## 4 Conclusions  
A Purge and Trap GC-MS system was used for the extraction, separation, and identification of characteristic volatile and semi-volatile compounds of five distinguished monofloral honey types--thymme, pine, fir, erica, and cotton--with the latter two remaining less well explored regarding their aroma profile. In total, 124 compounds were found. Thyme honey, whose profile, regarding the presence of volatiles, was the richest compared with the other honey types of this study, was characterized by the presence of benzeneacetaldehyde, benzaldehyde, and benzyl nitrile. Isophorone and furfural seem to characterize erica honey, 1-butanol, 2-methyl-, and 1-pentanol, 4-methyl- the cotton honey and alpha.-pinene, octane and nonanal the honeydowneys. The application of multivariate statistical analysis to P&T GC-MS data showed that the use of volatile profiles could lead to discrimination among the different monofloral honey types. Further analysis of more monofloral honey types could be a helpful tool for the confirmation of honey authentication through volatile profile analysis.  
Conceptualization, C.T.; methodology, C.T. and V.L.; investigation, V.L. and M.A.R.; writing--original draft preparation, C.T., V.L., D.K. and M.A.R.; visualization, C.T., V.L., D.K. and M.A.R.; supervision, C.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research was funded from Greek national funds through the Public Investments Program (PIP) of General Secretariat for Research and Technology (GSRT), under the Emblematic Action \"The bee routes\" (project code: 2018\(\Sigma\)E01300000).  
Not applicable.  
Data availability Statement: Data supporting reported results are restored at Laboratory of Apiculture-Seriatric, AUTH.  
The authors declare no conflict of interest.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline Fir & \(=-21.793+3.485\times\) C19 + 9.247 \(\times\) C20 + 1.916 \(\times\) C24 + 0.548 \(\times\) C34 \(-\) 2.373 \(\times\) C38 \(-\) 4.593 \(\times\) C49 \(-\) 1.776 \(\times\) C62 \(-\) 0.166 \(\times\) C68 + 95.518 \(\times\) C121 \(-\) 0.369 \(\times\) C124 \\ \hline Pine & \(=-7.115+2.145\times\) C19 + 4.959 \(\times\) C20 \(-\) 0.139 \(\times\) C24 + 0.187 \(\times\) C34 + 0.236 \(\times\) C38 + 0.777 \(\times\) C49 + 4.041 \(\times\) C62 + 0.063 \(\times\) C68 + 14.959 \(\times\) C121 + 0.020 \(\times\) C124 \\ \hline Erica & \(=-37.589+1.069\times\) C19 \(-\) 1.149 \(\times\) C20 \(-\) 8.629 \(\times\) C24 \(-\) 1.562 \(\times\) C34 + 23.255 \(\times\) C38 \(-\) 29.924 \(\times\) C49 + 6.489 \(\times\) C62 + 0.033 \(\times\) C68 \(-\) 11.829 \(\times\) C121 + 13.108 \(\times\) C124 \\ \hline Thyme & \(=-17.553+1.509\times\) C19 + 2.871 \(\times\) C20 \(-\) 3.605 \(\times\) C24 \(-\) 1.289 \(\times\) C34 + 1.240 \(\times\) C38 \(+\) 2.005 \(\times\) C49 + 9.706 \(\times\) C62 \(-\) 0.728 \(\times\) C68 \(-\) 23.198 \(\times\) C121 + 5.044 \(\times\) C124 \\ \hline Cotton & \(=-109.333+29.508\times\) C19 + 2.678 \(\times\) C20 + 59.756 \(\times\) C24 + 2.982 \(\times\) C34 \(-\) 2.621 \(\times\) C38 \(+\) 108.549 \(\times\) C49 \(-\) 17.208 \(\times\) C62 \(-\) 0.037 \(\times\) C68 + 87.765 \(\times\) 121 \(-\) 46.286 \(\times\) C124 \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{X\({}_{1}\)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{X\({}_{2}\)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{X\({}_{3}\)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{X\({}_{4}\)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{X\({}_{5}\)} \\ \hline Fscore\_max & 26.05 & 38.70 & 2.62 & 19.43 & 13.58 \\ \hline Assigned Honey Type & Thyme & Fir & Pine & Thyme & Thyme \\ \hline Correct & Thyme & Fir & Pine & Thyme & Thyme \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: [PERSON]’s linear discriminant functions exported for the 5 monofloral honey types (test set) and assignment of probable botanical origin for five samples (references Xn).