A comparison between characterization and biological properties of brazilian fresh and aged propolis

As propolis is a highly valued bee product, we aimed to verify the quality of aged propolis, investigating their phenolic and flavonoid composition, levels of toxic metals, radical scavenging and antimicrobial activities. Samples of fresh and aged propolis of six different beekeepers, from the same geographical location, were investigated in terms of their phenolic and flavonoid composition and levels of Pb, Cd, and Cr, as well as radical scavenging and antimicrobial activities. The two groups of propolis had similar qualitative composition by HPLC-PDA and ESI(-)-MS. Fresh propolis and aged propolis show no differences when average values of extraction yield, flavonoids, EC50, or MIC were compared and both types of propolis showed good antimicrobial activity at low concentrations. Only levels of phenolic compounds were higher in fresh propolis. The propolis samples considered in this study, aged or fresh, had similar qualitative composition, although they were collected in different periods. Samples only differed in their levels of total phenolic content. Moreover, aged propolis conserves significant radical scavenging and antimicrobial properties. We suggest that aged propolis should not be discarded but explored for alternative applications.As propolis is a highly valued bee product, we aimed to verify the quality of aged propolis, investigating their phenolic and flavonoid composition, levels of toxic metals, radical scavenging and antimicrobial activities. Material and Methods. Samples of2014FINEP - FINANCIADORA DE ESTUDOS E PROJETOSCNPQ - CONSELHO NACIONAL DE DESENVOLVIMENTO CIENTÍFICO E TECNOLÓGICOFAPESP - FUNDAÇÃO DE AMPARO À PESQUISA DO ESTADO DE SÃO PAULOFA - FUNDAÇÃO ARAUCÁRIA DE APOIO AO DESENVOLVIMENTO CIENTÍFICO E TECNOLÓsem informaçãosem informaçãosem informação10908/PPP/2006sem informaçãoThe study had financial support by Financiadora de Estudos e projetos (FINEP), Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP), Fundação Araucária (10908/PPP/2006), and P