ANTIOXIDANT ACTIVITY OF EXTRACTS OF <i>MALLOTUS PHILIPPINENSIS</i> FRUIT AND BARK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Several extracts from Mallotus philippinensis fruits and bark were prepared and evaluated for their total antioxidant activity (TAA), antiradical activity against DPPH· (2,2‐diphenyl‐1‐picrylhydrazyl radical) and reducing power. The total phenolics and tannin contents in extracts were determined. The extract of the bark showed the strongest antiradical activity and reduction power; its TAA was 5.27 mmol Trolox equivalents/g. The TAA of other extracts ranged from 0.05 to 1.79 mmol Trolox equivalents/g extract. The content of total phenolics in the bark extract was 541 mg/g. The content of tannins in MP‐4, expressed as absorbance units per mg at 500 nm, was found to be 0.412. Several phenolic constituents in the extracts were detected by reverse‐phase high‐performance liquid chromatography using a gradient solvent system with UV‐DAD detection. Acetone was a suitable solvent for extraction of natural antioxidants from M. philippinensis fruits. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS An acetonic and methanolic extraction of Mallotus philippinensis fruit and bark affords extracts that have been characterized as possessing strong antioxidant activities; this may open new avenues for the utilization of these extract as nutraceuticals. The biological activity of compounds present in the extracts has been well documented in many studies published in scientific journals. We want to emphasize that a procyanidin‐rich extract from pine (Pinus maritime) bark was patented under the trade name of Pycnogenol (PYC) and is utilized throughout the world as a nutritional supplement and as a phytochemical remedy for various diseases ranging from chronic inflammation to circulatory dysfunction ( Packer et al. 1999 ).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".