article · Sciences of Phytochemistry
This study investigated the phytochemical composition and in-vitro antioxidant potential of leaves extracts from Sorghum bicolor, which were obtained through sequential maceration with solvents of different polarities (n-hexane and methanol). The extraction yields revealed a predominance of polar compounds, with methanol extract (12.5% w/w) significantly higher than the n-hexane extract (1.7% w/w). Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) profiling, using NIST library matching (similarity scores >80%) without reference standards, showed distinct patterns based on solvent use: the n-hexane extract contained nine primarily lipophilic compounds, mainly consisting of Z-2-octadecen-1-ol and octadecenoic acid derivatives, whereas the methanol extract yielded fifteen characterized by polar fatty acids and oxygenated derivatives. Identifications were tentative; those with lower match scores or inconsistent retention times required confirmation through alternative methods. Antioxidant capacity was evaluated via 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical scavenging, hydroxyl radical inhibitory activity (HRIA), and ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) assays. The methanol extract demonstrated concentration-dependent DPPH scavenging (IC₅₀ = 0.1402 mg/L), comparable to vitamin C (0.1369 mg/L) in this assay, while the n-hexane extract showed weaker activity (IC₅₀ 3.22 mg/L). In HRIA and FRAP assays, vitamin C consistently showed greater activity than either extract, with n-hexane IC50 estimates constrained by poor curve fits (R2<0.9). Overall, the methanol extract surpassed the n-hexane extract across all assays but did not match the effectiveness of vitamin C. These in-vitro results suggest that S. bicolor leaves contain polar phytochemicals that merit further fractionation, compound-level characterization, and evaluation in biologically relevant models to elucidate their potential as sources of natural antioxidants.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.58920/sciphy0501459
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.