\)*12 & \(-0.47\)*9 & \(0.78\)*3 & \(-0.53\)*10 \\ _L. monocytogenes_ & \(-0.60\)*10 & \(-0.24\)*8 & \(-0.34\)*9 & \(-0.72\)*11 & \(-0.96\)*12 & \(-0.47\)*9 & \(0.78\)*3 & \(-0.53\)*10 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Note: *1—perfect positive correlation (r value: +1); *2—very strong positive correlation (r value: +0.9 to +1.0); *3—strong positive correlation (r value: +0.7 to +0.9); *4—moderate positive correlation (r value: +0.5 to +0.7); *5—weak positive correlation (r value: +0.3 to +0.5); *7—no linear correlation (r value: 0); *8—very weak positive or no correlation (r value: 0 to -0.3); *9—weak negative correlation (r value: -0.3 to -0.5); *10—moderate negative correlation (r value: -0.5 to -0.7); *11—strong negative correlation (r value: -0.7 to -0.9); *12—very strong negative correlation (r value: -0.9 to -1.0); *13—perfect negative correlation (r value: -1).  
\end{table} 
Table 7: Pearson correlation coefficients between IZD values and chemical parameters of honey from mining areas for different bacterial strains. The values of the Pearson correlation coefficients indicate the nature (positive or negative) and strength of these relationships, highlighting the possible influences of contaminants or natural compounds on the antibacterial activity.