Georgian Scientists/ . 7 N 4, 2025 398 Georgian Scientists Vol. 7 Issue 4, 2025 https://doi.org/10.52340/gs.2025.07.04.20 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2 1 , E-mail: tuzbibir@gmail.com; 2 , E-mail: m.jokhadze@tsmu.edu; 3 , E-mail: a.bozhadze@tsmu.edu; , , – Petrosimonia brachiata, P. triandra, P. glaucescens Gamanthus pilosus – . , , , ). 70%- GC–MS LC–MS-DAD ; Folin–Ciocalteu- , – . DPPH IC . , , ; , . 10–25 GAE/ , P. triandra- . 6.6–18.8 QE/ 60–75%- , P. brachiata- P. triandra- . DPPH 45–90%- , IC – 30–130 ; IC P. brachiata- P. triandra- , G. pilosus Georgian Scientists/ . 7 N 4, 2025 399 . . . : ; Petrosimonia; Gamanthus pilosus; ; ; ; DPPH. , . , . , (6). [1]. , , , , [2]. [4,5]. , . . 475 . . . (Chenopodiaceae) . , . - . - Chenopodium ambrosoides, Anabasis aphylla . , . Georgian Scientists/ . 7 N 4, 2025 400 - Petrosimonia - – P.brachiata (Pall.) Bunge, P. triandra (Pall.) Simonk, P. glaucescens (Bunge) Iljin Gamanthus pilosus (Pall.) Bunge. Petrosimonia brachiata (Pall.) Bunge 40 , , . . . , . . , 5, 5 , , , . . , (7). Petrosimonia triandra (Pall.) Simonk. . 35 - , , . - , . , , , , . , . 3, 3. - . (7). Petrosimonia glaucescens (Bunge) Iljin . 30 , . . . 2, 5. - . , (7). Gamanthus pilosus (Pall.) Bunge . 50 , , . 2 , . 5. - , . – , (7). : Petrosimonia - Gamanthus pilosus (Pall.) Bunge , . Georgian Scientists/ . 7 N 4, 2025 401 70% . (Agilent technologies 7890B (Agilent Technologies 5977A MSD) (70 eV). LC-MS-DAD. Folin-Ciocalteu . ( ) . DPPH (2,2- -1- ) . . : , (P. brachiata, P. triandra, P. glaucescens Gamanthus pilosus) . , . GC-MS ( - ) , – , Petrosimonia [5]. LC-MS-DAD – , . , . [2], . , , . – , , . , , . Georgian Scientists/ . 7 N 4, 2025 402 Folin–Ciocalteu- (GAE, ). ( 1). , Petrosimonia Gamanthus pilosus . P. triandra ( 25 GAE/ ), ( 18 GAE/ ) (p<0.05). , P. brachiata P. glaucescens ( 20–22 GAE/ ), . G. pilosus ( 10–15 GAE/ ). , ( 10–25 GAE/ ) [1,3]. , Petrosimonia brachiata- 11.14- 24.22 GAE/ [1,3], Petrosimonia ( 44 GAE/ ) [5]. , . 1. (mg GAE/ , ± SD, n = 3) Petrosimonia- Gamanthus- . (mg GAE/g) (mg GAE/g) (mg GAE/g) Petrosimonia brachiata 17.0 ± 0.5 22.0 ± 0.7 19.0 ± 0.6 Petrosimonia triandra 18.0 ± 0.5 25.0 ± 0.8 22.0 ± 0.7 Petrosimonia glaucescens 16.0 ± 0.5 21.0 ± 0.6 18.0 ± 0.5 Gamanthus pilosus 11.0 ± 0.3 14.0 ± 0.4 13.0 ± 0.4 Georgian Scientists/ . 7 N 4, 2025 403 LC–MS-DAD . , [1,2,5]. Petrosimonia , , ( ., P. nigdeensis, P. sibirica) [1,2]. , , . , . , , [3–5]. Petrosimonia brachiata P. triandra , LC–MS-DAD , . , Limbarda crithmoides, [3]. , DPPH , , [1–4]. ( QE/ ). 6.6–18.8 QE/ , ( 3). P. triandra- 18.8 QE/ ), P. brachiata- ( 15.4 QE/ ) P. glaucescens- ( 13.7 QE/ ). Gamanthus pilosus- ( 6.6–8.4 QE/ ), Georgian Scientists/ . 7 N 4, 2025 404 . , – , , . , 60– 75%- , . 2. ( QE/ , ± SD, n = 3) Petrosimonia Gamanthus . (mg QE/g) (mg QE/g) (mg QE/g) Petrosimonia brachiata 10.2 ± 0.5 15.4 ± 0.7 12.4 ± 0.6 Petrosimonia triandra 11.7 ± 0.5 18.8 ± 0.7 15.4 ± 0.6 Petrosimonia glaucescens 9.6 ± 0.5 13.7 ± 0.7 10.8 ± 0.6 Gamanthus pilosus 6.6 ± 0.4 8.4 ± 0.5 7.8 ± 0.5 (DPPH ) DPPH , . , IC50 50%- ). , , . , P. brachiata 90%- DPPH , G. pilosus 45%, - 65%. IC50 P. brachiata 32 , , G. pilosus - IC50 100 , . Petrosimonia : P. triandra P. brachiata P. glaucescens , Georgian Scientists/ . 7 N 4, 2025 405 Gamanthus pilosus . DPPH : %- IC50- , ( ) . , P. triandra IC50 120- 70 , , (80 ). , , [4]. , DPPH : ( ., ) , , , [1,3]. , , . , . , [5]. 1. DPPH ( %; ± SD, n = 3) Petrosimonia Gamanthus . Georgian Scientists/ . 7 N 4, 2025 406 2. DPPH (IC ; ± SD, n = 3) Petrosimonia Gamanthus . : , Petrosimonia brachiata, P. triandra, P. glaucescens Gamanthus pilosus , , , . Folin–Ciocalteu , DPPH , P. brachiata P. triandra , , . , : , . , . Georgian Scientists/ . 7 N 4, 2025 407 1. M. A. De Gregorio, L. Zhang, F. M. Mahomoodally, L. Lucini. Metabolomic profiles and biopharmaceutical properties of Petrosimonia brachiata and P. nigdeensis from Turkey. Plants, 13, 2073 (2024). 2. D. S. Nurpeisova, M. Toktarbek, G. A. Seitimova, B. K. Yeskaliyeva, G. S. Burasheva, M. I. Choudhary. Phytochemical analysis of Petrosimonia sibirica grown in Kazakhstan. International Journal of Biology and Chemistry, 11(2), 129–134 (2018). 3. P. Brzovi , et al. Phenolic Antioxidants in the Adriatic Halophyte Limbarda crithmoides. Foods, 14, 3718 (2025). 4. A. Souid, et al. Antioxidant and nutraceutical potential of halophyte extracts. Frontiers in Nutrition, 8, 2021. 5. Z. Y. Ma, W. Sun, X. Zhang, H. B. Yang, W. F. Sun. Phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity of halophytic plants from Central Asia. Chem. Nat. Compd., 51, 530–536 (2015). 6. ., ., . . . , 2019, .9 7. III. , , . 1975. . 225- 226 Pharmaco-botanical study of some halophytic plants of Georgia Tsiala Ghviniashvili1, Tamar Zangurashvili1, Liana Jinjolia1, Malkhaz Jokhadze2, Dali Berashvili2, Sophio Gokadze2, Ana Bozhadze3, Lali Zardiashvili2 1Ilia State University, Niko Ketskhoveli Institute of Botany; 2Tbilisi State Medical University, Department of Pharmaceutical Botany; 3Tbilisi State Medical University, Department of Pharmacognosy Salinization threatens a growing proportion of arable land worldwide, making halophytic plants valuable sources of stress-adapted bioactive metabolites. The aim of this study was to investigate the polyphenolic profile and antioxidant activity of halophytic species from Lake Kumisi in Eastern Georgia – Petrosimonia brachiata, P. triandra, P. glaucescens and Gamanthus pilosus – in order to evaluate their pharmacological potential. Aerial parts were collected from the saline shores of Lake Kumisi in three phenological stages (pre-flowering, flowering and fruiting). Seventy percent ethanol extracts were prepared and analysed by GC–MS and LC–MS-DAD. Total phenolic content was determined using the Folin– Ciocalteu method and expressed as gallic acid equivalents (mg GAE/g DW), while total flavonoids were evaluated spectrophotometrically with the aluminium chloride method Georgian Scientists/ . 7 N 4, 2025 408 and expressed as quercetin equivalents (mg QE/g DW). Antioxidant activity was assessed by the DPPH radical scavenging assay, calculating inhibition percentages and IC values. The chromatographic profiles revealed a rich composition of terpenoids, phytosterols and polyphenols, including -sitosterol, phenolic acids and quercetin-type flavonoids. Total phenolic content ranged from approximately 10 to 25 mg GAE/g, with the highest value in flowering P. triandra. Total flavonoid content varied between 6.6 and 18.8 mg QE/g and accounted for about 60–75% of total phenolics, particularly in P. brachiata and P. triandra. In the DPPH assay, radical scavenging activity reached 45–90%, whereas IC values ranged from 30 to 130 µg/mL. The lowest IC values, indicating the strongest antioxidant activity, were recorded for flowering samples of P. brachiata and P. triandra, while G. pilosus showed comparatively weaker effects. A clear positive correlation was observed between total polyphenolic content and DPPH scavenging capacity. These findings demonstrate that halophytic species inhabiting the saline ecosystems of Lake Kumisi are phytochemically rich sources of natural antioxidants and represent promising candidates for further phytochemical isolation, pharmacological evaluation and potential application in medicinal and nutraceutical preparations. Keywords: halophytes; Petrosimonia; Gamanthus pilosus; polyphenols; flavonoids; antioxidant activity; DPPH.