# Functional and Antimicrobial Properties of Propolis from Different Areas of Romania
## 3 Results
### Phenolic Profiles of PEEs
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & & & \\ \hline
**Phenolic Compounds (\(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro g}\)/g)** & **C1** & **C2** & **A** & **S** & **H** \\ \hline
**Protocatechic acid** & 0.40 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.37 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 0.41 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 0.62 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 0.20 \(\pm\) 0.03 \\ _p_-OH-benzoic & 3.76 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 3.20 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 9.15 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 5.76 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 7.16 \(\pm\) 1.2 \\
**Catechin** & n.d. & n.d. & 0.24 \(\pm\) 0.1 & n.d. & 1.60 \(\pm\) 0.08 \\ Vanillie acid & 0.50 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.61 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 0.85 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 1.3 \(\pm\) 0.05 & n.d. \\
**Clorogenic acid** & n.d. & n.d. & n.d. & 0.54 \(\pm\) 0.02 & n.d. \\
**Caffeic acid** & 42.41 \(\pm\) 2.1 & 22.93 \(\pm\) 1.6 & 77.95 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 20.76 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 28.15 \(\pm\) 2.1 \\
**Vanillin** & 6.58 \(\pm\) 1.7 & 8.84 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 18.69 \(\pm\) 1.8 & 27.26 \(\pm\) 1.9 & 22.80 \(\pm\) 2.9 \\ _p_-cumaric acid** & 64.12 \(\pm\) 2.6 & 57.76 \(\pm\) 1.5 & 148.41 \(\pm\) 6.1 & 188.33 \(\pm\) 3.0 & 295.08 \(\pm\) 3.9 \\
**Ferulic acid** & 31.12 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 66.51 \(\pm\) 3.6 & 96.90 \(\pm\) 2.9 & 214.13 \(\pm\) 2.7 & 330.40 \(\pm\) 4.8 \\
**Naringin** & 1.62 \(\pm\) 0.1 & n.d. & n.d. & n.d. \\
**Rosmarinic acid** & 0.85 \(\pm\) 0.03 & n.d. & 0.98 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 6.85 \(\pm\) 1.3 & 2.76 \(\pm\) 0.3 \\
**Quercitrin** & 0.45 \(\pm\) 0.02 & n.d. & 1.19 \(\pm\) 0.1 & n.d. & 2.27 \(\pm\) 0.1 \\
**Quercitrin** & 11.13 \(\pm\) 1.0 & 4.25 \(\pm\) 0.2 & n.d. & n.d. & n.d. \\
**Naringenin** & 55.41 \(\pm\) 1.9 & 17.20 \(\pm\) 2.2 & 21.19 \(\pm\) 1.10 & 8.84 \(\pm\) 0.7 & n.d. \\
**Apigenin** & 22.46 \(\pm\) 2.6 & 9.77 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 15.89 \(\pm\) 1.67 & 13.48 \(\pm\) 1.2 & 4.41 \(\pm\) 0.8 \\
**Kaempfer** & _7.97_ \(\pm\) 1.4 & n.d. & n.d. & n.d. \\
**CAPE** & 116.77 \(\pm\) 2.2 & n.d. & 180.61 \(\pm\) 5.1 & 44.15 \(\pm\) 0.9 & n.d. \\
**Chrysin** & 188.48 \(\pm\) 3.9 & 83.22 \(\pm\) 3.0 & 158.61 \(\pm\) 3.7 & 38.2 \(\pm\) 2.3 & 9.27 \(\pm\) 1.1 \\
**Pinocembrin** & 357.86 \(\pm\) 3.7 & 208.13 \(\pm\) 2.8 & 180.31 \(\pm\) 4.1 & n.d. & n.d. \\
**Galangin** & 43.07 \(\pm\) 2.1 & 19.80 \(\pm\) 1.7 & 29.43 \(\pm\) 2.83 & 3.65 \(\pm\) 0.2 & n.d. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Phenolic profiles of the five propolis ethanolic extracts. The data were expressed as the mean \(\pm\) SD (\(n\) = 3). Additionally, galangin was identified in C1, with a concentration of 43.07 ug/g, followed by the extract from A with 29.43 ug/g, the extract from C2 with 19.8 ug/g, and the lowest amount detected was in S, with 3.65 ug/g. Table 6 presents the total content of phenolic acids and flavonoids, calculated by summing the individual compound quantities. Extract H exhibits the highest overall value for total phenolic acids, with a concentration of 663.75 ug/g, followed by extract A (515.29 ug/g), S (482.45 ug/g), and C1 (259.95 ug/g). With regard to flavone/flavonol content, extract C1 exhibits the highest value among the analysed extracts, with a value of 688.5 ug/g, followed by extract A with 406.62 ug/g and extract C2 with 342.37 ug/g. The extract from S has a flavonoid content of 61.18 ug/g, while the extract from H has the lowest flavonoid content, with 15.95 ug/g. It is evident that the flavonoid and phenolic acid content present in the five extracts varies considerably. The highest value was recorded for C1 (948.45 ug/g), followed by A (921.91 ug/g). Notwithstanding the closeness of the values observed, C1 demonstrated a higher overall antimicrobial activity than A.