Comparing the acetolysed and hydrated methods for the pollen analysis of honey

Abstract

Melissopalynology is an integral part of honey analysis and indicates the honey's botanical and geographical origin. Two preparation methods for light microscopy are commonly and interchangeably used in laboratories: acetolysis and hydration of honey samples. In this study, an extended comparison of the two methods was performed. Eight honey samples from eight locations in central Europe were analysed according to both standard procedures. We identified the pollen grains with 1000× magnification to the lowest possible taxonomic rank and counted out the relative abundances of each pollen type in the sample. In addition, potential other biases that might affect the results were investigated by analysing one honey sample multiple times with each method, consecutively. Across all honey samples, more pollen types were identified with the hydrated method (136) compared to the acetolysed method (95). For the hydrated method, less washing steps were necessary and a higher amount of pollen grains remained. No taxa-specific loss could be observed, apart from Myosotis sp., which was present in significantly lesser amounts in acetolysed compared to hydrated samples. This study shows a detailed analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the two methods, which are also highlighted in a side-by-side comparison box. Both methods are equally suitable to perform melissopalynological analysis of the most common pollen types and pollen type combinations in honey. However, to identify the largest variety of pollen types in honey samples, the hydrated method is more efficient.