## 3 Results
### Activity, Fe\({}^{2+}\) Chelating Activity, Antioxidant Activity, and Total Polyphenyl Content  
Table 2 displays the outcomes for the activity of a 1% ethanolic solution of bio-ferment (B), extract (E), and silymarin (S).  
Table 2 shows the antioxidant activity (via a DPPH radical scavenging assay and the ABST method), total polyphenol content (via the Folin-Ciocalteu method), Fe\({}^{2+}\) chelating activity, and acidity of a 1% ethanolic solution of silymarin (S), bio-ferment (B), and extract (E). The investigation of the DPPH radical scavenging capability of the 1% ethanolic solution of silymarin (S), bio-ferment (B), and extract (E) showed that the E, B, and S were characterized by DPPH radical scavenging degrees of 0.91 mmol \(\mathrm{Trolox}\)/L c.r.m. \(\pm\) 0.2, 1.19 mmol \(\mathrm{Trolox}\)/L c.r.m. \(\pm\) 0.2, and 1.14 mmol \(\mathrm{Trolox}\)/L c.r.m. \(\pm\) 0.3, respectively. The test results, presented in Table 2, show that the obtained cosmetic raw materials (B, E) and the solution of silymarin (S) exhibited antioxidant properties, as evaluated via the ABTS, FRAP, and Folin-Ciocalteu methods. The antioxidant activity (decided by the ABTS method) of the E, B, and S showed that the bio-ferment had the highest antioxidant activity (0.20 mmol \(\mathrm{Trolox}\)/L c.r.m. \(\pm\) 0.01). A 50% decrease in antioxidant activity was noted for the extract and solution of silymarin. The antioxidant activity determined by the FRAP method showed that the bio-ferment had the highest antioxidant activity (1.34 mmol \(\mathrm{FeSO}_{4}\)/L c.r.m. \(\pm\) 0.19). A lower level of activity was ob  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Cosmetick****Material**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Antioxidant Activity**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Fe\({}^{2+}\) Chelating Activity**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Acidity/Lactic Acid Content**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **DPPH** & **ABTS** & **FRAP** & **TPC** & **ChA** & **A** \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{**mmol**} & **Trolox/L c.m.** & **mmol**} & **FSO\_4/L c.m.** & **mmol**} & **F/L c.m.** & **mmol**} & **COOH/L c.r.m./g** \\ \hline Extract & 0.91 \(\pm\) 0.2 a & 0.10 \(\pm\) 0.02 a & 0.52 \(\pm\) 0.12 a & 0.61 \(\pm\) 0.04 a & 0.01 \(\pm\) 0.00 a & not tested \\ Bio-ferment & 1.19 \(\pm\) 0.2 a & 0.20 \(\pm\) 0.01 b & 1.34 \(\pm\) 0.19 b & 0.92 \(\pm\) 0.05 a & 0.05 \(\pm\) 0.01 b & 215.00 \(\pm\) 1.00/5.60 \\ Silymarin & 1.14 \(\pm\) 0.3 a & 0.11 \(\pm\) 0.02 a & 0.99 \(\pm\) 0.19 b & 0.76 \(\pm\) 0.09 a & na & not tested \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{Mean \(\pm\) SD (\(n=9\)); a, b—different letters: the investigated formulations exhibit substantial variations in values, as seen by the present findings; na—not active.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: The results for the activity of bio-ferment (B), extract (E), and silymarin (S).  
served for the extract (0.52 mmol FeSO\({}_{4}\)/L c.r.m. \(\pm\) 0.12) and the solution of silymarin (0.99 mmol FeSO\({}_{4}\)/L c.r.m. \(\pm\) 0.19). Studies of the chelating activity of Fe\({}^{2+}\) ions in the ferrozine test showed that the chelating activity of the tested bio-ferrents' reduction potential is 0.05 mmol Fe/L c.r.m. \(\pm\) 0.01 (acidity A = 215.00 mmol COOH/L c.r.m. \(\pm\) 1.00), while in the case of the extract, the ChA value is five times lower (0.01 mmol Fe/L c.r.m. \(\pm\) 0.00), with the silymarin solution showing no ChA--Table 2.