# Functional and Antimicrobial Properties of Propolis from Different Areas of Romania
## 4 Discussion
The DPPH assay indicated that extract A exhibited the highest radical scavenging activity (31.6 mg Trolox Eq./g), while extract C2 exhibited the lowest value (24.9 mg Trolox Eq./g). These findings align with those reported by [PERSON] et al. [44], who observed an IC50 of 12.5 \(\upmu\)g/mL for DPPH radical scavenging in ethanolic extracts, demonstrating substantial antioxidant capacity. [PERSON] et al. [54] observed a DPPH activity ranging from 50% to 90% for Brazilian propolis, providing evidence for the antioxidant activity of ethanolic extracts. The ABTS assay showed that extracts C1 and A exhibited the highest antioxidant activity, while extract C2 demonstrated the lowest. This trend aligns with the findings of [PERSON] et al. [55], who reported a TEAC value of \(\sim\)1200 \(\upmu\)mol Trolox/g for ethanolic extracts, indicating strong free radical neutralisation. [PERSON] [56] observed a TEAC value of 850 \(\upmu\)mol Trolox/g for ethanolic extracts, emphasising the effectiveness of this solvent in extracting bioactive compounds with high antioxidant capacity. The findings of this study corroborate the robust antioxidant capacity of ethanolic propolis extracts, which aligns with the observations documented by [PERSON] et al. [57]. These observations pertain to the DPPH scavenging efficacy of 65% at 1 mg/mL and the total phenolic content of 174.7 \(\upmu\)g GAE/mg dry sample for Chinese propolis. Furthermore, the findings align with those of [PERSON] and [PERSON] [53], who observed superior antioxidant efficacy in ethanolic extracts in comparison to aqueous extracts. This superiority was attributed to the enhanced efficiency of ethanol in the extraction of polyphenols and flavonoids. The elevated antioxidant activity observed in extracts A and C1 may be attributed to their considerable phenolic and flavonoid content, as evidenced by previous analyses. This relationship is corroborated by [PERSON] et al. [44], who underscored the robust correlation between total phenolic content (150.5 mg GAE/g) and antioxidant activity. The observed variability in antioxidant activity among the samples in this study is also consistent with the findings of [PERSON] et al. [52], who identified significant regional differences in antioxidant potential due to variations in phenolic composition. The antimicrobial activity of propolis extracts varies depending on the microorganism and origin. Among Gram-positive bacteria, _E. faecalis_ showed the highest inhibition zones with C1, followed by S. C2, A, and H had similar but less pronounced effects. These findings align with those of [PERSON] et al. [58], who recorded inhibition zones of 14 mm for _E. faecalis_, substantiating the efficacy of propolis against this bacterium. [PERSON] et al. [59] also highlighted comparable activity, validating the antimicrobial potential of the C1 extract. The C1 extract was also the most effective against _S. aureus_, followed by C2, A, S, and H. These findings align with those of [PERSON] and [PERSON] [13], who reported inhibition zones of 10-20 mm for _S. aureus_. [PERSON] et al. [20] observed 20 mm inhibition zones for _S. aureus_ using Brazilian propolis. This shows the broad antimicrobial spectrum of propolis, particularly against Gram-positive pathogens. The C1 and C2 extracts were similarly effective against MRSA, with extract A showing a slightly lower activity. The weaker performance of S and H against this resistant strain highlights the variability in propolis chemical composition. These findings align with those of [PERSON] et al. [60], who demonstrated propolis efficacy against antibiotic-resistant strains like MRSA, reinforcing its potential as an alternative therapeutic agent. The inhibitory effects against _S. epidermidis_ were most potent in extract C1, with the C2, A, and S extracts displaying reduced yet quantifiable activity. In contrast, the H extract demonstrated minimal inhibitory effects. This trend reflects the impact of geographical origin and extraction methods, as highlighted by [PERSON] et al.