# Honey as a Bioindicator: Pollution's Effects on Its Quality in Mining vs. Protected Sites
## 3 Results
The microscopic analysis of the pollen grains revealed the presence of approximately 8-10 pollen types, with the predominant ones being _Robinia pseudoacacia_ (black locust)--22-25%; _Tilia_ spp. (linden)--16-18%; _Brassica napus_ (rapeseed)--11-15%; _Helianthus annuus_ (sunflower)--10-12%; _Trifolium_ spp. (clover)--9-10%; _Centaurea_ spp. (knapweed)--5-8%; _Acer_ spp. (maple)--3-6%;while the remaining pollen originated from other diverse species. This distribution indicates a mixed origin, characteristic of meadows, forest edges, and agricultural crops, reflecting a high floral biodiversity during the harvesting period. Tables 5 and 6 present the antimicrobial activity (antibacterial and antifungal) of the honey samples against the tested strains. The artificial honey did not inhibit any of the strains. The results of the IZDs of the honey samples for different bacterial strains, compared to the standard antibiotic (Ciprofloxacinacin, 5 \(\mu\)g), show interesting trends. All the honey samples, regardless of the sampling site, had antibacterial activity, with inhibition diameters ranging from 7 mm to 21 mm. The largest diameters were observed in the case of the two strains of _Staphylococcus_, followed by _P. aeruginosa_. In almost all cases, it was observed that the inhibition produced by the honey samples from the protected areas was more intense \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sample** & **Pb,** & **Cd,** & **Fe,** & **Cu,** & **Zn,** \\
**No.** & **mg/kg** & **mg/kg** & **mg/kg** & **mg/kg** & **mg/kg** \\ \hline S1 & 0.607 \(\pm\) 0.061 & 0.018 \(\pm\) 0.001 & 12.131 \(\pm\) 0.885 & 0.428 \(\pm\) 0.047 & 5.250 \(\pm\) 0.278 \\ SS1 & 0.072 \(\pm\) 0.005 & \textless{}0.001 & 1.068 \(\pm\) 0.070 & 0.073 \(\pm\) 0.003 & 0.091 \(\pm\) 0.016 \\ S2 & 0.451 \(\pm\) 0.043 & 0.020 \(\pm\) 0.004 & 9.260 \(\pm\) 0.651 & 0.211 \(\pm\) 0.051 & 6.170 \(\pm\) 0.235 \\ SS2 & 0.058 \(\pm\) 0.004 & 0.013 \(\pm\) 0.001 & 0.472 \(\pm\) 0.032 & 0.031 \(\pm\) 0.002 & 0.114 \(\pm\) 0.023 \\ S3 & 0.320 \(\pm\) 0.039 & 0.014 \(\pm\) 0.002 & 2.210 \(\pm\) 0.093 & 0.185 \(\pm\) 0.037 & 0.822 \(\pm\) 0.057 \\ SS3 & 0.056 \(\pm\) 0.003 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.623 \(\pm\) 0.081 & 0.060 \(\pm\) 0.008 & 0.060 \(\pm\) 0.019 \\ S4 & 0.218 \(\pm\) 0.025 & \textless{}0.001 & 3.432 \(\pm\) 0.126 & 0.545 \(\pm\) 0.064 & 1.202 \(\pm\) 0.162 \\ SS4 & 0.055 \(\pm\) 0.002 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.067 \(\pm\) 0.019 & 0.063 \(\pm\) 0.005 & 0.075 \(\pm\) 0.024 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: All values are expressed as mean \(\pm\) standard deviation (\(n\) = 3).  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Heavy metals identified in honey samples. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Bacterial** & & & & **Sample** & & & & **Synthetic Antibiotic** \\ \cline{2-9}
**Strain** & **S1** & **SS1** & **S2** & **SS2** & **S3** & **SS3** & **S4** & **SS4** & **Ciprofloxacinacin, 5 \(\mu\)g** \\ \hline _E. coli_ & 9 & 11 & 12 & 14 & 8 & 8 & 8 & 10 & 29 \\ \hline _S. enteritidis_ & 7 & 8 & 7 & 8 & 8 & 9 & 8 & 8 & 27 \\ \hline _P. aeruginosa_ & 14 & 17 & 13 & 15 & 11 & 13 & 15 & 18 & 25 \\ \hline _S. aureus_ & 18 & 21 & 19 & 19 & 18 & 20 & 18 & 20 & 30 \\ \hline _S. epidermidis_ & 16 & 18 & 16 & 18 & 18 & 19 & 17 & 18 & 29 \\ \hline _B. cereus_ & 8 & 8 & 8 & 9 & 9 & 10 & 7 & 8 & 30 \\ \hline _L. monocytogenes_ & 8 & 9 & 8 & 8 & 8 & 9 & 9 & 10 & 24 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Antibacterial activity of honey samples against the used strains—inhibition zone diameter (mm). than in the honey polluted with heavy metals. The highest IZD (21 mm) was observed in the case of _S. aureus_ for sample SS1 from the protected area, followed by 20 mm IZDs in samples SS3 and SS4, both from protected areas. The lowest IZDs (7 mm) were observed for the strains of _S. enteritidis_ for samples S1 and S2 and in the case of _B. cereus_ for sample S4, all from polluted areas. As with the bacterial strains, Table 6 shows that all the honey samples, regardless of the sampling area, had an antifungal effect on all the strains studied.