Next Article in Journal
Panchromatic and Multispectral Image Fusion Combining GIHS, NSST, and PCA
Next Article in Special Issue
Bioactive Compounds, Antioxidant Activity, and Mineral Content of Wild Rocket (Diplotaxis tenuifolia L.) Leaves as Affected by Saline Stress and Biostimulant Application
Previous Article in Journal
Dynamics Analysis of a Variable Stiffness Tuned Mass Damper Enhanced by an Inerter
Previous Article in Special Issue
Stability of Strawberry Fruit (Fragaria x ananassa Duch.) Nutritional Quality at Different Storage Conditions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 13
Issue 3
10.3390/app13031413
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Proximate Composition and Antioxidant Activity of Selected Morphological Parts of Herbs

by
Wioletta Biel
1,
Urszula Pomietło
2,
Robert Witkowicz
3,
Ewa Piątkowska
2 and
Aneta Kopeć
2,*
1
Department of Monogastric Animal Sciences, Division of Animal Nutrition and Food, West Pomeranian University of Technology in Szczecin, Klemensa Janickiego 29, 71-270 Szczecin, Poland
2
Department of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Food Technology, University of Agriculture in Krakow, Balicka 122, 30-149 Krakow, Poland
3
Department of Agroecology and Crop Production, Faculty of Agriculture and Economics, University of Agriculture in Krakow, Mickiewicza 21, 31-120 Krakow, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(3), 1413; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13031413
Submission received: 18 December 2022 / Revised: 16 January 2023 / Accepted: 18 January 2023 / Published: 20 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Potential Health Benefits of Fruits and Vegetables II)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The aim of the study was to provide an analytical evaluation of the proximate composition, the total content of polyphenolic compounds and the antioxidant activity, of 27 selected plant materials collected in Poland (West Pomeranian). The basic chemical composition was determined in the ground samples according to the Association of Official Analytical Chemists methods. Antioxidant activity was tested using free radical methods ABTS•+, DPPH•+ and the FRAP method. The lowest concentration of dry matter (DM) was measured in black chokeberry (88.82 g/100 g) and the highest was found in milk thistle (94.65 g/100 g) as well as black cumin (95.09 g/100 g). The content of total polyphenols, assessed using the Folin–Ciocalteu method, ranged from 291.832–7565.426 mg of chlorogenic acid equivalent (CGA)/100 g of DM. Antioxidant activity measured sequentially against the radical ABTS•+, DPPH•+ and using the FRAP method was 26.334–1912.016 µM Trolox/g DM, 9.475–1061.068 µM Trolox/g DM and 26.252–1769.766 µM Trolox/g DM, respectively. The methanolic extract from milk thistle fruit in most assays was characterized by the lowest antioxidant activity and the lowest total content of polyphenolic compounds. Methanol extracts prepared from garlic, stinging nettle and cleavers showed the highest content of total polyphenols and antioxidant activity among the tested plant materials. The parts of plants with the highest antioxidant potential can be a source of new bioactive compounds, but further research is required to describe the profile of compounds harmful to human health.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the interest in antioxidants derived from herbal raw materials has increased significantly due to their health-promoting properties. Their preventive effect is appreciated in the context of chronic non-communicable diseases such as obesity, type II diabetes, atherosclerosis or neurodegenerative diseases, the common risk factor of which is oxidative stress [1]. In biological systems, the formation of free radicals is the result of many metabolic changes, including aerobic respiration and inflammatory reactions. Free radicals have proven useful in the fight against pathogens. This is due to their bacteriostatic and bactericidal effects, but they are also capable of removing cancer cells [2]. Free radicals are responsible for controlling blood flow through blood vessels, removal of xenobiotics from the body, and they are also responsible for transmitting signals within the cell [3,4,5]. Under normal conditions, there is a balance between the formation of free radicals and their removal. However, in conditions of disturbed homeostasis, the amount of free radicals increases, beyond the possibility of their systematic and efficient removal by enzymatic and non-enzymatic mechanisms [5]. During aerobic respiration, some of the electrons leave the complexes of the respiratory chain, reducing the oxygen molecule by a one-electron or two-electron redox reaction, which leads to the formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) [6,7]. This causes disturbances at the metabolic level due to high reactivity, short lifetime and extraordinary ease of chemical reactions of free oxygen radicals with cell components [5,7]. Enzymatic systems located in the mitochondrial matrix and cytoplasm, i.e., superoxide dismutase (SOD), glutathione reductase (GR), glutathione peroxidase (GPx), catalase (CAT) are responsible for the removal of these compounds [5,8].
Apart from enzyme systems, there are also defense systems based on proteins located in the blood plasma (ceruloplasmin, ferritin, transferrin, or albumin) that remotely bind copper and iron ions, preventing free radical reactions. These proteins interact with uric acid, complementing each others antioxidant potential [8]. Non-enzymatic defense mechanisms against free radicals are some vitamins (C, E, A, including provitamin A–β-carotene), coenzyme Q10 or polyphenolic compounds found in plants [9]. The excess of free radicals, including reactive oxygen species, together with the inefficiency in their removal, leads to lipid peroxidation, damage to cell organelles, proteins, and DNA degradation and mutation, which results in chronic non-communicable diseases [10].
The main antioxidant compounds present in plant products are polyphenolic compounds, including flavonoids [11]. Antioxidant compounds contained in herbs have following effects: anti-inflammation, antibacterial, antifungal, antiviral and immunostimulation effects [12]. Their effect cannot be reproduced on the basis of individually isolated antioxidant compounds, because the health benefiting effect includes many compounds simultaneously appearing in the plant [13].
Herbal raw materials, long known in traditional folk medicine, are mostly well-tested in terms of antioxidant properties, but there are still raw materials that have not been widely distributed in the phytotherapeutic and pharmaceutical industries [14]. Such raw materials may turn out to be new nutraceuticals, helping pharmacological substances (medicines) in the fight against common diseases. Adequate dietary intake of a variety of antioxidants, such as polyphenols, vitamin C, vitamin E, carotenoids and selenium, is associated with a lower risk of developing chronic non-communicable diseases [14,15].
Increasing amount of research results suggest that antioxidants affecting cells may also trigger interactions with specific proteins crucial for intracellular signaling cascades, modulating their expression and activity [15]. These compounds also affect epigenetic mechanisms and modulate the intestinal microbiota [16].
In the available literature, many studies are devoted to the antioxidant properties of various plants and their morphological parts (e.g., fruits, seeds, leaves, roots) [17,18,19,20]. Usually, in this type of article, the assessment of antioxidant properties is most often performed using the methods of determining total polyphenols, ABTS, DPPH and FRAP [12,18,21,22].
It is very important that in the published literature there are studies on the antioxidant properties of herbs, but most often they concern popular herbs, e.g., sage, oregano and basil. In our publication, we decided to research less popular plants, which, however, are often used for their culinary and medicinal properties in many countries around the world.
The aim of the study was the analytical evaluation of the basic chemical composition, the total content of polyphenolic compounds (TPC) the antioxidant activity, of 27 selected morphological parts of plant materials collected in Poland.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

Plant material was collected in 2019 from the collection of medicinal and useful plants of the Experimental Station in Lipnik, Poland (53°20′35″ N, 14°58′10″ E). The collection was conducted by a team of botanists and agrotechnicians from the West Pomeranian University of Technology in Szczecin (Poland).
Samples of tested plants weighed and dried at room temperature (18–22 °C) for 3–4 days were ground to 0.1 mm by use of a laboratory mill type KNIFETEC 1095 (Foss Tecator, Höganäs, Sweden) and placed in sterile containers, according to the list presented in Table 1.

2.2. Methods

2.2.1. Proximate Composition

Before conducting analyses by the weight-dryer method, the dry matter content was determined and afterwards components in the air-dry mass were analysed. The proximate composition of the samples was determined according to the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) methods [23]. To determine dry matter, samples were dried at 105 °C to constant weight (method 945.15). Crude fat (as ether extract EE); method 2003.06) was determined using the Soxhlet extraction method with diethyl ether as solvent; crude ash (CA; method 920.153 by incineration in a muffle furnace at 580 °C for 8 h; crude protein (CP; method 945.18) (N × 6.25) by Kjeldahl method using a Büchi B-324 distillation unit (Büchi Labortechnik AG, Switzerland). Crude fiber (CF) was determined as the residue after sequential treatment with 1.25% H2SO4 and with 1.25% NaOH using an ANKOM220 Fibre Analyser (ANKOM Technology, New York, NY, USA). Total carbohydrates were calculated as: nitrogen free extract (NFE) (%) = 100 − % (moisture + crude protein + crude fat + crude ash + crude fiber).

2.2.2. Extraction

Methanolic extracts were prepared by weighing a 1.0 g sample of the material and extracting it for 1.5 h with 40 mL of 70% methanol (analytical grade) in a water bath with a shaker at 31 °C ± 1 °C. Then, the cooled extract was filtered using Munktell filter paper (84 g/m2) and funnels into 50 mL containers. These extracts were used for subsequent polyphenols content determination and antioxidant analysis. The extracts were stored in a freezer at −18 °C ± 1 °C.

2.2.3. Total Polyphenols Content

The content of polyphenols was determined using the method described by Swain and Hillis using the Folin–Ciocalteu reagent [24]. The absorbance of the obtained colored solutions was then measured using a spectrophotometer (Specto 2000 RD, LaboMed, We Los Angeles, CA, USA) at λ = 760 nm against 70% methanol. Total polyphenol content is expressed as chlorogenic acid equivalents (mg CGA/100 g DM).

2.2.4. Antioxidant Activity

Antioxidant activity was measured using the method of Re et al. [25] with the ABTS•+ radical (2,2′-azino-bis-(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid)). The absorbance of the colored solution was measured using a spectrophotometer (Specto 2000 RD, LaboMed, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, USA) at a wavelength of 734 nm in the presence of 70% methanol used to prepare the extracts. The result was expressed in μM Trolox/g DM.
Antioxidant activity was determined by the method of Brand-Williams et al. [26] using the free radical DPPH•+. To a 1.5 mL sample suitably diluted with methanol, 3 mL of the prepared DPPH•+ solution (diluted to an absorbance between 0.900–1.000) was added and the contents of the tube were mixed. The samples were left for 10 min of incubation protected from light and at room temperature. After this time, the absorbance was measured with a spectrophotometer (Specto 2000 RD, LaboMed, Inc. Los Angeles, CA, USA) at 515 nm against 99% pure undiluted methanol. The result was expressed in μM Trolox/g DM.
Antioxidant activity was determined by the FRAP method according to Benzie and Strain [27]. The absorbance at 593 nm against 70% methanol was measured using a spectrophotometer (Specto 2000 RD, LaboMed, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, USA). The results obtained are expressed in μM Trolox/g DM.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

All analyses were carried out in duplicate (proximate composition) and triplicate (total polyphenols and antioxidant activity). One factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) and principal component analysis (PCA) were carried out using the STATISTICA v13.3 software. The significance of differences between the means was assessed using the Tukey test at p = 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Proximate Composition

Seeds of black cumin and milk thistle were characterized by the highest level of dry matter (respectively, 95.09 g/100 g, 94.65 g/100 g) while the lowest level was found in black chokeberry fruit (88.82 g/100 g). The highest content of protein was found in fruit of fenugreek (26.164 g/100 g DM). Herb of stinging nettle was the best source of fiber (42.661 g/100 g DM), and herb of common dandelion (24.506 g/100 g DM) was the best source of crude ash (Table 2).

3.2. Total Polyphenols Content

The tested herbs were characterized by a varied content of TPC (Table 3). The three herbs with the highest total polyphenolic content are marjoram (6956.584 mg CGA/100 g DM), chamomile (7240.002 mg CGA/100 g DM) and cleavers (7565.426 mg CGA/100 g DM). It is worth mentioning that birch (6585.825 mg CGA/100 g DM), field horsetail (6545.378 mg CGA/100 g DM) and garlic (6512.095 mg CGA/100 g DM), contained more than 6000 mg CGA/100 g DM phenolic compounds. The lowest content of total polyphenols, among the tested plants, was shown in the milk thistle (291.832 mg CGA/100 g DM) test, and the difference between the other tested samples was statistically significant at p = 0.05.

3.3. Antioxidant Activity Measured by the ABTS+• Method

The values of antioxidant activity against the ABTS•+ radical ranged from 26.3–1912.0 μM Trolox/g DM, as shown in Table 3. The three highest results of antioxidant activity against the ABTS•+ radical were found in extracts from stinging nettle (1912.016 μM Trolox/g DM), cleavers (1890.523 μM Trolox/g DM), and garlic bulbs (1751.490 μM Trolox/g DM). In the tested plant material, the lowest result was obtained in milk thistle (26.334 μM Trolox/g DM; Table 3).

3.4. Antioxidant Activity Measured by the DPPH+• Method

The values of antioxidant activity in the tested herbs against the DPPH•+ radical ranged from 9.5–1061.1 μM Trolox/g DM, which is shown in Table 3. The highest antioxidant activity against the DPPH•+ radical was shown by garlic bulbs (933.050 μM Trolox/g DM), stinging nettle herb (1034.725 μM Trolox/g DM) and cleavers herb (1061.068 μM Trolox/g DM). The lowest antioxidant activity against the DPPH•+ radical was found in the extract from psyllium seed husk, (9.475 μM Trolox/g DM); (Table 3).

3.5. Antioxidant Activity Measured by the FRAP Method

The three herbs with the highest antioxidant activity determined using the FRAP method were stinging nettle herb (1698.517 μM Trolox/g DM), chamomile flower heads (1699.766 μM Trolox/g DM) and cleavers herb (1769.766 μM Trolox/g DM), as shown in Table 3. The lowest antioxidant activity determined by the FRAP method was found in milk thistle extract (26.252 μM Trolox/g DM), which corresponded to the results obtained earlier in the study among others, total polyphenol content and antioxidant activity against the ABTS•+ radical (Table 3).

3.6. PCA Analysis

The PCA analysis showed that the first component is essentially related to the antioxidant activity, as the factor describing FRAP, DPPH•+, ABTS•+ and polyphenols. The second component, with slightly smaller factor loads, describes the variability of the basic composition of the tested raw materials (Figure 1A).
This analysis also confirmed a very high degree of correlation between the antioxidant activity (determined by various methods) and the content of polyphenols, and confirmed the correlation of the dry matter content with the protein content. In turn, the content of DM and CP was negatively correlated with NFE. A thesis can also be formulated about the lack of correlation between antioxidant activity, the content of polyphenols and the proximate composition of the tested raw materials.
The analysis of the factorial coordinates of the cases (Figure 1B) indicates the existence of four clusters of points (surrounded by ellipses). Raw materials in clusters in the second and third quadrants of the coordinate system are characterized by the greatest activity of the antioxidant activity.
Herbs that proved the highest antioxidant activity include: stinging nettle herb, marjoram herb, cleavers herb, common chamomile flower heads and garlic bulbs. Other raw materials are characterized by a smaller antioxidant activity and a significant differentiation of the basic composition. This is evidenced by the indicated extreme groups, i.e., two-element groups in the first and fourth quarters. The first one includes seeds of black cumin and fruits of milk thistle, whose raw materials were characterized by a low content of NFE, in contrast to the husks of psyllium seeds and black chokeberry fruits, of course, with significantly lower antioxidant activity.

4. Discussion

4.1. Proximate Composition

The oldest method of herb preservation is drying, which is associated with the loss of water and inactivation of enzymes when begun immediately after harvest. Properly dried herbs do not ferment and do not turn moldy. Moreover, the levels of their active substances do not change over a long time.
The available literature contains little information about the proximate composition of many of the tested plants presented in this study. What is more, there is little information concerning proximate composition of morphological parts of herbs and medical plants.
It should be emphasized that some of the plants we analyzed are a rich source of CP (fenugreek), CF (stinging nettle), EE (black cumin) and NFE (psyllium). However, taking into account their consumption in the average daily diet, which is small and results from the use of these plants as an addition to dishes, their nutritional significance is minimal. Albeit they can be considered for use as raw materials for the production of food for special nutritional purposes.
Concerning protein content, Sadowska et al. [18] reported that whole plant of dried thyme contained 6.48 g of protein per DM; these results are lower than ours.
Some authors reported in their researches that black cumin contains about 32–40% of oil, 16–19.9% of protein, 1.79–3.74% of minerals, 5.5% of fiber [28]. These results are lower than we presented in our study (about 42% of fat, 21% of protein, almost 4% of ash, and 8% of fiber). On the other hand, Boskabady and Shirmohammadi [29] showed that this plant contains 26.7% of protein, 28.5% of fat, 8.4% of crude fiber, and 4.8% of total ash.
Sójka et al. [30] examined basic composition of chokeberry pomace fractions achieved as a result of industrial-scale processing of fruit into juice. They showed that this valuable raw material is rich in fat (13.9%), and proteins (24%). Chokeberry fruit are good sources of dietary fiber, i.e., at the level of 5.6% of fresh mass [31]. The lower content was determined in the present study (6.6%).
Sulieman et al. [32] showed that the contents of fiber, ash, protein, fat in fenugreek seed were 6.50%, 3.20%, 28.55% and 4%, respectively. Other authors analyzed chemical composition of different varieties of fenugreek and the ash content was in the range 3–7%, protein content 23.1–26.8%, fat content 8.8–21.0% and fiber content 5.1–7.1% [33]. These results are similar to our results, except fat content. In our study, the content of fat is much lower (4.5%).
Piątkowska et al. [34] determined proximate composition of common dandelion. The amount of protein was 15.25%, the crude fiber 13.09%, fat 6.81% and ash 9.11%. These results are similar to ours, except ash content. The content of ash was established as 24.5%.

4.2. Total Polyphenols Content

The tested herbs were characterized by a varied content of total polyphenols. Antioxidants, especially polyphenolic compounds (secondary metabolites), are produced by the protective systems of various plants in response to the destructive effects of free radicals. Higher plants produce secondary metabolites that protect them against environmental stress, pathogens or herbivores [35]. Depending on the number of aromatic rings and the way they are bound, they are divided into the following classes: flavonoids, phenolic acids, stilbenes and lignans [35,36,37,38,39,40,41]. In this study, selected dried herbs and plant materials were compared, from which various morphological parts of the plant were collected. These were plants commonly found in Polish meadows and gardens, easily available and cheap to obtain. The total content of polyphenolic compounds is presented in Table 3. Herbs with the highest content of these components in the conducted research turned out to be marjoram herb, flower heads of chamomile and cleavers herb. It is important to note that in many studies, the total polyphenol content is expressed as gallic acid, and in our research we used chlorogenic acid as the standard. Certainly, this affects the differences in the level of total polyphenols in the discussed material and may affect the interpretation of the results.
Our results are different from data reported by Bieżanowska-Kopeć and Piątkowska [38]. These authors showed lower content of total polyphenols (mg CGA/100 g DM) in leaves of lemon balm, marjoram, and thyme compared to our study. Similarly, the results of Tsivelika et al. [39] in common chamomile are lower than ours, but these results are calculated per mg of gallic acid/g DM). Common cleavers in the study by Milić et al. [40] was characterized by a higher content of total polyphenols. This plant is unknown, and any research on the content of polyphenolic compounds may turn out to be important in the context of further study of the common cleavers profile.

4.3. Antioxidant Activity Measured by the ABTS+• Method

The highest antioxidant activity measured using the method with the ABTS+• radical was found in extracts from marjoram herb, garlic bulbs, stinging nettle herb and cleavers herb (Table 3). Marjoram is a commonly used spice herb, which, in addition to a high content of polyphenolic compounds, is also characterized by high antioxidant activity. Gramza-Michałowska et al. [41] determined the activity against ABTS•+ radical in ethanolic solutions of marjoram herb at the level of 14.09 mg Trolox/g DM. In literature sources, the ABTS•+ values in garlic bulbs (47.7 μM Trolox/g DM) are lower than those observed in this study [36]. The leaves of the cleavers in the study by Csepregi et al. [42] showed activity against the ABTS•+ radical at the level of about 1.0 μM Trolox/μg of FM. Stinging nettle in the assessment of Rasa et al. [43] was characterized by activity against the ABTS•+ radical at the level of 18 mM Trolox/100 g DM. The ABTS•+ values obtained in the study (in the case of garlic, cleavers and stinging nettle) are, therefore, much higher than those observed in literature sources [42,43,44]. As in the case of the total polyphenol content analysis, the lowest antioxidant activity against the ABTS•+ radical was found in the milk thistle sample.

4.4. Antioxidant Activity Measured by the DPPH+• Method

The highest antioxidant activity against the DPPH•+ radical was shown by garlic bulbs, stinging nettle herb and cleavers herb, and these values were not statistically different (Table 3). In the methanol extracts studied by Wojdyło et al. [12], there was reported lower antioxidant activity in fenugreek, (3.64 µmol Trolox/g DM; coneflower leaves (0.75 µmol Trolox/g DM, and in knotgrass 1.41 µmol Trolox/g DM. In the stinging nettle herb, Belmaghraoui et al. [45] determined the activity against the DPPH•+ radical at the level of 483.98 IC50 μg/mL. Vlase et al. [46], in studies on different varieties of cleavers, determined the activity against the DPPH•+ radical in this herb at the level of 107.45 IC50 μg/mL. There are no sources in the literature describing the antioxidant activity of cleavers in μM Trolox/g DM. Gorinstein et al. [47] determined the lower antioxidant activity with the DPPH method in cloves of Polish garlic varieties, amounting to 14.81–34.86 µmol Trolox/g DM, as compared to our study.

4.5. Antioxidant Activity Measured by the FRAP Method

The highest results of antioxidant activity assessed by the FRAP method were recorded in extracts from flower heads of chamomile, stinging nettle and cleavers, and they did not differ significantly regarding statistics with respect to p = 0.05. Kukric et al. [48] determined the antioxidant activity in stinging nettle leaves using the FRAP method at the level of 7.5 mM Fe2+/g DM. Mărghitaş et al. [49] examined pollen collected from common chamomile, in which the Fe3+ reducing capacity was close to 5.35 mM Fe2+/g DM. In the available literature, there is no information on the antioxidant activity in the cleavers determined using the FRAP method. As in the previous determinations, samples containing marjoram and garlic bulbs were characterized by high antioxidant activity. Hossain et al. [50], in his study on the extraction of polyphenolic compounds from the marjoram herb, assessed the antioxidant activity using the FRAP method at 18.96 g Trolox/100 g DM. In methanolic extracts of garlic cloves tested by Gorinstein et al. [47], the antioxidant activity measured with FRAP method was lower 6.63–11.95 µmol Trolox/g DM. Again, the lowest antioxidant activity was determined in the milk thistle sample. Determination of antioxidant activity by several methods is crucial in determining the profile of antioxidant compounds. DPPH•+ dissolves only in organic solvents and does not allow the determination of hydrophilic antioxidants [51]. The ABTS•+ radical method and the FRAP method are used to determine the activity of both hydrophobic and hydrophilic antioxidant samples [52]. A difference can be seen in the antioxidant activity of chamomile flower heads, where this activity assessed using the FRAP method is much higher than that assessed using the DPPH•+ radical.

5. Conclusions

The conducted research turns out to be innovative due to the discovery of potential sources of new antioxidant compounds in selected herbal materials. Cleavers can be used as a source of new antioxidant compounds. However, further research is required in the context of its profile of anti-nutritional and potentially harmful compounds, due to the very limited literature sources analyzing this plant. Some analyzed plants are also a rich source of nutrients. They can be used as ingredients in functional food products. Selected herbs show high antioxidant activity, but only their systematic use combined with a dosage appropriate for the individual can show a beneficial effect in maintaining the health of the body. In addition, it seems beneficial to use herbal mixtures with high antioxidant potential; however, possible adverse interactions should be taken into further consideration.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.B. and E.P.; methodology, W.B. and U.P.; software, R.W.; investigation, W.B., E.P. and U.P.; data curation, R.W.; writing—original draft preparation, W.B. and U.P., writing—review and editing, W.B., E.P., R.W. and A.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The study was financed by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Poland for University of Agriculture in Kraków, Poland.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ayoka, T.O.; Ezema, B.O.; Eze, C.N.; Nnadi, C.O. Antioxidants for the Prevention and Treatment of Non-communicable Diseases. J. Explor. Res. Pharmacol. 2022, 7, 178–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Pisoschi, A.M.; Pop, A.; Iordache, F.; Stanca, L.; Predoi, G.; Serban, A.I. Oxidative stress mitigation by antioxidants-an overview on their chemistry and influences on health status. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2021, 209, 112891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Heunks, L.M.A.; Dekhuijzen, P.N.R. Respiratory muscle function and free radicals: From cell to COPD. Thorax 2000, 55, 704–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Trinity, J.D.; Broxterman, R.M.; Richardson, R.S. Regulation of exercise blood flow: Role of free radicals. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 2016, 98, 90–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Patlevič, P.; Vašková, J.; Švorc, P., Jr.; Vaško, L.; Švorc, P. Reactive oxygen species and antioxidant defense in human gastrointestinal diseases. Integr. Med. Res. 2016, 5, 250–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Geto, Z.; Molla, M.D.; Challa, F.; Belay, Y.; Getahun, T. Mitochondrial dynamic dysfunction as a main triggering factor for inflammation associated chronic non-communicable diseases. J. Inflamm. Res. 2020, 13, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Vakifahmetoglu-Norberg, H.; Ouchida, A.T.; Norberg, E. The role of mitochondria in metabolism and cell death. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2017, 482, 426–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Mirończuk-Chodakowska, I.; Witkowska, A.M.; Zujko, M.E. Endogenous non-enzymatic antioxidants in the human body. Adv. Med. Sci. 2018, 63, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kurutas, E.B. The importance of antioxidants which play the role in cellular response against oxidative/nitrosative stress: Current state. Nutr. J. 2016, 15, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Seyedsadjadi, N.; Grant, R. The potential benefit of monitoring oxidative stress and inflammation in the prevention of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Antioxidants 2020, 10, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Embuscado, M.E. Spices and herbs: Natural sources of antioxidants—A mini review. J. Funct. Foods 2015, 18, 811–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wojdyło, A.; Oszmiański, J.; Czemerys, R. Antioxidant activity and phenolic compounds in 32 selected herbs. Food Chem. 2007, 105, 940–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Jacobs, D.R.; Tapsell, L.C.; Temple, N.J. Food synergy: The key to balancing the nutrition research effort. Public Health Rev. 2012, 33, 507–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Jayedi, A.; Rashidy-Pour, A.; Parohan, M.; Zargar, M.S.; Shab-Bidar, S. Dietary antioxidants, circulating antioxidant concentrations, total antioxidant capacity, and risk of all-cause mortality: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective observational studies. Adv. Nutr. 2018, 9, 701–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Banjarnahor, S.D.; Artanti, N. Antioxidant properties of flavonoids. Med. J. Indones. 2015, 23, 239–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Okoh, M.P. Antioxidants an Epigenetics Regulator for the Prevention of Diseases and Aging Process. J. Genet. Eng. Biotechnol. Res. 2019, 1, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  17. Chandra, S.; Khan, S.; Avula, B.; Lata, H.; Yang, M.H.; Elsohly, M.A.; Khan, I.A. Assessment of total phenolic and flavonoid content, antioxidant properties, and yield of aeroponically and conventionally grown leafy vegetables and fruit crops: A comparative study. Evid. Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2014, 2014, 253875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Sadowska, U.; Kopeć, A.; Kourimska, L.; Zarubova, L.; Koloucek, P. The effect of drying methods on the concentration of compounds in sage and thyme. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2017, 41, e13286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Paunović, S.M.; Mašković, P.; Nikolić, M.; Miletić, R. Bioactive compounds and antimicrobial activity of black currant (Ribes nigrum L.) berries and leaves extract obtained by different soil management system. Sci. Hortic. 2017, 222, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dziadek, K.; Kopeć, A.; Tabaszewska, M. Potential of sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) by-products: Bioactive compounds and antioxidant activity of leaves and petioles. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2019, 245, 763–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Roby, M.H.H.; Sarhan, M.A.; Selim, K.A.H.; Khalel, K.I. Evaluation of antioxidant activity, total phenols and phenolic compounds in thyme (Thymus vulgaris L.), sage (Salvia officinalis L.), and marjoram (Origanum majorana L.) extracts. Ind. Crops Prod. 2013, 43, 827–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Viuda-Martos, M.; Ruiz Navajas, Y.; Sánchez Zapata, E.; Fernández-López, J.; Pérez-Álvarez, J.A. Antioxidant activity of essential oils of five spice plants widely used in a Mediterranean diet. Flavour Fragr. J. 2010, 25, 13–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis of the AOAC, 21st ed.; AOAC: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  24. Swain, T.; Hillis, W.E. The phenolic constituents of Prunus Domesticus (L.). The quantity of analisys of phenolic constituents. J. Food Sci. Agric. 1959, 10, 63–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Re, R.; Pellegrini, N.; Proteggente, A.; Pannala, A.; Yang, M.; Rice-Evans, C. Antioxidant activity applying an improved ABTS radical cation decolorization assay. Free. Radic. Biol. Med. 1999, 26, 1231–1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Brand-Williams, W.; Cuvelier, M.E.; Berset, C.L.W.T. Use of a free radical method to evaluate antioxidant activity. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 1995, 28, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Benzie, I.F.; Strain, J.J. The ferric reducing ability of plasma (FRAP) as a measure of “antioxidant power”: The FRAP assay. Anal. Biochem. 1996, 239, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Datta, A.K.; Saha, A.; Bhattacharya, A.; Mandal, A.; Paul, R.; Sengupta, S. Black cumin (Nigella sativa L.)—A review. J. Plant Dev. Sci. 2012, 4, 1–43. [Google Scholar]
  29. Boskabady, M.H.; Shirmohammadi, B. Effect of Nigella sativa on isolated guinea pig trachea. Arch. Iran. Med. 2002, 5, 103–107. [Google Scholar]
  30. Sójka, M.; Kołodziejczyk, K.; Milala, J. Polyphenolic and basic chemical composition of black chokeberry industrial by-products. Ind. Crops Prod. 2013, 51, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Tanaka, T.; Tanaka, A. Chemical components and characteristics of black chokeberry. J. Jpn. Soc. Food Sci. Technol. 2001, 48, 606–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Sulieman, A.M.E.; Ahmed, H.E.; Abdelrahim, A.M. The chemical composition of fenugreek (Trigonella foenum graceum L.) and the antimicrobial properties of its seed oil. Gezira J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2008, 3, 52–71. [Google Scholar]
  33. Bouhenni, H.; Doukani, K.; Şekeroğlu, N.; Gezici, S.; Tabak, S. Comparative study on chemical composition and antibacterial activity of fenugreek (Trigonella foenum graecum L.) and cumin (Cuminum cyminum L.) seeds. Ukr. Food J. 2019, 8, 755–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Piątkowska, E.; Biel, W.; Witkowicz, R.; Kępińska-Pacelik, J. Chemical Composition and Antioxidant Activity of Asteraceae Family Plants. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 12293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Quan, T.H.; Benjakul, S.; Sae-leaw, T.; Balange, A.K.; Maqsood, S. Protein–polyphenol conjugates: Antioxidant property, functionalities and their applications. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 91, 507–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Rudrapal, M.; Khairnar, S.J.; Khan, J.; Dukhyil, A.B.; Ansari, M.A.; Alomary, M.N.; Alshabrmi, F.M.; Palai, S.; Deb, P.K.; Devi, R. Dietary polyphenols and their role in oxidative stress-induced human diseases: Insights into protective effects, antioxidant potentials and mechanism(s) of action. Front. Pharmacol. 2022, 14, 806470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cory, H.; Passarelli, S.; Szeto, J.; Tamez, M.; Mattei, J. The role of polyphenols in human health and food systems: A mini-review. Front. Nutr. 2018, 5, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Bieżanowska-Kopeć, R.; Piątkowska, E. Total Polyphenols and Antioxidant Properties of Selected Fresh and Dried Herbs and Spices. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tsivelika, N.; Irakli, M.; Mavromatis, A.; Chatzopoulou, P.; Karioti, A. Phenolic Profile by HPLC-PDA-MS of Greek Chamomile Populations and Commercial Varieties and Their Antioxidant Activity. Foods 2021, 10, 2345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Milić, P.S.; Stanojević, L.P.; Rajković, K.M.; Milić, S.M.; Nikolić, V.D.; Nikolić, L.B.; Veljković, V.B. Antioxidant activity of Galium mollugo L. extracts obtained by different recovery techniques. Hem. Ind. 2013, 67, 89–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Gramza-Michałowska, A.; Abramowski, Z.; Jovel, E.; Hes, M. Antioxidant potential of herbs extracts and impact on HEPG2 cells viability. Acta Sci. Pol. Technol. Aliment. 2008, 7, 61–72. [Google Scholar]
  42. Csepregi, R.; Bencsik, T.; Papp, N. Examination of secondary metabolites and antioxidant capacity of Anthyllis vulneraria, Fuchsia sp., Galium mollugo and Veronica beccabunga. Acta Biol. Hung. 2016, 67, 442–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Rasa, K.; Jurga, B.; Daiva, M.; Katerina, D.; Ruta, M.; Jan, M.; Arunas, S. Investigation of antiradical activity of Salvia officinalis L., Urtica dioica L., and Thymus vulgaris L. extracts as potential candidates for a complex therapeutic preparation. J. Med. Plants Res. 2011, 5, 6090–6096. [Google Scholar]
  44. Najman, K.; Sadowska, A.; Buczak, K.; Leontowicz, H.; Leontowicz, M. Effect of heat-treated garlic (Allium sativum L.) on growth parameters, plasma lipid profile and histological changes in the ileum of atherogenic rats. Nutrients 2022, 14, 336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Belmaghraoui, W.; Manni, A.; Harir, M.; Filali-Maltouf, A.; Fatni, O.K.E.; Hajjaji, S.E. Phenolic compounds quantification, antioxidant and antibacterial activities of different parts of Urtica dioica and Chenopodium murale. Res. J. Pharm. Technol. 2018, 11, 5490–5496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Vlase, L.; Mocan, A.; Hanganu, D.; Benedec, D.; Gheldiu, A.; Crisan, G. Comparative study of polyphenolic content, antioxidant and antimicrobial activity of four Galium species (Rubiaceae). Dig. J. Nanomater. Biostruct. 2014, 9, 1085–1094. [Google Scholar]
  47. Gorinstein, S.; Leontowicz, H.; Leontowicz, M.; Namiesnik, J.; Najman, K.; Drzewiecki, J.; Cvikrová, M.; Martincová, O.; Katrich, E.; Trakhtenberg, S. Comparison of the main bioactive compounds and antioxidant activities in garlic and white and red onions after treatment protocols. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 25, 4418–4426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kukrić, Z.Z.; Topalić-Trivunović, L.N.; Kukavica, B.M.; Matoš, S.B.; Pavičić, S.S.; Boroja, M.M.; Savić, A.V. Characterization of antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of nettle leaves (Urtica dioica L.). Acta Period. Technol. 2012, 43, 257–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mărghitaş, L.A.; Stanciu, O.G.; Dezmirean, D.S.; Bobiş, O.; Popescu, O.; Bogdanov, S.; Campos, M.G. In vitro antioxidant capacity of honeybee-collected pollen of selected floral origin harvested from Romania. Food Chem. 2009, 115, 878–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hossain, M.B.; Brunton, N.P.; Patras, A.; Tiwari, B.; O’donnell, C.P.; Martin-Diana, A.B.; Barry-Ryan, C. Optimization of ultrasound assisted extraction of antioxidant compounds from marjoram (Origanum majorana L.) using response surface methodology. Ultrason. Sonochemistry 2012, 19, 582–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Sanchez-Moreno, C. Method used to evaluate the free radical scavenging activity in food and biological systems. Food Sci. Technol. 2000, 8, 419–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Witkowicz, R.; Biel, W.; Skrzypek, E.; Chłopicka, J.; Gleń-Karolczyk, K.; Krupa, M.; Prochownik, E.; Galanty, A. Microorganisms and Biostimulants Impact on the Antioxidant Activity of Buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench) Sprouts. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Applsci 13 01413 g001 550
Figure 1. Biplot based on first two principal component axes for nutritional value and antioxidant activity (A) and distribution of 27 herbs on the first two components obtained from principal component analysis (B). Abbreviation crude protein (CP), crude fibre (CF), ether extract (EE), crude ash (CA), nitrogen free extract (NFE), 2,2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid (ABTS•+ radical), 2,2′-Diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH•+), ferric ion reducing antioxidant parameter (FRAP).
Figure 1. Biplot based on first two principal component axes for nutritional value and antioxidant activity (A) and distribution of 27 herbs on the first two components obtained from principal component analysis (B). Abbreviation crude protein (CP), crude fibre (CF), ether extract (EE), crude ash (CA), nitrogen free extract (NFE), 2,2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid (ABTS•+ radical), 2,2′-Diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH•+), ferric ion reducing antioxidant parameter (FRAP).
Applsci 13 01413 g001
Table
Table 1. Plant material.
Table 1. Plant material.
PlantRaw Material
Black chokeberry (Aronia melanocarpa L.)fruit
Plantain (Plantago lanceolata L.)fruit
Common cumin (Carum carvi L.)fruit
Fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum L.)fruit
Wild rose (Rosa canina L.) fruit
Marigold (Calendula officinalis L.)flowerheads
Common chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla L.) flowerheads
Birch (Betula L.)leaves
Raspberry (Rubus idaeus L.) leaves
Marsh mallow (Althaea officinalis L.)leaves
Psyllium (Plantago afra L.)seedhusks
Purple coneflower (Echinacea purpurea Moench L.)herb
Yarrow (Achillea millefolium L.) herb
Marjoram (Origanum majorana L.)herb
Lemon balm (Melissa officinalis L.)herb
Mint (Mentha L.)herb
Common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale F.H. Wigg)herb
Knotgrass (Polygonum aviculare L.)herb
Stinging nettle (Urtica dioica L.) herb
Cleavers (Galium aparine L.) herb
Field horsetail (Equisetum arvense L.)herb
Thyme (Thymus vulgaris L.)herb
Mezzanine (Filipendulae ulmariae herba L.)herb
Willow (Salix alba L.)bark
Black cumin (Nigella sativa L.)seeds
Garlic (Allium sativum L.) bulbs
Table
Table 2. Proximate composition of analysed plant materials.
Table 2. Proximate composition of analysed plant materials.
PlantDM * CP *CF *EE *CA *NFE *
(After Drying, g/100 g)(g/100 g DM)
Black chokeberry (Aronia melanocarpa L.)88.82 a ± 0.193.901 a ± 0.066.60 c ± 0.092.08 bc ± 0.032.48 a ± 0.0673.76 r ± 0.07
Plantain (Plantago lanceolata L.)91.66 fg ± 0.0116.28 i ± 0.1415.11 g ± 0.072.69 cde ± 0.1012.59 l ± 0.1244.99 lm ± 0.04
Common cumin (Carum carvi L.)91.04 cd ± 0.0320.57 m ± 0.4028.00 o ± 0.1114.91 n ± 0.065.68 e ± 0.0521.87 c ± 0.49
Fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum L.)90.79 bc ± 0.0126.16 n ± 0.2610.25 e ± 0.134.47 h ± 0.043.05 a ± 0.0146.85 no ± 0.35
Milk thistle (Silybum marianum (L.)94.65 n ± 0.0317.17 j ± 0.3732.20 q ± 0.3420.63 o ± 0.6104.73 d ± 0.0219.93 b ± 0.62
Wild rose (Rosa canina L.) 92.62 ij ± 0.035.76 c ± 0.0537.05 t ± 0.145.40 i ± 0.014.18 bcd ± 0.0440.22 gh ± 0.16
Marigold (Calendula officinalis L.)90.37 b ± 0.1319.53 l ± 0.0917.25 j ± 0.027.60 l ± 0.079.77 j ± 0.0836.24 f ± 0.35
Common chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla L.) 91.73 fg ± 0.1614.21 h ± 0.0923.10 m ± 0.073.40 fg ± 0.028.80 i ± 0.1942.22 ijk ± 0.09
Birch (Betula L.)93.13 kl ± 0.1115.86 i ± 0.1115.25 g ± 0.1411.56 m ± 0.134.50 cd ± 0.0145.96 mno ± 0.01
Raspberry (Rubus idaeus L.) 92.69 ijk ± 0.1412.32 g ± 0.0615.22 g ± 0.146.39 jk ± 0.096.53 f ± 0.0452.22 p ± 0.21
Marsh mallow (Althaea officinalis L.)93.29 l ± 0.0418.86 kl ± 0.0722.62 n ± 0.093.60 g ± 0.0716.41 n ± 0.0531.79 e ± 0.08
Psyllium (Plantago afra L.)91.11 cde ± 0.015.52 bc ± 0.064.94 b ± 0.062.96 efg ± 0.062.59 a ± 0.0575.11 r ± 0.09
Purple coneflower (Echinacea purpurea Moench L.)91.64 fg ± 0.0510.58 f ± 0.1916.73 ij ± 0.092.79 def ± 0.0214.18 m ± 0.1547.37 o ± 0.09
Yarrow (Achillea millefolium L.) 92.11 gh ± 0.169.57 e ± 0.0331.98 q ± 0.033.37 fg ± 0.168.06 h ± 0.1239.14 g ± 0.38
Marjoram (Origanum majorana L.)93.81 m ± 0.1714.20 h ± 0.0118.29 j ± 0.095.83 ij ± 0.0612.39 l ± 0.0443.11 k ± 0.02
Lemon balm (Melissa officinalis L.)92.32 hij ± 0.0317.25 j ± 0.5913.62 f ± 0.113.51 g ± 0.0611.67 k ± 0.2146.27 mno ± 0.20
Mint (Mentha L.)91.51 def ± 0.0914.00 h ± 0.5319.23 l ± 0.123.25 efg ± 0.1811.41 k ± 0.0543.62 kl ± 0.64
Common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale F.H Wigg)92.75 jk ± 0.0919.24 l ± 0.0115.68 gh ± 0.044.32 h ± 0.0524.51 o ± 0.3629.01 d ± 0.46
Knotgrass (Polygonum aviculare L.)91.45 def ± 0.4112.44 g ± 0.0627.89 o ± 0.381.93 b ± 0.086.60 f ± 0.0942.58 jk ± 0.72
Stinging nettle (Urtica dioica L.) 90.90 c ± 0.0517.36 j ± 0.2742.66 u ± 0.172.10 bc ± 0.0112.81 l ± 0.5515.97 a ± 0.38
Cleavers (Galium aparine L.) 92.30 hij ± 0.069.85 ef ± 0.1930.14 p ± 0.222.17 bcd ± 0.069.58 j ± 0.0440.56 gh ± 0.37
Field horsetail (Equisetum arvense L.)91.47 def ± 0.0915.91 i ± 0.2819.98 m ± 0.042.96 efg ± 0.0711.49 k ± 0.0541.14 hij ± 0.38
Thyme (Thymus vulgaris L.)93.14 kl ± 0.0314.15 h ± 0.1316.23 hi ± 0.156.86 k ± 0.0510.03 j ± 0.0645.86 mn ± 0.32
Mezzanine (Filipendulae ulmariae herba L.)91.59 ef ± 0.018.36 d ± 0.0733.10 r ± 0.073.07 efg ± 0.024.52 cd ± 0.2642.54 jk ± 0.24
Willow (Salix alba L.)92.24 hi ± 0.194.92 b ± 0.0335.82 s ± 0.093.41 fg ± 0.077.33 g ± 0.0140.78 hi ± 0.24
Black cumin (Nigella sativa L.)95.09 n ± 0.0721.27 m ± 0.228.22 d ± 0.0742.28 p ± 0.443.97 bc ± 0.0119.35 b ± 0.65
Garlic (Allium sativum L.) 91.47 def ± 0.0818.19 k ± 0.012.55 a ± 0.160.74 a ± 0.013.74 b ± 0.0166.25 q ± 0.07
Means with at least same letter not differ statistically at p = 0.05. * dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), crude fiber (CF), ether extract (EE), crude ash (CA), nitrogen free extract (NFE).
Table
Table 3. Total polyphenol content and antioxidant activity of selected raw materials.
Table 3. Total polyphenol content and antioxidant activity of selected raw materials.
PlantsPolyphenols * ABTS **DPPH **FRAP **
Black chokeberry (Aronia melanocarpa L.)595.738 ab ± 50.9152.327 ab ± 0.5213.364 a ± 0.0041.047 ab ± 3.14
Plantain (Plantago lanceolata L.)4578.407 ij ± 147.95891.833 k ± 65.56394.914 e ± 5.28697.550 k ± 6.82
Common cumin (Carum carvi L.)4144.998 hi ± 130.86489.577 hi ± 32.01245.704 cde ± 28.75449.973 hi ± 32.12
Fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum L.)736.449 ab ± 20.0681.057 ab ± 1.9620.000 a ± 0.7348.932 ab ± 3.16
Milk thistle (Silybum marianum (L.)291.832 a ± 28.4126.334 a ± 0.9614.271 a ± 0.1126.252 a ± 1.14
Wild rose (Rosa canina L.) 5072.939 jk ± 242.88512.909 i ± 44.75385.150 de ± 1.06622.873 jk ± 43.06
Marigold (Calendula officinalis L.)656.669 ab ± 5.0048.923 ab ± 0.9540.634 ab ± 13.76114.776 abcd ± 6.84
Common chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla L.) 7240.002 op ± 134.461188.944 l ± 32.07666.845 f ± 61.341699.766 o ± 48.26
Birch (Betula L.)6585.825 no ± 233.641201.158 l ± 27.80608.443 f ± 48.011030.362 l ± 25.28
Raspberry (Rubus idaeus L.) 5653.171 kl ± 53.93896.536 k ± 34.30712.134 f ± 128.36930.384 l ± 73.74
Marsh mallow (Althaea officinalis L.)3181.631 fg ± 42.20375.841 fgh ± 78.47230.800 cde ± 15.97371.949 gh ± 17.76
Psyllium (Plantago afra L.)1159.538 bc ± 74.92111.030 abc ± 1.699.475 a ± 1.00147.121 abcde ± 8.19
Purple coneflower (Echinacea purpurea Moench L.)5778.254 klm ± 21.84881.856 k ± 25.65610.147 f ± 56.00950.445 l ± 27.57
Yarrow (Achillea millefolium L.) 3322.056 fg ± 28.35332.152 efg ± 12.73124.108 abc ± 14.29267.674 efg ± 18.70
Marjoram (Origanum majorana L.)6956.584 nop ± 98.871396.437 m ± 6.40664.860 f ± 98.391357.709 n ± 48.12
Lemon balm (Melissa officinalis L.)2577.805 ef ± 203.09303.079 def ± 14.8261.489 abc ± 1.06230.477 def ± 4.10
Mint (Mentha L.)3466.203 gh ± 152.11449.340 ghi ± 20.81206.872 bcd ± 9.86518.388 ij ± 0.00
Common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale F.H Wigg)3132.016 fg ± 107.63367.012 fgh ± 31.60235.068 cde ± 7.36354.451 fgh ± 0.00
Knotgrass (Polygonum aviculare L.)2651.438 ef ± 148.12319.487 efg ± 8.47164.562 abc ± 20.07285.465 efg ± 21.85
Stinging nettle (Urtica dioica L.)6205.064 lmn ± 365.781912.016 o ± 17.081034.725 g ± 87.861698.517 o ± 18.35
Cleavers (Galium aparine L.) 7565.426 p ± 639.801890.523 o ± 76.711061.068 g ± 74.421769.766 o ± 119.09
Field horsetail (Equisetum arvense L.)6545.378 mno ± 146.08736.158 j ± 29.90613.430 f ± 23.981202.939 m ± 27.55
Thyme (Thymus vulgaris L.)1710.696 cd ± 92.73176.528 bcd ± 6.43112.595 abc ± 1.61169.851 bcde ± 5.53
Mezzanine (Filipendulae ulmariae herba L.)2200.496 de ± 124.08272.093 def ± 32.00102.573 abc ± 5.32198.428 cde ± 16.05
Willow (Salix alba L.)778.397 ab ± 19.0982.138 ab ± 12.1423.797 ab ± 0.8159.523 abc ± 0.98
Black cumin (Nigella sativa L.)2306.676 de ± 160.32216.174 cde ± 15.03161.562 abc ± 17.14233.329 defg ± 7.38
Garlic (Allium sativum L.) 6512.095 mno ± 324.821751.490 n ± 0.00933.050 g ± 66.271471.586 n ± 23.26
Means with the same letter do not differ statistically at p = 0.05; * mg CGA/100 g DM; ** µM Trolox/g DM; ABTS•+—2,2′-azino-bis-(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid), DPPH•+—2,2′-Diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl, FRAP ferric ion reducing antioxidant parameter.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Biel, W.; Pomietło, U.; Witkowicz, R.; Piątkowska, E.; Kopeć, A. Proximate Composition and Antioxidant Activity of Selected Morphological Parts of Herbs. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1413. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13031413

AMA Style

Biel W, Pomietło U, Witkowicz R, Piątkowska E, Kopeć A. Proximate Composition and Antioxidant Activity of Selected Morphological Parts of Herbs. Applied Sciences. 2023; 13(3):1413. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13031413

Chicago/Turabian Style

Biel, Wioletta, Urszula Pomietło, Robert Witkowicz, Ewa Piątkowska, and Aneta Kopeć. 2023. "Proximate Composition and Antioxidant Activity of Selected Morphological Parts of Herbs" Applied Sciences 13, no. 3: 1413. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13031413

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop