Antioxidant Activity and other Physicochemical Characteristics of Different Propolis Extracts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was to investigate the antioxidant activity of three different extracts of propolis (Ethanolic 50%, methanolic 100% and aqueous extracts) with some of their physicochemical aspects. Ethanolic extract was analyzed by LC-MS, while the methanolic extract was analyzed by GC-MS in order to screen polyphenols and volatile compounds in the sample, the identity of these components were achieved by means of comparing their mass spectra with previous published studies. Forrier transformation infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) was conducted on the methanolic extract and crude propolis samples to gain an overview of some physical characteristics. The antioxidant activities of the three extracts were measured by DPPH scavenging ability and FRAP assay. LC-MS and GC-MS allowed the identification of 19 phenolic and 17 volatile compounds. The most abundant phenolics found in our sample correspond with p-Coumaric benzyl ester, Pinobanksin-3-O-acetate, Caffeic acid benzyl ester and pinocembrin, as they showed the highest peaks in the total ion chromatogram (TIC). In addition, the most abundant volatile compounds showed a high level of agreement with δ-Cadinene and γ- Terpinen.Furthermore, Ethanol 50% extract showed the strongest antioxidant activity, which has a significant correlation with its high polyphenolic content.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".