## 3 Results and Discussion
### Bioactive Characteristics of T. catappa and Its Blends with Eryththrid and Cane Sugar  
Table 4 presents the bioactive profile of _T. catappa_ powder and its blends with erythroid and cane sugar, evaluated through multiple antioxidant assays using both ethanolic and water extracts. The reducing sugar content showed significant variations among samples, with pure _T. catappa_ exhibiting the highest value (6.04 \(\pm\) 0.13 mg GE/g DM), and sweetener-containing blends showing lower values ranging from 4.07 \(\pm\) 0.04 to 4.38 \(\pm\) 0.26 mg GE/g DM. DPPH radical scavenging activity varied depending on the extraction solvent used. Ethanolic extracts showed values ranging from 1.95 \(\pm\) 0.05 to 2.73 \(\pm\) 0.75 mg TE/g DM, with the 15% erythroid blend exhibiting the highest antioxidant activity. Water extracts demonstrated higher DPPH values for pure _T. catappa_ (3.35 \(\pm\) 0.04 TE mg/1 gDM) than in ethanol extract (1.95 \(\pm\) 0.05 TE mg/1 gDM). ABTS radical scavenging capacity showed higher values in ethanolic extracts compared to water extracts. Ethanolic extract values \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Samples**} & **Reducing** & **DPPH** & **DPPH** & **ABTS ETOH** & **ABTS H\({}_{2}\)O** & **FRAP ETOH** & **FRAP H\({}_{2}\)O** \\  & **Sugars** & **ETOH** & **H\({}_{2}\)O** & **H\({}_{2}\)O** & **H\({}_{2}\)O** & **H\({}_{2}\)O** \\ \hline  & **[GEmg/1 gDM]** & & & **[TE mg/1 gDM]** & & **(FeSO\({}_{4}\) mg/1 gDM)** \\ \hline _T. catappa_ & 6.04 \(\pm\) 0.13 b  & 1.95 \(\pm\) 0.05 a  & 3.35 \(\pm\) 0.04 b  & 3.17 \(\pm\) 0.13 a  & 1.96 \(\pm\) 0.42 a  & 2.15 \(\pm\) 0.30 ab  \\ \hline
5-E & 4.07 \(\pm\) 0.04 a  & 2.06 \(\pm\) 0.62 a  & 1.85 \(\pm\) 0.13 a  & 3.30 \(\pm\) 0.17 a  & 1.97 \(\pm\) 0.05 a  & 1.97 \(\pm\) 0.42 a  & 2.11 \(\pm\) 0.13 ab  \\ \hline
15-E & 4.38 \(\pm\) 0.26 a  & 2.73 \(\pm\) 0.75 a  & 2.63 \(\pm\) 0.80 ab  & 3.46 \(\pm\) 0.33 a  & 1.75 \(\pm\) 0.14 a  & 1.75 \(\pm\) 0.14 a  & 2.28 \(\pm\) 0.19 ab  \\ \hline
5-CS & 4.19 \(\pm\) 0.07 a  & 2.40 \(\pm\) 0.49 a  & 1.96 \(\pm\) 0.06 a  & 3.97 \(\pm\) 0.17 a  & 1.87 \(\pm\) 0.00 a  & 1.87 \(\pm\) 0.00 a  & 1.97 \(\pm\) 0.05 a  \\ \hline
15-CS & 4.32 \(\pm\) 0.01 a  & 2.11 \(\pm\) 0.29 a  & 2.15 \(\pm\) 0.50 a  & 4.21 \(\pm\) 1.24 a  & 1.57 \(\pm\) 0.03 a  & 1.57 \(\pm\) 0.03 a  & 2.63 \(\pm\) 0.25 b  \\ \hline sample & & ns & ns & ns \\ \hline solvent & ns & ns & ** \\ \hline sample \(\times\) solvent & ns & ** & ** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* E—erythritol, CS—cane sugar, mean values with different lowercase letters imply significant differences between means in rows at \(p\) \(<\) 0.05. Second order interaction analysis ‘\(\bullet\)_p_ \(<\) 0.05; **\(\bullet\)_p_ \(<\) 0.01; ***\(\bullet\)_p_ \(<\) 0.001, ns—non significant (_p_ \(>\) 0.05).  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Bioactive profile of _T. catappa_ and its erythroid and cane sugar blends. ranged from 3.17 \(\pm\) 0.13 to 4.21 \(\pm\) 1.24 mg TE/g DM, with the 15% cane sugar blend showing the highest activity. Water extracts showed lower values ranging from 1.57 \(\pm\) 0.03 to 1.97 \(\pm\) 0.42 mg TE/g DM, with minimal variation among samples. FRAP assay results showed similar trends across both extraction methods. Ethanolic extracts ranged from 1.57 \(\pm\) 0.03 to 1.97 \(\pm\) 0.42 mM FeSO\({}_{4}\), while water extracts showed slightly higher values ranging from 1.97 \(\pm\) 0.05 to 2.63 \(\pm\) 0.25 mM FeSO\({}_{4}\). The 15% cane sugar blend exhibited the highest FRAP value in water extracts. Statistical analysis revealed significant interaction between sample results and the extraction solvent used on the ABTS results (\(p<0.001\)) while DPPH showed no significant interaction effects. FRAP values (\(p<0.05\)) were dependent on the extraction solvent, which modulated by interaction the FRAP values on different samples. Sample type alone showed no significant effect on DPPH, ABTS, and FRAP values. Two-way ANOVA showed that the antioxidant activity expressed by the ABTS method significantly depends on the type of extractant used.