## 2 Materials and Methods
### Entrapping Efficiency (\(EE\)%) Analysis  
The results obtained when determining the entrapping efficiency of the CARG-Ms prepared by the first and second methods and after performing the calculations are presented in Table 2.  
From the analysis of the data obtained, it can be seen that the highest entrapping efficiency of 75.31% was obtained in the case of the sample m2_Ch04, where the concentration of polymer was the highest (Ch 0.4%). The smallest amount of RG extract, approximately 31.99%, was introduced into sample m1_Ch01, prepared by method 1, which contained a concentration of 0.1% Ch. It can be concluded that, with an increase in the concentration of Ch in microspheres, the entrapping efficiency of the extract in CARG-Ms increased, regardless of the method chosen for their preparation. When comparing the two methods of microencapsulation, after the instillation operation for 1 h, with a constant rate  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Samples** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Concentration of Natural Polymer** \\ **(\%)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Amount of RG** \\ **Extract (mL)** \\ \end{tabular} & **EE\%** \\ \hline \begin{tabular}{c} m1\_Ch01 \\ \end{tabular} & 0.1 & 0.75 & 5 & 31.99 \(\pm\) 0.12 \\ \begin{tabular}{c} m1\_Ch02 \\ \end{tabular} & 0.2 & 0.75 & 5 & 33.33 \(\pm\) 0.56 \\ \begin{tabular}{c} m1\_Ch04 \\ \end{tabular} & 0.4 & 0.75 & 5 & 35.68 \(\pm\) 0.23 \\ \begin{tabular}{c} m2\_Ch01 \\ \end{tabular} & 0.1 & 0.75 & 5 & 70.33 \(\pm\) 0.22 \\ \begin{tabular}{c} m2\_Ch02 \\ \end{tabular} & 0.2 & 0.75 & 5 & 72.77 \(\pm\) 0.75 \\ \begin{tabular}{c} m2\_Ch04 \\ \end{tabular} & 0.4 & 0.75 & 5 & 75.31 \(\pm\) 0.96 \\ \begin{tabular}{c} E1 \\ \end{tabular} & 0.1 & 0.75 & - & - \\ \
\begin{tabular}{c} E2 \\ \end{tabular} & 0.2 & 0.75 & - & - \\
\begin{tabular}{c} E3 \\ \end{tabular} & 0.4 & 0.75 & - & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Legend: m1_Ch01—first sample prepared by method 1. m1_Ch02—second sample prepared by method 1. m2_Ch01—first sample prepared by method 2. m2_Ch02—second sample prepared by method 2. m2_Ch02—second sample prepared by method 2. m2_Ch04—third sample prepared by method 2.  
of 0.5 mL/min and shaking at 100 rpm, it was observed that the microspheres prepared by method 1 encapsulated a smaller amount of extract than those prepared by method 2, although the drip rate and shaking time were the same in both methods (Figure S3). This may be due to the fact that the microspheres formed by method 2 contained the extract inside the microsphere matrix, compared with the microspheres formed by method 1, where the extract was in the chitosan solution and had to pass through the alginate layer to reach the microspheres.  
Previous studies have utilized the complex coaervation method to encapsulate rutin in microparticles of casein and pectin, resulting in an entrapment efficiency of 76.9% \(\pm\) 6.3% [77]. Similarly, the encapsulation of _Olea europea_ L. extract in microspheres of gelatin and tragacanth gum, using the same method, resulted in an entrapment efficiency of 60.74% \(\pm\) 0.88 extract [78]. On the other hand, the encapsulation of _Acalypha indica_ L. ethanolic extract into chitosan-casein microparticles resulted in an entrapping efficiency of 85.30 \(\pm\) 4.10% [79]. In another study, _Thymus vulgaris_ essential oil was encapsulated in gelatin B-gum Arabic microcapsules, resulting in an entrapment efficiency of 98.22% \(\pm\) 0.22 [80]. Furthermore, _Echitacea angustifolia_ L. extract was encapsulated in nanoparticles by an ionic gelation process that involved emulsifying chitosan and sodium alginate and then electrostatically gelation. The nanoparticles had an entrapment efficiency of 83.45% extract, and the concentrations of the polymers used were 0.06% Na-Alg and 0.05% Ch [40].