## 3 Results
### Antioxidant Properties of Honey  
The antioxidant activity and total content of phenolic compounds in analyzed samples varied among the honey types. The average values of the above mentioned parameters are given in Table 3. Honey's total phenolic content ranged from 13.7 mg GAE/100 g in non-traditional lime honey and 51.2 mg GAE/100 g in non-traditional buckwheat honey. Moreover, statistical data show that honey samples were divided into four separate groups. The first group consisted of H1 (traditional rape honey) and H4 (non-traditional lime honey) with the lowest phenolic content, 14.3 and 13.7 mg GAE/100 g, respectively. The next group consisted of traditional meadow and marsh honey and traditional lime honey (34.2 and 36.2 mg GAE/100 g). In the third group, honeydew honey from coniferous honeydew (30.9 mg GAE/100 g) and also traditional lime honey (36.2 mg GAE/100 g) were reported. The fourth group consisted of only one honey sample, and it non-traditional buckwheat honey, containing the highest level of phenolic compounds-51.2 mg GAE/100 g.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Traditional Honey**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Non-Traditional Honey**} \\ \hline  & **H1** & **H2** & **H3** & **H4** & **H5** & **H6** \\ \hline  & & & & & Honeydew \\ Sugars (g/100 g) & Rape honey & Lime honey & Meadow and marsh honey & Lime honey & Buckwheat honey & honey from coniferous \\  & & & & & honey \\ Glucose & 31.52 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) \(\leq\) 5.05 & 37.06 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\geq\) 2.54 & 35.21 \({}^{\text{ab}}\)\(\leq\) 1.95 & 26.26 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\leq\) 2.39 & 28.58 \({}^{\text{ab}}\)\(\leq\) 5.41 & 33.06 \({}^{\text{ab}}\)\(\geq\) 2.68 \\ Fructose & 32.46 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\geq\) 3.00 & 36.87 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\leq\) 2.81 & 36.20 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\leq\) 1.42 & 36.79 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\leq\) 0.20 & 37.50 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\leq\) 0.84 & 30.18 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\leq\) 2.76 \\ Glucose + fructose & 63.98 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\geq\) 7.83 & 73.93 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\leq\) 5.12 & 71.41 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 1.62 & 63.05 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 2.58 & 66.08 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\leq\) 5.94 & 63.24 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 4.87 \\ Fructose/glucose & 1.04 \({}^{\text{ab}}\)\(\leq\) 0.10 & 1.00 \({}^{\text{ab}}\)\(\leq\) 0.04 & 1.03 \({}^{\text{ab}}\)\(\pm\) 0.09 & 1.41 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 0.13 & 1.34 \({}^{\text{bc}}\)\(\pm\) 0.27 & 0.91 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.07 \\ Glucose/water ratio & 1.88 \({}^{\text{ab}}\)\(\pm\) 0.04 & 2.41 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.12 & 2.15 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.10 & 1.48 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.05 & 1.58 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.02 & 2.15 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.06 \\ \hline  & & & & & \\ \end{tabular} Different letters (a–c) in the same line are significantly different at the 95% level (\(p\leq 0.05\)).  
\end{table}
Table 2: Percentage of reducing sugar in honeys.  
ABTS activity was quantified in terms of percentage inhibition of the ABTS+ radical cation by antioxidants in each of the honey samples. There was a significant variation in the percentage inhibition of the honey samples. H6 (non-traditional honeybee honey from coniferous honey), H2 (traditional lime honey), and H3 (traditional meadow and march honey) were the most efficient scavengers of the radical (60.7%, 54.9%, and 52.5% inhibition, respectively) while H1 (traditional rape honey) and H4 (non-traditional lime honey) were characterized by the lowest scavenger inhibition effect (15.1% and 15.2% inhibition, respectively) as presented in Table 3. It should be highlighted that traditional honey samples were recognized as effective scavengers of the radicals, and contained high amounts of phenolic compounds, as well as for honeydew honey from coniferous honey and buckwheat honey-non-traditional honey samples.