Table 1.
Antioxidant capacity of polar and non-polar extracts.
| DPPH | FRAP | ABTS | ORAC | NO Scavenging | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Green Leafy Vegetables | Mean Rank * | Value | Rank | Value | Rank | Value | Rank | Value | Rank | Value | Rank |
| (mmol TE/100 g DM) | (NO inhibition (%)) § | ||||||||||
| Polar extracts | |||||||||||
| Amaranth | 5 | 0.8 ± 0.1 d | 5 | 4.3 ± 0.4 d | 5 | 8.9 ± 0.2 a | 1 | 9.2 ± 0.9 d | 4 | 41 ± 1.3 d | 5 |
| Cassava | 1 | 8.4 ± 0.4 a | 1 | 20 ± 1.4 a | 1 | 8.3 ± 0.5 a | 1 | 47 ± 3.5 a | 1 | 76 ± 2.0 a | 1 |
| Jute mallow | 4 | 3.5 ± 0.3 c | 3 | 7.2 ± 0.2 c | 4 | 3.7 ± 0.6 c | 5 | 13 ± 1.8 d | 4 | 72 ± 1.1 b | 2 |
| Roselle | 2 | 8.7 ± 0.6 a | 1 | 20 ± 1.3 a | 1 | 5.8 ± 0.5 b | 3 | 34 ± 1.3 b | 2 | 72 ± 0.8 b | 2 |
| Spinach | 3 | 2.5 ± 0.5 b | 4 | 10 ± 0.4 b | 3 | 6.4 ± 0.3 b | 3 | 19 ± 2.6 c | 3 | 59 ± 2.9 c | 4 |
| Non-polar extracts | |||||||||||
| Amaranth | 5 | N/A | 0.5 ± 0.04 c | 5 | 1.1 ± 0.1 d | 5 | 43 ± 1.4 d | 4 | |||
| Cassava | 3 | N/A | 1.3 ± 0.1 b | 2 | 3.1 ± 0.3 b | 2 | 47 ± 0.6 c | 3 | |||
| Jute mallow | 1 | N/A | 1.1 ± 0.1 b | 2 | 2.1 ± 0.2 c | 3 | 58 ± 0.7 a | 1 | |||
| Roselle | 3 | N/A | 1.1 ± 0.1 b | 2 | 3.7 ± 0.3 a | 1 | 42 ± 0.9 d | 4 | |||
| Spinach | 1 | N/A | 2.9 ± 0.1 a | 1 | 2.4 ± 0.2 c | 3 | 55 ± 0.2 b | 2 | |||
Values are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 9). Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences (p < 0.05; one-way ANOVA followed by the post hoc Fisher’s LSD test or the Games–Howell test). DM: dry matter; N/A: not applicable; TE: Trolox equivalent. * ranking from the more antioxidant (1, dark green), to the less antioxidant (5, red), mean rank is the average of the ranks obtained with each method for each LV; § percentage of NO• radical inhibition by 50 µg/mL of dry extracts.