## 3 Results and Discussion
### Antioxidant Activity Determination
#### 3.2.1 DPPH Scavenging  
This approach has been introduced for the 1 st time by [PERSON] (1958) [31], and now is one of the commonly used to assess the free radical scavenging activity of various antioxidant compounds due to its accuracy [32] and it is known to give reliable information concerning the antioxidant ability of the tested compounds. It is based on the reduction of DPPH in alcoholic solutions (methanol or ethanol) in the presence of a hydrogen-donating antioxidant. The dark violet color of the DPPH radical becomes yellowish or colorless due to the antioxidant compound, causing a decrease in the absorbance at 517 nm [33; 34]. Table 2 showed that the DPPH EC50 results varied from 0.12 to 0.37 mg/mL, which is the quantity of antioxidant required to reduce the initial DPPH radical concentration by 50% [20]. The lower the value, the higher the antioxidant activity. The overall results showed that the extract obtained at 50 \({}^{\circ}\)C had the highest ability to scavenge the DPPH radical. However, the conditions 50 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C were not significantly different at \(p\)-value = 0.05.  
In similar studies, [PERSON] et al. (2007) [8] with solvents extraction, has reported free radical scavenging activity of methanol and ethyl acetate extracts of _Laminum album_, compared to Trolox and their results showed that methanol extract had free radical scav  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l} \hline \hline
**Extraction** & **DPPH EC50** & **ABTS (\#g TE/g)** & **FRAP (\#mol TE/g of Extract)** \\
**Conditions** & **(mg/mL)** & & \\ \hline
40 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 0.37 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.04 & 43.20 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.20 & 19.48 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.05 \\
50 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 0.12 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.00 & 44.53 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.02 & 44.74 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.07 \\
60 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 0.16 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.00 & 44.52 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.02 & 28.32 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 0.12 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Values are mean \(\pm\) s.d., \(n\) = 3, values with the same lowercase letters in the same column indicate no significant difference at level of 5% (\(p\) < 0.05).  
\end{table}
Table 2: Antioxidant activities estimated by DPPH, ABTS and FRAP assays of extracts from dry _Laminum album_ flowers extracted using SC-CO\({}_{2}\) and methanol as co-solvent.  
-engine properties and an average EC50 of 0.4659 \(\pm\) 4.4 mg/mL while ethyl acetate extracts did not exhibit DPPH radical reduction activity [8]. Additionally, [PERSON] et al. (2013) demonstrated DPPH free radical scavenging activity of butanolic extract of _Laminum album_ in EC50 value to be 19.29 mg/mL [7].  
Furthermore, the antioxidant tests were performed using the scavenging activity of the synthetic stable 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) free radical and two oxygen radicals spontaneously produced in the cells--superoxide radicals and hydroxyl radicals, both of which are hazardous to the cell at high levels. In comparison to reference compounds like vitamin E and quercetin, the aqueous component of _L. album_ hydro-alcoholic extract demonstrated modest antioxidant activity. However, among all examined aqueous fractions from 16 medicinal plants, the extract from _L. album_ shown a considerable scavenging impact on DPPH radicals (EC50 = 0.28 mg/mL) [35].