. 2013 Nov;16(11):984–991. doi: 10.1089/jmf.2013.0050

Table 3.

Antioxidant Activities of Pinus brutia Bark Extracts

	Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity assay TEAC	Reducing power assay EC₅₀ (μg/mL)	Superoxide anion radical scavenging assay EC₅₀ (μg/mL)	Hydroxyl radical scavenging assay EC₅₀ (mg/mL)^a	15-LO inhibition assay EC₅₀ (μg/mL)
PbE	1.47 ± 0.02^{††††,‡,####,$$$$,¶¶¶¶}	9.17 ± 0.13^{††††,‡,####,$,¶¶¶¶}	39.37 ± 0.85^{††††,‡‡‡,####,$$$,¶¶¶¶}	0.5 ± 0.0^††††	22.47 ± 0.75^{††††,‡,##,¶¶}
PbE1	1.08 ± 0.04^{****,‡‡‡‡,####,$$$$,¶¶¶¶}	10.27 ± 0.11^{****,‡‡‡‡,###,$$,¶¶¶¶}	70.30 ± 2.65^{****,‡‡‡‡,###,$$$$,¶¶¶¶}	1.07 ± 0.06^{****,‡‡‡‡,####,$$$$,¶¶¶¶}	34.43 ± 2.25^{****,‡‡‡,###,$$$$,¶¶¶¶}
PbE2	1.43 ± 0.01^{*,††††,####,$$$$,¶¶¶¶}	9.49 ± 0.01^{*,††††,####,¶¶¶¶}	51.10 ± 2.66^{***,††††,$$$$,¶¶¶¶}	0.53 ± 0.06^{††††,¶¶¶¶}	24.3 ± 0.4^{*,†††,$,¶¶¶¶}
PbE3	0.89 ± 0.01^{****,††††,‡‡‡‡,$$$$,¶¶¶¶}	11.38 ± 0.24^{****,†††,‡‡‡‡,$$$$,¶¶¶¶}	54.93 ± 2.85^{****,†††,$$$$,¶¶¶¶}	0.6 ± 0.0^{††††,$}	24.9 ± 0.5^{**,†††,$$$$,¶¶¶¶}
PbE4	1.54 ± 0.00^{****,††††,‡‡‡‡,####,¶¶¶¶}	9.54 ± 0.18^{*,††,####,¶¶¶¶}	33.5 ± 1.1^{***,††††,‡‡‡‡,####,¶¶¶¶}	0.47 ± 0.06^{††††,#,¶¶¶¶}	22.93 ± 0.55^{††††,‡,##,¶¶¶}
Quercetin	5.62 ± 0.04^{****,††††,‡‡‡‡,####,$$$$}	3.4 ± 0.2^{****,††††,‡‡‡‡,####,$$$$}	26.63 ± 0.75^{****,††††,‡‡‡‡,####,$$$$}	0.2 ± 0.0^{††††,‡‡‡‡,$$$$}	18.70 ± 0.85^{**,††††,‡‡‡‡,####,$$$}

^{^a}

For the hydroxyl radical scavenging assay, statistical comparisons for PbE vs. PbE3, PbE vs, quercetin, and PbE3 vs. quercetin were not determined.

Significant differences between samples (extracts, quercetin) are indicated: ^*P < .05, ^**P < .01, ^***P < .002, ^****P < .001 vs. PbE; ^††P < .01, ^†††P < .002, ^††††P < .001 vs. PbE1; ^‡P < .05, ^‡‡‡P < .002, ^‡‡‡‡P < .001 vs. PbE2; ^#P < .05, ^##P < .01, ^###P < .002, ^####P < .001 vs. PbE3; ^$P < .05, ^$$P < .01, ^$$$P < .002, ^$$$$P < .001 vs. PbE4; ^¶¶P < .01, ^¶¶¶P < .002, ^¶¶¶¶P < .001 vs. quercetin.