## 3 Results
### Bioactive Compounds and Antioxidant Activity  
Table 4 shows the total phenolic (TPC) and total flavonoid (TFC) contents and the antioxidant capacity of the C. edulis fruit extracts.  
According to the results obtained (Table 4), the highest total phenolic content (TPC) and total flavonoid content (TFC) were observed in the hydroalcoholic _C. edulis_ fruit extracts. Also, the hydroalcoholic extracts presented the strongest antioxidant activity. The aqueous extract was the one with the lowest extraction capacity, observing the lowest levels of phenolics and total flavonoids, as well as antioxidant activity.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Fruit Extracts**} & **TPC** & **TFC** & **DPPH\({}^{\bullet}\)** & **FRAP** \\  & **(mg GAE/g)** & **(mg CE/g)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** \\ \hline Ethanolic & 252.3 \(\pm\) 3.05 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 36.27 \(\pm\) 0.76 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 76.50 \(\pm\) 4.52 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 20.30 \(\pm\) 0.39 \({}^{\text{b,c}}\) \\ Aqueous & 156.7 \(\pm\) 4.04 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 26.75 \(\pm\) 0.78 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 21.87 \(\pm\) 0.60 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 19.11 \(\pm\) 0.35 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ Hydroalcoholic & 311.7 \(\pm\) 3.78 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 50.43 \(\pm\) 2.08 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 95.89 \(\pm\) 0.75 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 47.27 \(\pm\) 0.73 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Values are presented in dry weight. TPC is reported in mg GAE/g: TFC is reported in mg EC/g; DPPH\({}^{\bullet}\) and FRAP results reported in % elimination effect as mean \(\pm\) standard deviation (\(n=3\)). The different letters for the same assay and different extracts, which are found in each column, indicate that the results are significantly different according to the ANOVA followed by the Tukey HSD test (\(\varphi<0.05\)).  
\end{table}
Table 4: Quantification of bioactive compounds and assessment of antioxidant activity of _C. edulis_ fruit extracts.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Fatty Acids**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**\% of Total FA**} \\ \hline Undecanoic & C11:0 & n.d. \\ Lauric & C12:0 & 0.19 \(\pm\) 0.003 \\ Myristic & C14:0 & 0.66 \(\pm\) 0.004 \\ Palmitic & C16:0 & 12.41 \(\pm\) 0.012 \\ Palmitoleic & C16:1 & 0.12 \(\pm\) 0.005 \\ Heptadecanoic & C17:0 & n.d. \\ Stearic & C18:0 & 2.96 \(\pm\) 0.008 \\ Oleic & C18:1n9c & 17.51 \(\pm\) 0.030 \\ Linoleic \({}^{\text{1}}\) & C18:2n6c \({}^{\text{1}}\) & 52.08 \(\pm\) 0.015 \\ Arachidic & C20:0 & 1.71 \(\pm\) 0.006 \\ \(\alpha\)-Linolenic \({}^{\text{1}}\) & C18:3n3 \({}^{\text{1}}\) & 2.10 \(\pm\) 0.002 \\ cis-11-Eicosanoic & C20:1n9 & 0.49 \(\pm\) 0.001 \\ Behenic & C22:0 & 2.54 \(\pm\) 0.003 \\ Tricosanoic & C23:0 & n.d. \\ Lignoecier & C24:0 & n.d. \\ \hline n6/n3 & & 24.80 \(\pm\) 0.043 \\ n9/n6 & & 0.346 \(\pm\) 0.117 \\ \hline \hline \(\Sigma\)SFA & & 20.47 \(\pm\) 0.017 \\ \(\Sigma\)MUFA & & 18.12 \(\pm\) 0.030 \\ \(\Sigma\)PUFA & & 54.18 \(\pm\) 0.015 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Values are presented as a relative % of total FA. The results are expressed as mean \(\pm\) standard deviation (\(n=3\)). The 0 sum of saturated FA \(\Sigma\)SFA = C12:0 + C14:0 + C16:0 + C18:0 + C22:0. The sum of monounsaturated FA \(\Sigma\)MUFA = C16:1 + C18:1n9c + C20:1n9. The sum of polyunsaturated FA \(\Sigma\)PUFA = C18:2n6c + C18:3n3. \({}^{\text{1}}\) Essential fatty acids. n.d.—not detected.  
\end{table}
Table 3: Fatty acid profiles (%) in _C. edulis_ fruits.