. 2021 Jun 26;35(9):5269–5281. doi: 10.1002/ptr.7201

TABLE 3.

Antioxidant and free‐radical scavenging activity of CFHE1 and CFHE2 in comparison with reference compounds. Results were expressed as mean half‐inhibitory concentration (IC₅₀ μg/ml) with confident limits (CL) at 95% of three independent experiments in triplicate (n = 3)

Assay	CFHE1	CFHE2	Reference compound ^a
TEAC	4.17 (3.40–5.11) ^ψ ^, ^§	5.65 (4.46–7.17) ^§	2.93 (1.80–4.38)
ORAC	12.51 (6.82–22.93) ^ψ ^, ^§	56.73 (25.65–125.44) ^§	0.67 (0.31–1.22)
β‐Carotene bleaching	18.05 (14.20–22.96) ^ψ ^, ^§	17.28 (12.51–23.88) ^§	0.18 (0.09–0.36)
Iron‐chelating activity	63.43 (49.12–81.91) ^ψ, ^§	33.02 (24.64–44.26) ^§	6.59 (5.21–8.04)
FRAP	80.21 (43.56–147.69) ^ψ ^, ^§	144.86 (118.12–177.65) ^§	3.73 (1.68–7.59)
DPPH	254.10 (177.50–363.75) ^ψ ^, ^§	317.23 (207.35–485.34) ^§	3.82 (1.12–5.38)

^{^a}

Trolox for trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity (TEAC), oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC), ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) and 2,2‐diphenyl‐1‐picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) assays; butylhydroxytoluene (BHT) for β‐carotene bleaching assay; ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) for iron‐chelating activity.

^{^ψ}

p < .001 versus CFHE2.

^{^§}

p < .001 versus reference compound.