Jul 2020 DOI 10.14302/issn.2471-2140.jaa-20-3478
Plant-based preparations are commonly used in Suriname (South America) as adaptogens. In this study, fifteen alleged adaptogenic Surinamese plants have been assessed for their antioxidant activity (AA), total phenolic contents (TPC), and total flavonoid contents (TFC). The investigated plants were Anacardium occidentale, Spondiasdulcis, Annona muricata, Euterpe oleracea, Oenocarpus bacaba, Luffa acutangula, Punicagranatum, Malpighia emarginata, Syzygiumaqueum, Syzygiumcumini, Averrhoa carambola, and Renealmiaalpinia (fruit); Hibiscus sabdariffa (calyx); as well as Aloe vera and Cestrum latifolium (leaf). Aqueous extracts (1 - 3,000 μg/ mL) were prepared. AA was determined by the FRAP and the DPPH assay. TPC and TFC were determined by the Folin-Ciocalteu’s and an AlCl3 colorimetric method, respectively, using gallic acid (GA) and rutin (R), respectively, as standards. Data are means ± SDs (n ≥ 3; P < 0.05). FRAP values and DPPH-scavenging activities correlated positively with each other and with TPC but not with TFC. The preparations from M. emarginata, A. carambola, A. occidentale, O. bacaba, C. latifolium, and H. sabdariffa displayed the highest FRAP values (54 ± 14 to 412 ± 30 µM Fe2+/100 μg), DPPH-scavenging activities (IC50 values of 33 ± 14 to 250 ± 50 μg/mL), and TPC (51 ± 4 to 280 ± 78 µM GAE/100 µg). TFC of all samples were ≤ 10 ± 3 RE/100 µg. The adaptogenic properties of these plants may (partially) be attributed to their high content of antioxidant phenolic compounds and may make them candidates of novel sources of health-promoting antioxidants.
Aug 2017 DOI 10.14302/issn.2644-1101.jhp-17-1665
Objective: To describe the presence of mental distress in a representative sample of the Surinamese ethnic groups in the population, across urban and rural areas. Design and Methods: The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale was applied to data from the Suriname Health Study (n=5,434 (15 to 65 years)) designed according to WHO Steps guidelines,to determine prevalences for mental distress in all living areas. Calculations were made in subgroups of sex, age, ethnicity, education, income, marital and employment status. The Odds Ratio (OR) for Sex and Ethnicity was estimated for mild-moderate and severe mental distress. Results: An overall prevalence of 3.8% (95%CI, 3.3-4.4) was observed for severe mental distress, 4.9% (95%CI, 4.4-5.5) for moderate mental distress and 10.8% (95%CI,10.0-11.6) for mild mental distress. The OR for mild-moderate and severe mental distress was 0.7 and 0.5 for men compared to women and higher prevalence of all categories of mental distress were found in women compared to men. Respondents with lower education and lower income showed higher prevalence of all categories of mental distress. Prevalence was also higher among respondents living in urban versus rural coastal areas, among singles versus people living with a partner and in unemployed versus employed. Maroons had higher Odds for mild-moderate and severe mental distress compared to Hindustani. Amerindian and Javanese had lower Odds for mild-moderate mental distress and Creole had lower Odds for Severe mental distress compared to Hindustani. Conclusions: Overall 19.5% of respondents reported mental distress. The main risk factors were female gender, Maroon ethnicity, low level of education and income, living in urban areas, unemployment and being single.