“…Further differences were found for the endpoint used to report the results of the DPPH test. Whereas in many cases this was based on an IC 50 value (e.g., [ 47 , 54 , 69 ]), despite using a synonym name (such as EC50—half maximal effective concentration [ 41 , 79 ], RC50—50% reduction concentration [ 85 ], or SC50—50% scavenging concentration [ 42 ]), in other cases, different endpoints were used as follows: - Percentage of DPPH inhibition measured for a single sample prepared in a wide variety of ways (i.e., very different concentrations, e.g., 5 mg of essential oil diluted to 5 mL with ethanol, treated with 250 µL of DPPH in methanol (5.07 × 10 −4 M) [ 55 ], 100 µL of essential oil mixed with 3.9 mL of DPPH solution [ 86 ], 50 μL/mL [ 87 ], or even without details on the way the sample was processed but referencing a published source without clear statement whether identical amounts were used [ 53 , 82 , 88 ]);
- Percentage of DPPH inhibition measured on three to five different amounts/concentrations of essential oil with no IC 50 estimation [ 72 , 78 , 89 ];
- Equivalents to certain antioxidant substances expressed as mg per gram of essential oil (hydroxytoluene equivalent; ascorbic acid equivalent; Trolox equivalent) [ 90 , 91 ], μM equivalents per gram of essential oil [ 51 ], mM equivalents per ml [ 48 ] or per liter of essential oil [ 56 ], or μg of equivalents per ml of essential oil [ 92 ].
…”