Quantification of the Antioxidant Activity of Plant Extracts: Analysis of Sensitivity and Hierarchization Based on the Method Used
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Selection of the Studied Plants
2.2. Plant Material Sampling Location
2.3. Extract Preparation
2.4. Total Phenols
2.5. Determination of Antioxidant Activity Using the 2,2-Diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) Radical Scavenging Method
2.6. Determination of Antioxidant Activity Using the Ferric Reducing/Antioxidant Power (FRAP) Method
2.7. Determination of Antioxidant Activity Using the ABTS Free Radical Scavenging Method
2.8. Determination of Antioxidant Activity Using the Reducing Power (RP) Method
2.9. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Total Phenol Content and Antioxidant Activity Quantification by Different Methods
3.2. Correlation between Antioxidant Activity Measuring Methods
3.3. Cluster Analysis
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Specie | Extract Concentration | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
0.1 mg/mL | 0.5 mg/mL | 1 mg/mL | 2 mg/mL | |
C. ladanifer | 0.030 ± 0.002 | 0.086 ± 0.0005 | 0.127 ± 0.003 | 0.146 ± 0.0003 |
C. salvifolius | 0.032 ± 0.001 | 0.104 ± 0.002 | 0.144 ± 0.0007 | − |
C. albidus | 0.023 ± 0.0002 | 0.072 ± 0.0001 | 0.111 ± 0.001 | 0.146 ± 0.0001 |
R. officinalis | 0.013 ± 0.0004 | 0.044 ± 0.001 | 0.084 ± 0.001 | 0.144 ± 0.0003 |
L. stoechas | 0.008 ± 0.00008 | 0.022 ± 0.00008 | 0.035 ± 0.001 | 0.078 ± 0.001 |
E. australis | 0.022 ± 0.0009 | 0.078 ± 0.0005 | 0.121 ± 0.001 | 0.146 ± 0.001 |
A. unedo | 0.035 ± 0.00008 | 0.098 ± 0.003 | 0.139 ± 0.0009 | 0.146 ± 0.00008 |
R. aculeatus | 0.007 ± 0.0001 | 0.0094 ± 0.0001 | 0.013 ± 0.003 | 0.023 ± 0.001 |
D. gnidium | 0.011 ± 0.0009 | 0.027 ± 0.002 | 0.038 ± 0.002 | 0.081 ± 0.002 |
T. fruticans | 0.011 ± 0.0006 | 0.029 ± 0.001 | 0.052 ± 0.0001 | 0.094 ± 0.007 |
P. angustifolia | 0.013 ± 0.004 | 0.034 ± 0.0005 | 0.065 ± 0.0006 | 0.115 ± 0.003 |
P. lentiscus | 0.030 ± 0.002 | 0.107 ± 0.005 | 0.145 ± 0.0006 | − |
Specie | Extract Concentration | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
0.1 mg/mL | 0.5 mg/mL | 1 mg/mL | 2 mg/mL | |
C. ladanifer | 0.0713 ± 0.002 | 0.083 ± 0.001 | 0.094 ± 0.002 | − |
C. salvifolius | 0.0573 ± 0.003 | 0.079 ± 0.00007 | 0.096 ± 0.001 | − |
C. albidus | 0.0559 ± 0.003 | 0.072 ± 0.002 | 0.078 ± 0.0005 | − |
R. officinalis | 0.0481 ± 0.002 | 0.074 ± 0.0005 | 0.080 ± 0.003 | 0.089±0.0008 |
L. stoechas | 0.0530 ± 0.01 | 0.071 ± 0.002 | 0.080 ± 0.006 | 0.082±0.001 |
E. australis | 0.0579 ± 0.0008 | 0.077 ± 0.005 | 0.078 ± 0.00006 | − |
A. unedo | 0.0653 ± 0.001 | 0.076 ± 0.0005 | 0.087 ± 0.002 | − |
R. aculeatus | 0.0038 ± 0.003 | 0.019 ± 0.001 | − | 0.094±0.001 |
D. gnidium | 0.0142 ± 0.0002 | 0.074 ± 0.005 | 0.089 ± 0.0002 | 0.117±0.003 |
T. fruticans | 0.0312 ± 0.001 | 0.081 ± 0.002 | 0.093 ± 0.002 | 0.114±0.002 |
P. angustifolia | 0.0419 ± 0.007 | 0.079 ± 0.0002 | 0.082 ± 0.0002 | 0.091±0.002 |
P. lentiscus | 0.0711 ± 0.004 | 0.078 ± 0.004 | − | − |
Specie | Extract Concentration | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
0.1 mg/mL | 0.5 mg/mL | 1 mg/mL | 2 mg/mL | |
C. ladanifer | 0.010 ± 0.003 | − | − | − |
C. salvifolius | 0.013 ± 0.0002 | − | − | − |
C. albidus | 0.009 ± 0.0006 | − | − | − |
R. officinalis | 0.003 ± 0.0001 | 0.017 ± 0.0004 | 0.034 ± 0.0003 | − |
L. stoechas | 0.001 ± 0.0004 | 0.009 ± 0.00005 | 0.015 ± 0.0004 | − |
E. australis | 0.014 ± 0.006 | − | − | − |
A. unedo | 0.012 ± 0.001 | − | − | − |
R. aculeatus | 0.0004 ± 0.0005 | 0.002 ± 0.0008 | 0.005 ± 0.0002 | 0.010 ± 0.0007 |
D. gnidium | 0.003 ± 0.0006 | 0.016 ± 0.0006 | 0.023 ± 0.0007 | 0.034 ± 0.00005 |
T. fruticans | 0.001 ± 0.0001 | 0.010 ± 0.0008 | 0.020 ± 0.0007 | 0.033 ± 0.00001 |
P. angustifolia | 0.002 ± 0.001 | 0.014 ± 0.001 | 0.024 ± 0.0005 | − |
P. lentiscus | 0.012 ± 0.0005 | − | − | − |
Specie | Extract Concentration | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
0.1 mg/mL | 0.5 mg/mL | 1 mg/mL | 2 mg/mL | |
C. ladanifer | 0.022 ± 0.003 | 0.089 ± 0.001 | 0.155 ± 0.002 | − |
C. salvifolius | 0.027 ± 0.001 | 0.125 ± 0.004 | − | − |
C. albidus | 0.018 ± 0.0003 | 0.077 ± 0.002 | 0.125 ± 0.001 | − |
R. officinalis | 0.010 ± 0.0001 | 0.052 ± 0.0005 | 0.101 ± 0.003 | 0.191 ± 0.002 |
L. stoechas | 0.008 ± 0.0001 | 0.031 ± 0.002 | 0.045 ± 0.0004 | 0.100 ± 0.001 |
E. australis | 0.023 ± 0.001 | 0.078 ± 0.003 | 0.131 ± 0.003 | − |
A. unedo | 0.026 ± 0.002 | 0.097 ± 0.001 | 0.172 ± 0.001 | − |
R. aculeatus | 0.006 ± 0.0002 | 0.011 ± 0.001 | 0.026 ± 0.005 | 0.080 ± 0.0001 |
D. gnidium | 0.009 ± 0.0003 | 0.026 ± 0.002 | 0.038 ± 0.0002 | 0.071 ± 0.004 |
T. fruticans | 0.012 ± 0.0001 | 0.040 ± 0.003 | 0.077 ± 0.001 | 0.144 ± 0.002 |
P. angustifolia | 0.016 ± 0.001 | 0.052 ± 0.001 | 0.093 ± 0.001 | 0.160 ± 0.002 |
P. lentiscus | 0.031 ± 0.003 | 0.117 ± 0.004 | − | − |
References
- Barua, C.C.; Sen, S.; Das, A.S.; Talukdar, A.; Jyoti Hazarika, N.; Barua, A.; Barua, I. A comparative study of the in vitro antioxidant property of different extracts of Acorus calamus Linn. J. Nat. Prod. Plant Resour. 2014, 4, 8–18. [Google Scholar]
- Pang, Y.; Ahmed, S.; Xu, Y.; Beta, T.; Zhu, Z.; Shao, Y.; Bao, J. Bound phenolic compounds and antioxidant properties of whole grain and bran of white, red and black rice. Food Chem. 2018, 240, 212–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nićiforović, N.; Mihailović, V.; Mašković, P.; Solujić, S.; Stojković, A.; Muratspahić, D.P. Antioxidant activity of selected plant species; potential new sources of natural antioxidants. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2010, 48, 3125–3130. [Google Scholar]
- Duthie, G.G.; Duthie, S.J.; Kyle, J.A.M. Plant polyphenols in cancer and heart disease: Implications as nutritional antioxidants. Nutr. Res. Rev. 2000, 13, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Li, A.-N.; Li, S.; Zhang, Y.-J.; Xu, X.-R.; Chen, Y.-M.; Li, H.-B. Resources and biological activities of natural polyphenols. Nutrients 2014, 6, 6020–6047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balmus, I.; Ciobica, A.; Trifan, A.; Stanciu, C. The implications of oxidative stress and antioxidant therapies in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Clinical aspects and animal models. Saudi J. Gastroenterol. 2016, 22, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miliauskas, G.; Venskutonis, P.R.; van Beek, T.A. Screening of radical scavenging activity of some medicinal and aromatic plant extracts. Food Chem. 2004, 85, 231–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gouthamchandra, K.; Mahmood, R.; Manjunatha, H. Free radical scavenging, antioxidant enzymes and wound healing activities of leaves extracts from Clerodendrum infortunatum L. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2010, 30, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abramovič, H.; Grobin, B.; Poklar Ulrih, N.; Cigić, B. The methodology applied in DPPH, ABTS and Folin-Ciocalteau assays has a large influence on the determined antioxidant potential. Acta Chim. Slov. 2017, 64, 491–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Apak, R.; Güçlü, K.; Özyürek, M.; Karademir, S.E. Mechanism of antioxidant capacity assays and the CUPRAC (cupric ion reducing antioxidant capacity) assay. Microchim. Acta 2008, 160, 413–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prior, R.L.; Wu, X.; Schaich, K. Standardized methods for the determination of antioxidant capacity and phenolics in foods and dietary supplements. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005, 53, 4290–4302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pérez Jiménez, J. Metodología Para la Evaluación de Ingredientes Funcionales Antioxidantes: Efectos de Fibra Antioxidante de Uva en Status Antioxidante Y Parámetros de Riesgo Cardiovascular en Humanos. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, D.; Ou, B.; Prior, R.L. The chemistry behind antioxidant capacity assays. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005, 53, 1841–1856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schaich, K.M.; Tian, X.; Xie, J. Hurdles and pitfalls in measuring antioxidant efficacy: A critical evaluation of ABTS, DPPH, and ORAC assays. J. Funct. Foods 2015, 14, 111–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fares, R.; Bazzi, S.; Baydoun, S.E.; Abdel-Massih, R.M. The antioxidant and antiproliferative activity of the Lebanese Olea europaea extract. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 2011, 66, 58–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vanzani, P.; Rossetto, M.; De Marco, V.; Sacchetti, L.E.; Paoletti, M.G.; Rigo, A. Wild Mediterranean plants as traditional food: A valuable source of antioxidants. J. Food Sci. 2011, 76, 46–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papaefthimiou, D.; Papanikolaou, A.; Falara, V.; Givanoudi, S.; Kostas, S.; Kanellis, A.K. Genus Cistus: A model for exploring labdane-type diterpenes’ biosynthesis and a natural source of high value products with biological, aromatic, and pharmacological properties. Front. Chem. 2014, 11, 2–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vogt, T.; Proksch, P.; Gülz, P.-G. Epicuticular flavonoid aglycones in the genus Cistus, Cistaceae. J. Plant Physiol. 1987, 131, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaves, N.; Escudero, J.C.; Gutiérrez-Merino, C. Quantitative variation of flavonoids among individuals of a Cistus ladanifer population. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 1997, 25, 429–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González-Burgos, E.; Gómez-Serranillos, M.P. Terpene compounds in nature: A review of their potential antioxidant activity. Curr. Med. Chem. 2012, 19, 5319–5341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guerreiro, O.; Alves, S.P.; Duarte, M.F.; Bessa, R.J.B.; Jerónimo, E. Cistus ladanifer L. Shrub is rich in saturated and branched chain fatty acids and their concentration increases in the mediterranean dry season. Lipids 2015, 50, 493–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peñuelas, J.; Castells, E.; Joffre, R.; Tognetti, R. Carbon-based secondary and structural compounds in mediterranean shrubs growing near a natural CO2 spring. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2002, 8, 281–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ammar, H.; López, S.; González, J.S. Assessment of the digestibility of some Mediterranean shrubs by in vitro techniques. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2005, 119, 323–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rozin, P.; Spranca, M.; Krieger, Z.; Neuhaus, R.; Surillo, D.; Swerdlin, A.; Wood, K. Preference for natural: Instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite 2004, 43, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Romani, A.; Pinelli, P.; Galardi, C.; Mulinacci, N.; Tattini, M. Identification and quantification of galloyl derivatives, flavonoid glycosides and anthocyanins in leaves of Pistacia lentiscus L. Phytochem. Anal. 2002, 13, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lehmann, J.; Große-Stoltenberg, A.; Römer, M.; Oldeland, J. Field spectroscopy in the vnir-swir region to discriminate between mediterranean native plants and exotic-invasive shrubs based on leaf tannin content. Remote Sens. 2015, 7, 1225–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carović-Stanko, K.; Petek, M.; Grdiša, M.; Pintar, J.; Bedeković, D.; Herak Ćustić, M.; Satovic, Z. Medicinal plants of the family Lamiaceae as functional foods—A review. Czech J. Food Sci. 2016, 34, 377–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lawrence, B.M. Chemical components of Labiatae oils and their exploitation. In Advances in Labiate Science; Harley, R.M., Reynolds, T., Eds.; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew: Richmond, UK, 1992; pp. 399–436. [Google Scholar]
- Özkan, M. Glandular and eglandular hairs of Salvia recognita Fisch. & Mey. (Lamiaceae) in Turkey. Bangladesh J. Bot. 2008, 37, 93–95. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Sereiti, M.R.; Abu-Amer, K.M.; Sen, P. Pharmacology of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) and its therapeutic potentials. Indian J. Exp. Biol. 1999, 37, 124–130. [Google Scholar]
- Parejo, I.; Viladomat, F.; Bastida, J.; Rosas-Romero, A.; Flerlage, N.; Burillo, J.; Codina, C. Comparison between the radical scavenging activity and antioxidant activity of six distilled and nondistilled mediterranean herbs and aromatic plants. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 6882–6890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boix, Y.F.; Victório, C.P.; Defaveri, A.C.A.; Arruda, R.D.C.D.O.; Sato, A.; Lage, C.L.S. Glandular trichomes of Rosmarinus officinalis L.: Anatomical and phytochemical analyses of leaf volatiles. Plant Biosyst. 2011, 145, 848–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Djabou, N.; Lorenzi, V.; Guinoiseau, E.; Andreani, S.; Giuliani, M.-C.; Desjobert, J.-M.; Muselli, A. Phytochemical composition of Corsican Teucrium essential oils and antibacterial activity against foodborne or toxi-infectious pathogens. Food Control 2013, 30, 354–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaabane, F.; Boubaker, J.; Loussaif, A.; Neffati, A.; Kilani-Jaziri, S.; Ghedira, K.; Chekir-Ghedira, L. Antioxidant, genotoxic and antigenotoxic activities of Daphne gnidium leaf extracts. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2012, 12, 1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Romani, A.; Baldi, A.; Mulinacci, N.; Vincieri, F.F.; Tattini, M. Extraction and identification procedures of polyphenolic compounds and carbohydrates in phillyrea (Phillyrea angustifolia L.) leaves. Chromatographia 1996, 42, 571–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singleton, V.L.; Rossi, J.A. Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagent. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 1965, 16, 144–158. [Google Scholar]
- Katalinic, V.; Milos, M.; Kulisic, T.; Jukic, M. Screening of 70 medicinal plant extracts for antioxidant capacity and total phenols. Food Chem. 2006, 94, 550–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benzie, I.F.F.; Strain, J.J. The ferric reducing ability of plasma (FRAP) as a measure of “Antioxidant Power”: The FRAP assay. Anal. Biochem. 1996, 239, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stratil, P.; Klejdus, B.; Kubáň, V. Determination of total content of phenolic compounds and their antioxidant activity in vegetables evaluation of spectrophotometric methods. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 607–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oyaizu, M. Studies on products of browning reaction: Antioxidative activities of products of browning reaction prepared from glucosamine. Jpn. J. Nutr. 1986, 44, 307–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dávalos, A.; Gómez-Cordovés, C.; Bartolomé, B. Commercial Dietary Antioxidant Supplements Assayed for Their Antioxidant Activity by Different Methodologies. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2003, 51, 2512–2519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moon, J.-K.; Shibamoto, T. Antioxidant assays for plant and food components. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009, 57, 1655–1666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Londoño-Londoño, J. Antioxidantes: Importancia biológica y métodos para medir su actividad. In Desarrollo Y Transversalidad. Serie Lasallista Investigación Y Ciencia; Corporación Universitaria Lasallista: Caldas, Colombia, 2012; pp. 129–162. [Google Scholar]
- Rice-Evans, C.; Miller, N.; Paganga, G. Antioxidant properties of phenolic compounds. Trends Plant Sci. 1997, 2, 152–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cömert, E.D.; Gökmen, V. Antioxidants bound to an insoluble food matrix: Their analysis, regeneration behavior, and physiological importance. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. 2017, 16, 382–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Upadrasta, L.; Mukhopadhyay, M.; Banerjee, R. Tannins: Chemistry, biological properties and biodegradation. In Chemistry and Biotechnology of Polyphenols; Sabu, A., Roussos, S., Aguilar, C.N., Eds.; Cibet Publishers: Thiruvananthapuram, India, 2011; pp. 5–32. [Google Scholar]
- Zlatić, N.; Jakovljević, D.; Stanković, M. Temporal, plant part, and interpopulation variability of secondary metabolites and antioxidant activity of Inula helenium L. Plants 2019, 8, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Tardieu, F.; Tuberosa, R. Dissection and modelling of abiotic stress tolerance in plants. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2010, 13, 206–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hadacek, F.; Bachmann, G.; Engelmeier, D.; Chobot, V. Hormesis and a chemical Raison D’être for secondary plant metabolites. Dose Response 2011, 9, 79–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aidi Wannes, W.; Mhamdi, B.; Sriti, J.; Ben Jemia, M.; Ouchikh, O.; Hamdaoui, G.; Kchouk, M.; Marzouk, B. Antioxidant activities of the essential oils and methanol extracts from myrtle (Myrtus communis var. italica L.) leaf, stem and flower. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2010, 48, 1362–1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Djeridane, A.; Yousfi, M.; Nadjemi, B.; Boutassouna, D.; Stocker, P.; Vidal, N. Antioxidant activity of some algerian medicinal plants extracts containing phenolic compounds. Food Chem. 2006, 97, 654–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amessis-Ouchemoukh, N.; Madani, K.; Falé, P.L.V.; Serralheiro, M.L.; Araújo, M.E.M. Antioxidant capacity and phenolic contents of some Mediterranean medicinal plants and their potential role in the inhibition of cyclooxygenase-1 and acetylcholinesterase activities. Ind. Crops Prod. 2014, 53, 6–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fawole, O.A.; Ndhlala, A.R.; Amoo, S.O.; Finnie, J.F.; Van Staden, J. Antiinflammatory and phytochemical properties of twelve medicinal plants used for treating gastrointestinal ailments in South Africa. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2009, 123, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milan, C.; Hana, C.; Petko, D.; Maria, K.; Anton, S.; Antonín, L. Different methods for control and comparison of the antioxidant properties of vegetables. Food Control 2010, 21, 518–523. [Google Scholar]
- Thaipong, K.; Boonprakob, U.; Crosby, K.; Cisneros-Zevallos, L.; Byrne, D.H. Comparison of ABTS, DPPH, FRAP, and ORAC assays for estimating antioxidant activity from guava fruit extracts. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2006, 19, 669–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wojdylo, A.; Oszmianski, J.; Czemerys, R. Antioxidant activity and phenolic compounds in 32 selected herbs. Food Chem. 2007, 105, 940–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dudonné, S.; Vitrac, X.; Coutière, P.; Woillez, M.; Mérillon, J.-M. Comparative study of antioxidant properties and total phenolic content of 30 plant extracts of industrial interest using DPPH, ABTS, FRAP, SOD, and ORAC assays. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009, 57, 1768–1774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Garry, C.; Kang Nee, T.; Christophe, W.; Jeffrey, F. High correlation of 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical scavenging, ferric reducing activity potential and total phenolics content indicates redundancy in use of all three assays to screen for antioxidant activity of extracts of plants from the malaysian rainforest. Antioxidants 2013, 2, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Wong-Paz, J.E.; Contreras-Esquivel, J.C.; Rodríguez-Herrera, R.; Carrillo-Inungaray, M.L.; López, L.I.; Nevárez-Moorillón, G.V.; Aguilar, C.N. Total phenolic content, in vitro antioxidant activity and chemical composition of plant extracts from semiarid Mexican region. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Med. 2015, 8, 104–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rajurkar, N.S.; Hande, S.M. Estimation of phytochemical content and antioxidant activity of some selected traditional indian medicinal plants. Indian J. Pharm. Sci. 2011, 73, 146–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Species | TPC | TPC | DPPH | ABTS | RP | FRAP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(AGE mg/mg dw) | (QE mg/mg dw) | (FeSO4 E mg/mg dw) | ||||
C. salvifolius | 0.036 ± 0.004 | 0.026 ± 0.003 | 0.032 ± 0.001 | 0.013 ± 0.0002 | 0.027 ± 0.001 | 0.057 ± 0.003 |
P. lentiscus | 0.034 ± 0.003 | 0.024 ± 0.004 | 0.030 ± 0.004 | 0.012 ± 0.0005 | 0.031 ± 0.003 | 0.071 ± 0.002 |
A. unedo | 0.032 ± 0.003 | 0.023 ± 0.004 | 0.035 ± 0.00008 | 0.012 ± 0.001 | 0.026 ± 0.002 | 0.065 ± 0.001 |
C. ladanifer | 0.027 ± 0.003 | 0.019 ± 0.002 | 0.030 ± 0.002 | 0.010 ± 0.003 | 0.022 ± 0.003 | 0.071 ± 0.004 |
C. albidus | 0.025 ± 0.001 | 0.018 ± 0.0007 | 0.023 ± 0.0002 | 0.009 ± 0.0006 | 0.018 ± 0.0003 | 0.056 ± 0.003 |
E. australis | 0.025 ± 0.004 | 0.018 ± 0.003 | 0.022 ± 0.0009 | 0.014 ± 0.006 | 0.023 ± 0.001 | 0.058 ± 0.0008 |
R. officinalis | 0.022 ± 0.001 | 0.015 ± 0.001 | 0.013 ± 0.002 | 0.003 ± 0.0001 | 0.010 ± 0.0001 | 0.048 ± 0.002 |
P. angustifolia | 0.019 ± 0.002 | 0.014 ± 0.001 | 0.013 ± 0.0004 | 0.002 ± 0.001 | 0.016 ± 0.001 | 0.042 ± 0.007 |
T. fruticans | 0.014 ± 0.001 | 0.010 ± 0.0008 | 0.011 ± 0.0006 | 0.001 ± 0.00001 | 0.012 ± 0.0001 | 0.031 ± 0.001 |
D. gnidium | 0.014 ± 0.001 | 0.010 ± 0.0006 | 0.011 ± 0.0009 | 0.003 ± 0.0006 | 0.009 ± 0.0003 | 0.014 ± 0.0002 |
L. stoechas | 0.009 ± 0.0003 | 0.006 ± 0.0002 | 0.008 ± 0.00008 | 0.001 ± 0.004 | 0.008 ± 0.0001 | 0.053 ± 0.01 |
R. aculeatus | 0.003 ± 0.0002 | 0.002 ± 0.0001 | 0.007 ± 0.0001 | 0.0004 ± 0.0005 | 0.006 ± 0.0002 | 0.004 ± 0.003 |
DPPH | FRAP | ABTS | PR | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Specie | QE | Specie | FeSO4 E | Specie | QE | Specie | QE |
R. aculeatus | 0.007 | R. aculeatus | 0.004 | R. aculeatus | 0.0004 | R. aculeatus | 0.006 |
L. stoechas | 0.008 | D. gnidium | 0.014 | T. fruticans | 0.001 | L. stoechas | 0.008 |
D. gnidium | 0.011 | T. fruticans | 0.031 | L. stoechas | 0.001 | D. gnidium | 0.009 |
T. fruticans | 0.011 | P. angustifolia | 0.042 | P. angustifolia | 0.002 | R. officinalis | 0.010 |
P. angustifolia | 0.013 | R. officinalis | 0.048 | R. officinalis | 0.003 | T. fruticans | 0.012 |
R. officinalis | 0.013 | L. stoechas | 0.053 | D. gnidium | 0.003 | P. angustifolia | 0.016 |
E. australis | 0.022 | C. albidus | 0.056 | C. albidus | 0.009 | C. albidus | 0.018 |
C. albidus | 0.023 | C. salvifolius | 0.057 | C. ladanifer | 0.010 | C. ladanifer | 0.022 |
C. ladanifer | 0.030 | E. australis | 0.058 | P. lentiscus | 0.012 | E. australis | 0.023 |
P. lentiscus | 0.030 | A. unedo | 0.065 | A. unedo | 0.012 | A. unedo | 0.026 |
C. salvifolius | 0.032 | P. lentiscus | 0.071 | C. salvifolius | 0.013 | C. salvifolius | 0.027 |
A. unedo | 0.035 | C. ladanifer | 0.071 | E. australis | 0.014 | P. lentiscus | 0.031 |
Method | DPPH | FRAP | ABTS | RP |
---|---|---|---|---|
RP | 0.944 *** | 0.784 ** | 0.921 *** | |
ABTS | 0.916 *** | 0.737 ** | ||
FRAP | 0.789 ** |
Species | DPPH/ABTS | RP/ABTS |
---|---|---|
C. ladanifer | 2.94 | 2.20 |
C. salvifolius | 2.42 | 2.11 |
C. albidus | 2.57 | 1.97 |
R. officinalis | 4.52 | 3.51 |
L. stoechas | 7.26 | 7.74 |
E. australis | 1.56 | 1.63 |
A. unedo | 2.91 | 2.19 |
R. aculeatus | 18.4 | 16.5 |
D. gnidium | 3.52 | 2.89 |
T. fruticans | 10.3 | 11.6 |
P. angustifolia | 5.73 | 6.67 |
P. lentiscus | 2.54 | 2.58 |
Method | A. unedo L. stoechas | E.australis L. stoechas | C. ladanifer L. stoechas | P. lentiscus L. stoechas |
---|---|---|---|---|
DPPH | 4.51 | 2.91 | 3.81 | 3.92 |
FRAP | 1.23 | 1.09 | 1.34 | 1.34 |
ABTS | 11.26 | 13.83 | 11.41 | 11.41 |
RP | 3.20 | 2.87 | 2.68 | 3.20 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Chaves, N.; Santiago, A.; Alías, J.C. Quantification of the Antioxidant Activity of Plant Extracts: Analysis of Sensitivity and Hierarchization Based on the Method Used. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox9010076
Chaves N, Santiago A, Alías JC. Quantification of the Antioxidant Activity of Plant Extracts: Analysis of Sensitivity and Hierarchization Based on the Method Used. Antioxidants. 2020; 9(1):76. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox9010076
Chicago/Turabian StyleChaves, Natividad, Antonio Santiago, and Juan Carlos Alías. 2020. "Quantification of the Antioxidant Activity of Plant Extracts: Analysis of Sensitivity and Hierarchization Based on the Method Used" Antioxidants 9, no. 1: 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox9010076