Table 2.
The statistical correlation analysis of antioxidant activities with TPC and TFC of YCL and MCL and CL and CR extracts.
| Pearson correlation | R value | Implications | |
|---|---|---|---|
| YCL and MCL sequential extracts | TPC vs TFC | 0.947 | TPC and TFC of YCL and MCL extracts are positively correlated, indicating an interdependence of the two phytochemical groups Antioxidant activities of YCL and MCL sequential extracts are attributed to their phenolic and flavonoid compounds |
| TPC vs (DPPH) RSA | 0.98 | ||
| TFC vs (DPPH) RSA | 0.91 | ||
| TPC vs FRAP | 0.83 | ||
| TFC vs FRAP | 0.82 | ||
|
| |||
| Ethanolic CL and CR extracts | TPC vs TFC | 0.51 | TPC and TFC are not correlated, indicating an inverse relationship between the compounds Antioxidant activities of ethanolic CL and CR extracts are mainly due to their phenolic compounds |
| TPC vs (DPPH) RSA | 0.76 | ||
| TFC vs (DPPH) RSA | −0.16 | ||
| TPC vs FRAP | 0.88 | ||
| TFC vs FRAP | 0.06 | ||
R value closer to 1 indicates a stronger correlation.