Skip to main content
. 2023 Jan 12;12(1):184. doi: 10.3390/antiox12010184

Table 3.

Antioxidant potential.

Samples DPPH (mgTE/g) ABTS (mgTE/g) FRAP (mgTE/g) CUPRAC (mgTE/g) Metal Chelating (mgEDTAE/g) Phosphomolybdenum (mmolTE/g)
RM-EA 76.43 ± 1.52 b 438.46 ± 1.69 c 128.10 ± 1.49 c 219.81 ± 3.82 5.67 ± 0.26 b 1.78 ± 0.07 c
RM-MEOH 152.28 ± 2.40 a 482.57 ± 0.89 a 205.92 ± 7.24 b 380.14 ± 1.38 6.73 ± 0.14 b 1.98 ± 0.02 b
RM-Aq 154.08 ± 2.43 a 477.02 ± 1.09 b 249.40 ± 3.01 a 384.57 ± 1.99 29.68 ± 0.74 a 2.38 ± 0.07 a

Values are reported as mean ± S.D of three parallel experiments. TE: Trolox equivalent; EDTA: Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid; EDTAE: EDTA equivalent; DPPH: 2,2-diphenyl-1-picryl-hydrazyl-hydrate; ABTS: 2,2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid; FRAP: Ferric reducing antioxidant power; CUPRAC: cupric ion reducing antioxidant capacity. Different letters indicate significant differences between the tested extracts (p < 0.05, “a” indicates the highest activity).