. 2022 Oct 29;27(21):7356. doi: 10.3390/molecules27217356

Table 3.

Scavenging activity of the EOCC against DPPH and ABTS free radicals.

No	DPPH			ABTS
No	IC₅₀ (mg/mL)	Fitting Equation	R²	IC₅₀ (mg/mL)	Fitting Equation	R²
N1	28.133 ± 0.44 a	$y = 864.15 - \frac{863.48}{1 + {(\frac{x}{6.58})}^{7.16}}$	0.997	117.22 ± 5.4 a	$y = 34.63 - \frac{30.82}{1 + {(\frac{x}{14.57})}^{1.81}}$	0.995
N2	14.504 ± 0.40 b	$y = 1175.97 - \frac{1179.24}{1 + {(\frac{x}{6.59})}^{6.64}}$	0.996	57.33 ± 0.08 c	$y = 109.48 - \frac{104.09}{1 + {(\frac{x}{72.97})}^{1.19}}$	0.988
N3	12.229 ± 0.169 c	$y = 220.79 - \frac{219.83}{1 + {(\frac{x}{4.76})}^{8.24}}$	0.990	66.9 ± 0.13 b	$y = 74.22 - \frac{69.75}{1 + {(\frac{x}{43.77})}^{1.47}}$	0.999
N4	7.527 ± 0.106 d	$y = 109.97 - \frac{106.14}{1 + {(\frac{x}{3.92})}^{16.46}}$	0.989	37.87 ± 0.06 d	$y = 75.59 - \frac{71.38}{1 + {(\frac{x}{27.65})}^{1.85}}$	0.999
N5	7.065 ± 0.086 e	$y = 116.55 - \frac{109.01}{1 + {(\frac{x}{3.97})}^{13.42}}$	0.987	29.91 ± 0.06 de	$y = 77.63 - \frac{71.22}{1 + {(\frac{x}{25.60})}^{2.93}}$	0.986
N6	7.371 ± 0.067 de	$y = 116.88 - \frac{111.3}{1 + {(\frac{x}{3.99})}^{14.11}}$	0.985	22.53 ± 0.04 e	$y = 84.44 - \frac{77.73}{1 + {(\frac{x}{19.81})}^{1.78}}$	0.997
N7	6.887 ± 0.151 e	$y = 116.85 - \frac{113.55}{1 + {(\frac{x}{3.95})}^{12.49}}$	0.996	19.08 ± 0.02 e	$y = 88.97 - \frac{83.44}{1 + {(\frac{x}{17.47})}^{1.51}}$	0.991
BHT	0.015 ± 0.007 f	$y = 99.44 - \frac{78.37}{1 + {(\frac{x}{1.35})}^{3.72}}$	0.994	0.10 ± 0.004 f	$y = 94.31 - \frac{70.45}{1 + {(\frac{x}{0.11})}^{4.92}}$	0.870

Note: The lowercase letters correspond to the significant difference among the IC₅₀ DPPH and IC₅₀ ABTS of the essential oils. Data followed by the different letters indicate significant differences according to Duncan’s test with 1% significance (p ≤ 0.01).