Comparison of Antioxidant Activity of Ethanolic Extracts of Propolis Obtained by Different Extraction Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The antioxidant activities of the ethanolic extracts of propolis obtained by different extraction methods (high hydrostatic pressure extraction, leaching at room temperature and heat reflux extraction) were investigated in relationship to their total polyphenol and flavonoid contents by two different assays, namely, the β‐carotene bleaching and 1,1‐diphenyl‐2‐picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) free radical scavenging assay systems. The results showed that the ethanolic extracts of propolis obtained by high hydrostatic pressure extraction and leaching at room temperature had relatively strong antioxidant activities, which may be correlated with the total polyphenol and flavonoid contents. Antioxidant activities of ethanolic extracts of propolis obtained by high hydrostatic pressure extraction were the same as those of ethanolic extracts of propolis obtained by leaching at room temperature. Leaching at room temperature usually needs a few days, and can take even more than 7 d, while high hydrostatic pressure extraction needs only 1 min. These findings further illustrate that the high hydrostatic pressure extraction has a bright prospect for extracting flavonoids from propolis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".