Abstract
Fig tree leaves (Ficus carica L.) are a rich source of biologically active compounds and possess both nutritional value and therapeutic potential. This study compared the physicochemical properties, polyphenolic content, and biological activities of fig leaves processed and stored under different conditions: air-drying and freezing. Dried leaves (DL) exhibited higher protein (17.06 %) and carbohydrate (11.4 %), contents than the frozen leaves (FL) - 4.14 % and 5.93 %. DL extract exhibited higher contents of total polyphenols and flavonoids (24.53 mg GAE/g dw and 0.83 mg QE/g dw) than FL extract (1.80 mg GAE/g dw and 0.07 mg QE/g dw). DL showed greater antioxidant activity (DPPH: 183.81 vs. 8.38; FRAP: 193.60 vs. 13.81 mM TE/g dw). Antimicrobial tests revealed higher inhibitory activity (inhibition zones ≥ 12 mm) of DL extract against Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, Bacillus cereus, Enterococcus faecalis, Micrococcus luteus, Salmonella enteritidis, Escherichia coli, Proteus vulgaris, Proteus mirabilis, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, while FL extract was less active. Both dried and frozen fig leaves exhibited notable biological activities, with DL showing superior antioxidant and antimicrobial potential. Consequently, drying was the more suitable storage method, better preserving the bioactivity of fig leaves and enhancing their functional and therapeutic potential.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher.
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
Dried fig leaves had 17.06% protein versus 4.14% in frozen leaves.
Verbatim
e0“Dried leaves (DL) exhibited higher protein (17.06 %) and carbohydrate (11.4 %), contents than the frozen leaves (FL) - 4.14 % and 5.93 %”
t0“fig leaves”
Claim · model-written summary
Dried fig leaves had 11.4% carbohydrate versus 5.93% in frozen leaves.
Verbatim
e0“Dried leaves (DL) exhibited higher protein (17.06 %) and carbohydrate (11.4 %), contents than the frozen leaves (FL) - 4.14 % and 5.93 %”
t0“fig leaves”
Claim · model-written summary
Dried leaf extract had 24.53 mg GAE/g dw total polyphenols versus 1.80 in frozen extract.
Verbatim
e0“DL extract exhibited higher contents of total polyphenols and flavonoids (24.53 mg GAE/g dw and 0.83 mg QE/g dw) than FL extract (1.80 mg GAE/g dw and 0.07 mg QE/g dw)”
t0“fig leaves”
Claim · model-written summary
Dried leaf extract had 0.83 mg QE/g dw flavonoids versus 0.07 in frozen extract.
Verbatim
e0“DL extract exhibited higher contents of total polyphenols and flavonoids (24.53 mg GAE/g dw and 0.83 mg QE/g dw) than FL extract (1.80 mg GAE/g dw and 0.07 mg QE/g dw)”
t0“fig leaves”
Claim · model-written summary
Dried leaves had greater DPPH antioxidant activity, 183.81 versus 8.38.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“DL showed greater antioxidant activity (DPPH: 183.81 vs. 8.38; FRAP: 193.60 vs. 13.81 mM TE/g dw)”
t0“fig leaves”
Claim · model-written summary
Dried leaves had greater FRAP antioxidant activity, 193.60 versus 13.81 mM TE/g dw.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“DL showed greater antioxidant activity (DPPH: 183.81 vs. 8.38; FRAP: 193.60 vs. 13.81 mM TE/g dw)”
t0“fig leaves”
Claim · model-written summary
Dried leaf extract showed higher antimicrobial inhibition than frozen extract against the tested bacteria.
Verbatim
e0“higher inhibitory activity (inhibition zones ≥ 12 mm) of DL extract against Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, Bacillus cereus, Enterococcus faecalis, Micrococcus luteus, Salmonella enteritidis, Escherichia coli, Proteus vulgaris, Proteus mirabilis, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, while FL extract was less active”
t0“fig leaves”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend drying to preserve fig leaf bioactivity.
Verbatim
e0“drying was the more suitable storage method, better preserving the bioactivity of fig leaves”
The same questions in other papers
processing · quality: sugar starch · Ficus carica (common fig)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →processing · quality: phytochemicals · Ficus carica (common fig)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →botanical · quality: phytochemicals · Ficus carica (common fig)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.