# 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
However, exceptions included HSSI and HSAR, which did not show significant differences (\(p>0.05\)) at a concentration of 5 mg/mL; HSLO and HSSI showed no significant differences at 13.33 mg/mL; and HSAR and HSLV300 exhibited no significant differences at 20 mg/mL. No statistically significant differences (\(p>0.05\)) were observed between HSAR and HETE, nor between HSLV585 and HSLV300 at a 5 mg/mL concentration following ultrasonic extraction. Additionally, at a concentration of 13.33 mg/mL, no statistically significant differences (\(p>0.05\)) were observed between HSLO and HSLV585. Regarding the influence of the extraction technique, Figure 4 shows that ultrasound-assisted extraction (DPPH--UAE) led to increases in DPPH values ranging from 1.72% to 103.77% compared with the values obtained using the conventional extraction method (DPPH--CES). Table 5 shows that the highest antioxidant activity for all samples was achieved with the UAE process, followed by the CES process. Significant differences were observed between the two methods across all analyzed samples. With the UAE method, the IC\({}_{50}\) values of the samples varied significantly, highlighting differences in their antioxidant efficacy. Sample HETE exhibited the highest antioxidant activity, with an IC\({}_{50}\) value of 4.85 mg/mL, while sample HSLV585 had the lowest activity, with an IC\({}_{50}\) value of 7.50 mg/mL. Most varieties of hemp seeds analyzed showed significant differences (\(p<0.05\)), except for sample HSLO, which was paired with sample HSAR. \begin{table} \begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**IC\({}_{50}\) (mg/mL)**} \\ \cline{2-3}  & **CES** & **UAE** \\ \hline HSLO & 6.64 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{C}}\) & 5.81 \(\pm\) 0.14 \({}^{\text{GB}}\) \\ \hline HSSI & 8.72 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{C}}\) & 6.70 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{GB}}\) \\ \hline HSAR & 6.16 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{C}}\) & 5.80 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{GB}}\) \\ \hline HETE & 5.56 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{C}}\) & 4.85 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{\text{BB}}\) \\ \hline HSLV585 & 8.33 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{C}}\) & 7.50 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{BB}}\) \\ \hline HSLV300 & 7.43 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{C}}\) & 6.33 \(\pm\) 0.14 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{Ascorbic acid} & 2.43 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{AA}}\) \\ \hline \end{tabular} 
\begin{tabular}{c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**IC\({}_{50}\) (mg/mL)**} \\ \cline{2-3}  & **CES** & **UAE** \\ \hline HSLO & 6.64 \(\pm\) 0. The biplot reveals two principal components: PC1, accounting for 46.25% of the variance, and PC2, accounting for 23.55% of the variance (Figure 5). Together, these components explain a significant portion of the total variance in the data. Zn, Fe, Mn, Ni, Ash, and Prot, located on the right side of the plotted graph, significantly influence PC1, indicating that this component predominantly reflects the mineral and protein composition of the hemp seeds. TC, Fib, TPC, TFC, and DPPH100, located on the left side, have lower values for PC1 and are inversely correlated with those on the right, suggesting that hemp varieties with higher mineral and protein content have lower levels of antioxidants and phenolic compounds. This inverse relationship provides valuable insight into the nutritional and functional properties of hemp seeds. Figure 4: Increase in DPPH radical scavenging activity values using UAE method compared with CES method. Figure 5: PCA Biplot. Ca, DM, and NV, represented by green vectors pointing upwards, primarily influence PC2, reflecting the nutritional matrix. The strong contribution of Ca, DM, and NV to this component suggests that these variables influence the antioxidant performance of hemp seeds.