Abstract
Publications on the physical constants for the comb waxes of Asian and European beeswaxes first appeared a century ago. It was soon shown that carbon chain length was, on average, shorter in the Asian beeswaxes than in A. mellifera, which explains the lower melting points of the former. The Asian waxes are more similar to one another than to A. mellifera. In Asian beeswaxes, the amounts of C31 and C33 in the pool of free fatty acids are reduced, but C25 hydrocarbons are increased compared to that of A. mellifera. The major compound families in beeswax are alkanes, alkenes, free fatty acids, monoesters, diesters and hydroxymonoesters, while fatty alcohols and hydroxydiesters are minor constituents. There are notable species-specific differences in the beeswaxes among honeybee species, but all share a complex mixture of homologous neutral lipids. The amounts of acylglycerols are the same in scale and comb wax, but diacylglycerols dominate the former and monoacylglycerols the latter. There are more double-bonded fatty acids in comb than in scale wax, and a greater saturation of fatty acids in comb wax. Beeswaxes analysed with high temperature gas chromatography yielded a characteristic elution pattern for waxes of each honeybee species. A parsimonious, unweighted, pair-group analysis based on the distribution of the chemical constituents for 82 elution peaks of the derivatized comb waxes of six species of honeybees. The Euclidean distances of the beeswaxes present a picture very similar to those obtained from morphometric, behavioural and DNA sequence analyses. The wax glands and the products of their secretions were highly conserved features during honeybee evolution.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
16.1 Introduction
In this chapter, discussions on the chemistry of beeswax are restricted entirely to honeybee wax scales and comb wax in a biological context. Investigations of both the chemical composition and physical properties of beeswaxes of A. mellifera have been pursued for centuries, and these earlier works have been documented by Grün and Halden (1929). Preparations for and practical uses of beeswax have also been documented (Cowan 1908; Coggshall and Morse 1995), and the commercial industrial aspects of beeswax have been exhaustively monographed (Büll 1977); thousands of publications have appeared on these topics since then. However, the very first studies of Asian beeswaxes appeared only a century ago (Hooper 1904; Bellier 1906; Büchner 1906; Hooper and Büchner 1906; Ueno 1915; Roberts and Islip 1922; Ikuta 1931, 1934), who between them recorded the physical constants (specific gravity, melting point, acid and saponification values , etc.) of the comb waxes of A. cerana, A. dorsata, A. florea and A. mellifera.
As our knowledge of the hydrocarbon, alcohol and acid fractions of beeswaxes developed, two points of importance to honeybee biology emerged. Firstly, Phadke (1961) re-examined the physical constants of A. cerana, A. dorsata, A. florea and A. mellifera beeswaxes, and showed each to be extremely homogenous as evidenced by the very small standard deviations in the physical values of the samples measured. Shortly after, Narayana (1970) and Phadke et al. (1971) determined that carbon chain length was, on average, shorter in the three Asian beeswaxes than in A. mellifera, which accounts for the lower melting points of the Asian waxes. Progress in wax chemistry advanced with gradually improved analytical techniques of both thin-layer and gas-liquid methods of chromatography in the 1940 and 1950s (Touchstone 1993).
16.2 Chemical Composition
The composition and origin of A. mellifera comb beeswax has relatively recently been summarised by Tulloch (1980), and is shown in Table 16.1. The major components are defined as those exceeding more than 5 % of each fraction; those of lesser abundance are regarded as minor constituents. Tulloch regarded, as major components, those which constituted more than 1 % of each fraction; those of lesser abundance were regarded as minor constituents. Nevertheless, if a particular fraction is itself small, then a given compound may well be ‘major’ in that fraction, but very minor with respect to the bulk composition of a beeswax sample. Tulloch (1980) regarded the large number of minor hydrocarbons as probably disproportionate, because of the relative ease with which they can be separated, vis-à-vis the seven groups of esters. The residue of some 44 % of beeswax is taken up entirely by minor constituents, to which Tulloch ascribed the relatively low melting point of intact beeswax and its plasticity.
By combining both gasliquid and thin-layer methods of chromatography Tulloch (1973, 1974, 1975, 1980) also studied the composition of waxes from different honeybee species. He found that the waxes from different A. mellifera races were very similar as a group, but the unsaturated C31 hydrocarbon peak was smaller and the C35 hydrocarbon peak larger in the African bee, A. m. scutellata, than in the European races of A. mellifera. By contrast, he reported that waxes of the Asian bees, A. cerana, A. dorsata and A. florea, resemble each other more closely than any of them do to A. mellifera waxes as previously reported by Narayana (1970) and Phadke et al. (1971). In the Asian waxes there is a smaller pool of free fatty acids (analysed as methyl esters), reduced amounts of C31 and C33, but increased C25 hydrocarbons compared to A. mellifera waxes. The recordings from the gas-liquid chromatography analyses by Tulloch are shown in Fig. 16.1.
Despite the assiduous efforts of numerous chemists who have sought to analyse the composition of beeswax, we have very few observations on the chemistry of newly secreted wax scales. Huber (1814) investigated the solubility properties of wax scales and of fragments of newly fashioned white comb wax. He observed that the wax scales readily dissolved in turpentine (presumably comprising then, as now, a pot-pourri of terpenes, but mainly the monoterpenes ά- and β-pinene ), but that comb wax left a white residue. When scale and comb wax samples of equivalent weight were placed in vessels of sulphuric ether (probably diethyl ether), the former became opaque but did not dissolve, while the latter dissolved leaving a white residue in the vessel.
When Huber allowed the ether to evaporate from the vessels, he always obtained a recoverable layer of scale wax residue, which led him to conclude that if the scales were indeed crude wax, then the bees must impregnate them with some additional substance to obtain the whiteness and ductility of newly constructed comb wax. To this we can add the observations of Young (1963), who analysed wax scales for the presence of (2-14C)-acetate that had been injected into wax-producing bees. He found that the label was incorporated in the free acid and ester fractions of wax scales. Finally, Lambremont and Wykle (1979) performed a thin-layer chromatographic separation of scale wax and found the resulting chromatographic pattern similar to that obtained by Tulloch (1970) from cappings wax, with the exception that their chromatograms lacked activity at the diester position.
Subsequently, Davidson and Hepburn (1986) compared the glycerols of scale and comb wax. Their assays showed that the monoacylglycerol and diacylglycerol fractions comprised about 91 % of the total glycerol in scale and comb wax. While the total level of the acylglycerols were the same in scale and comb wax, the diacylglycerols dominated the scale wax glycerol pool, and the monoacylglycerols the comb wax glycerols. Within the acylglycerol fractions there were substantially more double-bonded fatty acids in scale than in comb wax. Although about 50 % of the fatty acid fractions were the same in the two waxes, there was a significantly greater degree of saturation in the fatty acids of comb wax.
In the absence of hard analytical knowledge as to the total composition of beeswax scales vis-à-vis that of newly built comb, a rather circuitous route must be taken to assess the possible differences among European, African and ‘africanized’ (A. m. scutellata) subspecies. Of equal importance, what exactly is it that a honeybee worker does when she chews scales in the process of comb construction? To this end Eckert (1922, 1927) repeated the basic experiment of Dumas and Edwards (1843) to assess the effects of cane sugar versus honey on the composition of wax. He compared the fresh, white wax of newly constructed combs built by bees fed sugar, with the yellowish wax produced by a colony given nectar and honey, and found no differences between them. The dimension of age was added to composition studies by Jordan et al. (1940), who compared old comb wax, wax newly secreted by young bees and new wax produced by bees of more than a month old. Replicate and parallel measurements were made on cleaned combs, but no significant differences were found between the waxes of young and old bees. These two waxes did, however, differ from old comb wax in that the latter had an iodine number twice that of the former. This they attributed to a greater contamination of the old wax by carotenoids derived from pollen.
16.3 Chemometrics
Titschack (1969) analysed and tabulated the acid, saponification and ester values for A. mellifera African waxes, ranging in origin from Morocco and Ethiopia through the Ivory Coast and south to Mozambique. Because these data were sorted by countries, individual results cannot confidently be ascribed to any particular honeybee subspecies (Hepburn and Radloff 1998). Nonetheless, there were statistically significant differences in composition between several African waxes from different sources, pointing to possible genetic differences among the races. This approach was extended by Tulloch (1980) who showed that the waxes of Asian honeybees were chemically different from those of A. mellifera, and that the African and European subspecific profiles of A. mellifera waxes also differed.
With the development of high resolution capillary gas chromatography, this work has been extended, particularly by Brand-Garnys and Sprenger (1988). They characterised the waxes of different A. mellifera races on the basis of unique hydrocarbon and ester profiles, and recognised 16 subspecific waxes, ten of which are of African geographical origin (Table 16.2). Unfortunately no information is given as to the origin of these waxes, or of variations between the samples, so these data elude chemotaxonomic analysis. Recently, Beverly et al. (1995) showed that the pyrolysis-mass spectral peaks obtained from European and African beeswaxes differed in their relative intensities, but no unique molecules peculiar to any specific wax were obtained. Nonetheless, this approach might be a useful line of further inquiry.
With even more sophisticated gas-chromatographic methods than previously available Aichholz and Lorbeer (1999) and Aichholz et al. (2000) re-examined the comb waxes of the Asian honeybees, A. andreniformis, A. cerana, A. dorsata, A. florea and A. laboriosa as well as A. mellifera, and showed that they are complex mixtures of homologous neutral lipids containing a range of 20–64 carbon length molecules. Aichholz et al. (2000) investigated beeswaxes with high temperature gas chromatography and obtained a characteristic elution pattern for the waxes of each honeybee species, confirming and extending the earlier analyses of Tulloch (1980) and Brand-Garnys and Sprenger (1988).
In another analysis of beeswaxes Puleo (1991) published gas chromatograms of the comb waxes of African A. m. scutellata and European A. m. ligustica honeybees, and demonstrated striking differences in both their hydrocarbon and straight chain monoester fractions. In the former, the percentage of C33:1 unsaturated hydrocarbon is greater than the concentrations of C29 and C31 saturated hydrocarbons, while the converse occurs in the latter subspecies. Also, the percentage of C35:1 unsaturated hydrocarbon is ten times greater in A. m. scutellata (~1.2) than in A. m. ligustica (~0.2). Likewise, there is a lower percentage concentration of C48 relative to the C46 esters in A. m. scutellata than in A. m. ligustica (Puleo 1991). He also reported that there are also minor components associated with the hydrocarbon fraction, in that the even-numbered, straight chain hydrocarbons vary in length from C22 to C34 and may constitute 0.02–0.2 % of the total.
Following Tulloch (1980), Aichholz et al. (2000) defined the major compound families as those exceeding 5 % of the total, so that alkanes, alkenes, free fatty acids, monoesters, diesters and hydroxymonoesters are the major compound families, while fatty alcohols and hydroxydiesters are minor constituents (Table 16.3). There are notable species-specific differences in the waxes among honeybee species (Table 16.3), but all share a complex mixture of homologous neutral lipids: C25–C29 alkanes, C40–C54 monoesters, C42–C52 hydroxymonoesters, and C56–C58 diesters (Aichholz and Lorbeer 1999; Aichholz et al. 2000). Presently our knowledge of the composition of the waxes of all honeybee species is nearly equal; however, pathways of synthesis remain available only for A. mellifera (Hepburn et al. 1991). Given what is known of species-specific composition (Table 16.4), there is considerable opportunity for biochemical studies of beeswaxes in future.
16.3.1 Chemometric Classification of Beeswaxes
For any experimental study into the numerous interactions between pheromones and comb and/or cuticular waxes known to occur (Breed et al. 1995a, b, 1998), it is essential to know the chemical composition of the waxes involved and to be able to classify them. The chemical compositions of comb and cuticular waxes of honeybees have been extensively investigated (Blomquist and Ries 1979; Blomquist et al. 1980; Lockey 1985; Hepburn 1986; Francis et al. 1989), but with different methods. In a seminal paper, Frölich et al. (2000) established objective and quantitative chemometric tools for distinguishing between comb waxes of different ages and the cuticular waxes from different castes and sexes of A. m. carnica. Previously there had been no studies on chemical composition of different age classes of comb waxes using quantitative classification tools.
When Frölich et al. (2000) analyzed their fractions by gas chromatography, 56–75 % of the total mass of the wax samples could be identified (Table 16.5). All comb waxes of different age classes were dominated by long-chain aliphatic compounds, with chain lengths ranging in length from C21 to C54 (Fig. 16.2). The chain lengths exhibited a bimodal distribution, and there were no differences in chain length distributions among wax scales, new, middle-aged, and old comb waxes respectively. The respective medians for the shorter and longer chain length distributions were also fairly close. Chain lengths were in the range of C42 to C44 for all comb wax classes (Fig. 16.2). These data are consistent with those of other studies on A. mellifera (Basson and Reynhardt 1988), as well as waxes of the Asian honeybee species (Narayana 1970; Phadke et al. 1971).
The chemical compositions of all waxes were dominated by long-chain alkyl esters contributing 47 % ± 4.0 to 57 % ± 6.9 of the total of fractions 1–3 (Table 16.6).
With the increasing age of comb wax, the overall median of the different age classes decreases, but the relative contributions by alkenes, alkadienes and branched alkanes increased from 3.4 % ± 1.43 (alkenes), 0.06 % ± 0.044 (alkadienes) and 0.00 % ± 0.008 (branched alkanes) in wax scales, to 12 % ± 1.3, 2.0 % ± 0.21 and 0.95 % ± 0.129 in old comb wax respectively. These systematic changes of alkene, alkadiene, and branched alkane contents were even more pronounced when the hydrocarbon fraction (fraction 1) alone was analysed. In this case, the contributions of the three substance classes to the total of hydrocarbons increased from 24 % ± 1.1, 0.38 % ± 0.071 and 0.05 % ± 0.048 in wax scales, to 40 % ± 0.5, 7.0 % ± 0.09 and 3.3 % ± 0.08 in old comb wax respectively (Table 16.7).
More recently, Namdar et al. (2007) published GC and GC/MS analyses of light and dark coloured A. m. ligustica and A. m. syriaca combs (Fig. 16.3). They found that, as beeswax ages and darkens, its n-alkane composition changes. The amount of even numbered n-alkanes (C22–C32), is significantly higher in darker coloured beeswax compared to light beeswax. They attributed these differences, at least in part, to the accumulation of cuticular residues known to contain C23 to C32 odd and even numbered n-alkanes. They determined the presence of odd and even numbered n-alkanes, and showed that there was a clear predominance of the C27 alkane, with only very small amounts of even numbered n-alkanes in the range of C22–C32. Also, darker beeswax contains on average about 3 times more even numbered n-alkanes than lighter coloured beeswax.
16.3.2 Discrimination and Classification of Beeswaxes
Before introducing this topic, it is often important to identify and separate pure beeswax from contaminant resins, such as slumgum, which occur in beeswax samples (Grout 1946; Morales-Corts et al. 2010). It was recently reported that waxes and contaminating resins can readily be identified by differential scanning calorimetry (Zhang et al. 2012). Quantitative criteria for the distinction between comb age classes, castes are possible based on chemical features of the respective waxes are both desirable and possible Frölich et al. (2000) subjected their data to a discriminant function analysis which allows the predictive classification of cases (wax samples) by computation of classification functions. These functions are not to be confused with discriminant functions. Only substance classes that could be positively identified by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, were included. The results of their analysis functions achieved 99.3 % unambiguous discrimination into the classes: wax scales, new wax, middle aged wax and old wax.
The chemical changes recorded by Frölich et al. (2000) during the ageing process of comb wax, seem to consist of two parallel processes. They proposed that the decrease in chain length with age (process 1), may be due to lipolytic enzymes (Kurstjens et al. 1985; Davidson and Hepburn 1986; Hepburn 1986), which bees add to the wax scales during their conversion into comb wax. These enzymes might be esterases, and this could result in a decrease in long-chain esters and subsequently an increase in shorter chains. The second process (2), may be due to spontaneous physical and chemical processes rather than the direct influence of the bees. The olfactory system of the honeybee is very sensitive to hydrocarbon compounds (Page et al. 1991), the clearly distinguishable wax compositions may be cues for the honeybees to distinguish different regions of the nest for allocating tasks, or to identify nestmate bees they meet in the darkness of the nest (Tautz 2009) (cf. Chap. 5). Phiancharoen et al. (2011) calculated the weighted frequency distributions of the compounds in Table 16.4 to determine the average chain length of each type of wax as shown in Table 16.8. There were no significant differences among the waxes, although there is a trend suggesting that the waxes of the dwarf honeybees have the longest chain lengths. This is surprising because, as a general rule, stiffness, strength, yield stress and other properties increase with increasing carbon chain length in polymers (Salamone 1996), but this relationship does not hold for beeswaxes.
In a further study on wax discrimination Phiancharoen et al. (2011) performed a cluster analysis of beeswax composition, based on the data of Aichholz and Lorbeer (1999) (Table 16.4) to assess their relative affinities, as measured by the Euclidean distances using the unweighted pair-group centroid amalgamation rule. A parsimonious unweighted pair-group analysis based on the distribution of the chemical constituents for 82 elution peaks of the derivatized comb waxes of A. andreniformis, A. cerana, A. dorsata, A. florea, A. laboriosa and A. mellifera is shown in Fig. 16.4. The giant honeybee group (A. dorsata and A. laboriosa) is clearly separated from the other species, as are the dwarf species (A. andreniformis and A. florea), while A. mellifera is placed close to its sister-group, A. cerana.
The Euclidean distances of beeswaxes presented a very similar picture, which is consistent with the recent analyses of Apis species, in which three distinct clusters of sister-groups result from morphometric (Alexander 1991), behavioural (Raffiudin and Crozier 2007) and DNA sequence analyses (Arias and Sheppard 2005): (1) dwarf bees (A. andreniformis and A. florea); (2) giant honeybees (A. dorsata and A. laboriosa); and (3) a cluster consisting of the medium-sized bees (A. cerana, A. koschevnikovi, A. mellifera, A. nigrocincta and A. nuluensis). In any event, the close proximity of the beeswax unweighted pair-groups to those based on DNA and morphometrics, suggests that the wax glands and the products of secretions were highly conserved features during honeybee evolution (Fig. 16.4).
16.4 The Proteins of Beeswax
That beeswax might contain non-lipoidal material has been a very real possibility since Huber (1814) showed that beeswax scales and comb wax have different solubility characteristics. A century later Lineburg (1924) described in detail how worker bees chew and maul wax scales, adding a frothy substance to them. Kurstjens et al. (1985) pursued this probability as a by-product of their studies on the physical changes that occur in the conversion of wax scales into fashioned comb. They found that scale wax did not exhibit a detectable monoglyceride fraction, but had a relatively large pool of diglycerides. In comb wax there was a pronounced monoglyceride fraction, and the diglyceride fraction was considerably less than that in scale wax.
These gross chemical differences between wax scales and finished combs led directly to a search for proteinaceous material that could be added to the wax during chewing, and which might have the expected lytic properties, as had been noted decades earlier by Lineburg (1924). In the search for bee-derived proteins in beeswax, it was essential to preclude any contamination of the scale and comb waxes used in the analyses. Such wax was obtained by keeping small colonies of bees made from newly enclosed brood, confined in a laboratory with no opportunity to forage, nor access to pollen or honey. The bees were only fed a syrupy solution of sucrose. Kurstjens et al. (1985) were able to confirm that scale wax obtained under these conditions contained about 2 μg of protein /mg of wax, and that comb wax contained about 6 μg of protein/mg of wax.
Because beeswax is hydrophobic, it was surmised that it is transported through the pore canals to the exterior surface of the wax mirror by lipophorins. This appears to be the major transport mechanism of hydrophobic natural products in insects (Gilbert and Chino 1974; Haruhito and Chino 1982). Because the lipid composition changes in the conversion of scales into comb wax (Kurstjens et al. 1985), it is also likely that some lipolytic protein is introduced into the scale wax when the bees chew it (Lineburg 1924; Kurstjens et al. 1985). In a series of electrophoretic studies on the beeswax proteins of A. m. capensis and A. m. scutellata, Kurstjens et al. (1990) showed that the substructures of the wax scale and comb protein fractions contained 11 and 13 bands respectively. Seven of these bands were common to both scale and comb waxes for both subspecies.
The proteins ranged between 19 and 100 kD. Bands 1, 2, 6 and 17 (about 97, 89, 66, and 19 kD respectively), were unique to scale wax, while bands 3, 4, 10, 11 and 15 (87, 82, 54, 47 and 43 kD respectively), were unique to comb wax. The waxes shared bands 5, 7–9, 12, 14 and 16 (70, 60, 57, 55, 51, 44 and 29 kD respectively). The densitometric scans showed the relative molecular weight distributions of the bands, and that band 17 is dominant in scale wax, while bands 7–12 are collectively dominant in comb wax. Although wax scales and comb wax contain both unique and shared proteins, their functions are unknown. However, two kinds of lipophorins occur in honeybees (Ryan et al. 1984), and it was surmised that apolipophorin II of honeybees at 78 kD is very close to the 82-kD fraction of comb wax, and to the 70-kD fractions shared by both comb and scale waxes. Although workers chew wax during comb-building, sometimes almost intact scales can be seen in cell walls (Casteel 1912; Zhang et al. 2010), this too points to the addition of a salivary secretion because when incorporated in scale wax, the diacylglycerol component of scales is reduced, and the monoacylglycerol fraction of comb wax increases (Davidson and Hepburn 1986).
16.5 Plant-Derived Aromatic Volatiles and Colourants in Beeswax
Although beeswax has long been a very valuable commodity and its aroma one of its particularly favoured qualities, no analyses of these volatiles were undertaken until the work of Ferber and Nursten (1977). They used a combined GC-MS approach, and for positive identification, they used retention indices of ±0.10 for unknowns and standards on each of two columns of differing polarity, as well as acceptable mass spectral data (Table 16.9). In view of the now well-established interactions between pheromones and comb and/or cuticular waxes (Breed et al. 1995a, b, 1998), it is essential to know the chemical composition of the waxes involved, and to be able to classify same. The aromatic volatiles detected in A. mellifera wax and listed by Ferber and Nursten (1977) could lead to unimagined possibilities for studies on nestmate recognition.
Subsequently Puleo (1991) performed an exhaustive analysis of the minor constituents of beeswax. Table 16.10 demonstrates the extraordinary diversity of plant-derived compounds (collectively, propolis). Among them is a large percentage of chromophoric (C = C, C = O, N = N, C–NO2) and auxochromic (C–OH, CNH2, COOH) groups, which contribute to the strong colour of beeswax. This results from the fact that the auxochromes enhance the colouring capacity of the chromophores (Puleo 1991).
References
Aichholz R, Lorbeer E (1999) Investigation of comb wax of honeybees with high-temperature gas chromatography and high-temperature gas chromatography-chemical ionization mass spectrometry I. High-temperature gas chromatography. J Chromatogr A 855:601–615
Aichholz R, Lorbeer E, Pechhacker H, Hüttinger E (2000) The chemical compounds of beeswax from Apis species. In: Proceedings of 4th Asian apicultural association international conference, Kathmandu, pp 152–154
Alexander BA (1991) A cladistic analysis of the genus Apis. In: Smith DR (ed) Diversity in the genus Apis. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 1–28
Arias MC, Sheppard WS (2005) Phylogenetic relationships of honeybees (Hymenoptera: Apinae: Apini) inferred from nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequence data. Mol Phylogenet Evol 37:25–35
Basson I, Reynhardt EC (1988) An investigation of the structures and molecular dynamics of natural waxes. I. Beeswax. J Phys D: Appl Phys 21:1421–1428
Bellier J (1906) Beeswax from Annam. Ann Chim Anal 11:366–368
Beverly MB, Kay PT, Voorhees KJ (1995) Principal component analysis of the pyrolysis-mass spectra from African, africanized, and European beeswax. J Anal Appl Pyrol 34:251–263
Blomquist GJ, Ries M (1979) The enzymatic synthesis of wax esters by a microsomal preparation from the honeybee Apis mellifera L. Insect Biochem 9:183–188
Blomquist GJ, Chu AJ, Remaley S (1980) Biosynthesis of wax in the honeybee, Apis mellifera L. Insect Biochem 10:313–321
Brand-Garnys EE, Sprenger J (1988) Beeswax: new aspects of a classic raw material for cosmetics. Seifen, Öle, Fette 114:547–552. (In German)
Breed MD, Garry MF, Pearce AN, Hibbard BE, Bjostad L, Page RE (1995a) The role of wax comb in honey bee nestmate recognition. Anim Behav 50:489–496
Breed MD, Page RE, Hibbard BE, Bjostad L (1995b) Interfamily variation in comb wax hydrocarbons produced by honey bees. J Chem Ecol 21:1329–1338
Breed MD, Leger EA, Pearce AN, Wang YJ (1998) Comb wax effects on the ontogeny of honey bee nestmate recognition. Anim Behav 55:13–20
Büchner G (1906) On Indian Ghedda-wax. Chem-Ztg 43:528–529. (In German)
Büll R (1977) Das grosse Buch vom Wachs: Geschichte, Kultur, Technik. Callwey, Munchen
Casteel DB (1912) The manipulation of the wax scales of the honey bee. Circ US Bur Entomol No 161:l–13
Coggshall WL, Morse RA (1995) Beeswax: production, harvesting, processing and products. Wicwac Press, Cheshire
Cowan TW (1908) Wax craft. Sampson Low, London
Davidson BC, Hepburn HR (1986) Transformations of the acylglycerols in comb construction by honeybees. Naturwissenschaften 73:159–160
Dumas JB, Edwards HM (1843) Note sur la production de la cire des abeilles. Ann Sci Nat Paris 20:l–8
Eckert A (1922) Über Bienenwachs. Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Herkunft des Bienenwachses. Lotos Naturwiss Z 70:293–299
Eckert A (1927) Das Werden des Wachses nach der Biologischen Seite. Bienenpflege Ludwigsburg 49:193–198
Ferber CEM, Nursten HE (1977) The aroma of beeswax. J Sci Food Agric 28:511–518
Francis BR, Blanton WE, Littlefield J, Nunamaker RA (1989) Hydrocarbons of the cuticle and hemolymph of the adult honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Ann Ent Soc Am 82:486–494
Frölich B, Tautz J, Riederer M (2000) Chemometric classification of comb and cuticular waxes of the honeybee Apis mellifera carnica. J Chem Ecol 26:123–137
Gilbert LI, Chino H (1974) Transport of lipids in insects. J Lipid Res 15:439–456
Grout RA (1946) Production and uses of beeswax. In: Grout RA (ed) The hive and the honeybee. Dadant and Sons, Hamilton
Grün AD, Halden W (1929) Analyse der Fette und Wachse. Hirschwaldsche Buchhan’dlung, Berlin
Haruhito K, Chino H (1982) Transport of hydrocarbons by the lipophorin of insect hemolymph. Biochim Biophys Acta 710:341–348
Hepburn HR (1986) Honeybees and wax: an experimental natural history. Springer, Berlin
Hepburn HR, Radloff SE (1998) Honeybees of Africa. Springer, Berlin
Hepburn HR, Bernard RTF, Davidson BC, Muller WJ, Lloyd P, Kurstjens SP, Vincent SL (1991) Synthesis and secretion of beeswax in honeybees. Apidologie 22:21–36
Hooper D (1904) Indian bees’-wax. Agric Ledg 7:201–238
Hooper D, Buchner G (1906) On Indian beeswaxes. Anal Bioanal Chem 45:657–658 (In German)
Huber F (1814) Nouvelles observations sur les Abeilles. English translation, 1926. Dadant, Hamilton
Ikuta H (1931) The investigation of Japanese beeswax. Anal Chem 3:430–437
Ikuta H (1934) The investigation of Japanese beeswax (III): composition of hydroxy fatty acid. Analyst 59:353–357
Jordan R, Tischer J, lllner E (1940) Vergleich des von Altbienen erzeugten wachses mit ‘Jungfernwachs’ und gewohnlichem bienenwachs. Z Vergl Physiol 28:353–357
Kurstjens SP, Hepburn HR, Schoening FRL, Davidson BC (1985) The conversion of wax scales into comb wax by African honeybees. J Comp Physiol B 156:95–102
Kurstjens SP, McClain E, Hepburn HR (1990) The proteins of beeswax. Naturwissenschaften 77:34–35
Lambremont EN, Wykle RL (1979) Wax synthesis by an enzyme system from the honey bee. Comp Biochem Physiol B63:131–135
Lineburg B (1924) Comb-building. Am Bee J 64:271–272
Lockey KH (1985) Insect cuticular lipids. Comp Biochem Physiol B81:263–273
Morales-Corts MA, Gómez-Sánchez R, Pérez-Sánchez J, Prieto-Calvo C (2010) Characterization of bee keeping wastes for use in seedling production. Spanish J Agric Res 8:493–500
Namdar D, Neumann R, Sladezski Y, Haddad N, Weiner S (2007) Alkane composition variations between darker and lighter colored comb beeswax. Apidologie 38:453–461
Narayana N (1970) Studies in Indian honeys and bees waxes. Central Bee Research Institute, Pune
Page RE, Metcalf RA, Metcalf RL, Erickson EH, Lampman RL (1991) Extractable hydrocarbons and kin recognition in honeybees (Apis mellifera L.). J Chem Ecol 17:745–756
Phadke RP (1961) Some physico-chemical constants of Indian beeswaxes. Bee Wld 42:149–153
Phadke RP, Nair KS, Nandekar KU (1971) Indian beeswaxes. II. The nature of their chemical constituents. Indian Bee J 33:3–5
Phiancharoen M, Duangphakdee O, Hepburn HR (2011) The biology of nesting. In: Hepburn HR, Radloff SE (eds) Honeybees of Asia. Springer, Berlin, pp 109–132
Puleo S (1991) Beeswax minor components: a new approach. Cosmet Toil 106:83–89
Raffiudin R, Crozier RH (2007) Phylogenetic analysis of honeybee behavioural evolution. Mol Phyl Evol 43:543–552
Roberts OD, Islip HT (1922) The constants of Indian beeswax. Analyst 47:246–251
Ryan RO, Law JH, Schmidt JO (1984) Chemical and immunological properties of lipophorins from seven insect orders. Arch Insect Biochem Physiol 1:375–383
Salamone JC (1996) Polymeric materials encyclopedia. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Tautz J (2009) The buzz about bees: biology of a superorganism. Springer, Berlin
Touchstone C (1993) History of Chromatography. J Liquid Chromatogr 16:1647–1665
Titschack G (1969) Bienenwachs—Analytik und Kennzahlen. Fette, Seifen, Anstrichtmittel 71:369–379
Tulloch AP (1970) The comparison of beeswax and other waxes secreted by insects. Lipids 5:247–258
Tulloch AP (1973) Comparison of some commercial waxes by gas liquid chromatography. J Am Oil Chem Soc 50:269–272
Tulloch AP (1974) Composition of some natural waxes. Cosmet Perfum 89:53–54
Tulloch AP (1975) Chromatographic analysis of natural waxes. J Chromatogr Sci 13:403–407
Tulloch AP (1980) Beeswax—composition and analysis. Bee Wld 61:47–62
Ueno S (1915) Corean beeswax. Analyst 40:343–344
Young RG (1963) The biosynthesis of beeswax. Life Sci 2:676–679
Zhang K, Duan H, Karihaloo BL, Wang J (2010) Hierarchical, multilayered cell walls reinforced by recycled silk cocoons enhance the structural integrity of honeybee combs. Proc Nat Acad Sci 107:9502–9506
Zhang RG, Zhang H, Zheng Z, Zheng H, Feng Y, Wen W (2012) Characterization of five natural resins and waxes by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). Adv Mat Res 418–420:643–650
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hepburn, H.R., Pirk, C. .W., Duangphakdee, O. (2014). The Chemistry of Beeswax. In: Honeybee Nests. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54328-9_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54328-9_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-54327-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-54328-9
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)