# Nutritional Profile and Antioxidant Properties of Hemp (_Camanabis sativa_ L.) Seed from Romania
## 3 Results
### Antioxidant Profile
#### 3.3.3. 1,1-Diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) Assay for Antioxidant Capacity Quantification  
Ascorbic acid at the maximum dose (0.1 mg/mL) demonstrated 91.45% inhibition (Table 4). The IC\({}_{50}\) representing the concentration required for each extract to achieve 50% inhibition of DPPH, expressed as mg\(\cdot\)mL\({}^{-1}\), is presented in Table 5. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Concentration (mg/mL)**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & & **5** & **13.33** & **20** & **40** & **100** \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**(\% inhibition)**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{HSLO} & CES & 2.51 \(\pm\) 0.21 b  & 6.86 \(\pm\)0.05 g  & 10.53 \(\pm\) 0.02 j  & 14.84 \(\pm\) 0.03 o  & 45.21 \(\pm\) 0.01 w  \\ \cline{2-6}  & UAE & 4.44 \(\pm\) 0.04 b  & 8.87 \(\pm\) 0.03 e  & 12.60 \(\pm\) 0.007 j  & 17.61 \(\pm\) 0.01 n  & 54.20 \(\pm\) 0.01 v  \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{HSSI} & CES & 3.15 \(\pm\) 0.08 c  & 6.92 \(\pm\) 0.03 g  & 9.52 \(\pm\) 0.05 i  & 12.24 \(\pm\) 0.02 l  & 32.91 \(\pm\) 0.02 t  \\ \cline{2-6}  & UAE & 3.67 \(\pm\) 0.04 a  & 9.59 \(\pm\) 0.03 f  & 11.75 \(\pm\) 0.02 i  & 19.40 \(\pm\) 0.01 o  & 42.80 \(\pm\) 0.03 s  \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{HSAR} & CES & 3.18 \(\pm\) 0.09 c  & 8.64 \(\pm\) 0.02 h  & 12.43 \(\pm\) 0.02 m  & 18.87 \(\pm\) 0.02 s  & 48.28 \(\pm\) 0.01 x  \\ \cline{2-6}  & UAE & 6.48 \(\pm\) 0.02 c  & 7.57 \(\pm\) 0.95 d  & 16.96 \(\pm\) 0.02 m  & 21.31 \(\pm\) 0.003 P  & 51.74 \(\pm\) 0.004 u  \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{HETE} & CES & 4.35 \(\pm\) 0.05 e  & 11.37 \(\pm\) 0.004 k  & 17.07 \(\pm\) 0.02 p  & 18.02 \(\pm\) 0.02 r  & 56.63 \(\pm\) 0.01 y  \\ \cline{2-6}  & UAE & 6.25 \(\pm\) 0.05 c  & 15.38 \(\pm\) 0.05 l  & 21.39 \(\pm\) 0.01 P  & 31.59 \(\pm\) 0.01 q  & 60.48 \(\pm\) 0.05 w  \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{HSLV585} & CES & 2.30 \(\pm\) 0.04 a  & 6.68 \(\pm\) 0.02 f  & 9.49 \(\pm\) 0.02 i  & 13.41 \(\pm\) 0.04 n  & 33.54 \(\pm\) 0.02 u  \\ \cline{2-6}  & UAE & 4.28 \(\pm\) 0.009 b  & 9.37 \(\pm\) 0.03 e  & 10.06 \(\pm\) 0.04 gh  & 15.29 \(\pm\) 0.06 l  & 39.41 \(\pm\) 0.009 r  \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{HSLV300} & CES & 3.90 \(\pm\) 0.03 d  & 9.49 \(\pm\) 0.02 i  & 12.42 \(\pm\) 0.03 m  & 17.49 \(\pm\) 0.10 q  & 38.01 \(\pm\) 0.01 v  \\ \cline{2-6}  & UAE & 4.39 \(\pm\) 0.01 b  & 10.24 \(\pm\) 0.01 h  & 13.27 \(\pm\) 0.02 k  & 17.79 \(\pm\) 0.03 n  & 47.62 \(\pm\) 0.07 t  \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**(\% inhibition)**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{HSLV300} & CES & 28.02 & 45.94 & 57.09 & 70.59 & 91.45 \\ \cline{2-6}  & & & & & \\ \cline{2-6}  & & & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Radical scavenging activity (% inhibition) following CES and UAE. Figure 3: Comparative TFC content following CES and UAE: (**a**) TFC values using CES and UAE. (**b**) Increasing TFC using UAE/CES methods. Lower-case letters (a–f) signify significant differences (\(p<0.05\)) among samples derived from the same extraction procedure. Distinct capital letters (A, B) denote significant differences (\(p<0.05\)) between samples derived from various extraction procedures. As shown in Table 4, the highest radical scavenging activity was observed at the maximum concentration (100 mg/mL) for all samples. For the conventional extraction method, the highest antioxidant activity was found in the HETE extract (56.6%), followed by HSAR (48.28%) and HSLO (45.21%). The lowest radical scavenging activity was seen in HSLV300 (38.01%), followed by HSLV585 (33.54%) and HSSI (32.90%). Following the ultrasound extraction method, the HETE extract exhibited the highest antioxidant activity (60.48%), followed by HSLO (54.20%), HSAR (51.74%), and HSLV300 (47.62%). HSSI (42.80%) and HSLV585 (39.41%) had the lowest radical scavenging activity. Statistically significant differences (\(p<0.05\)) were found in most samples extracted using the conventional method, across all tested concentrations.