## 3 Results
By this methodology, it was observed that phenolic compounds present in the TL extracts were further mainly separated in the extracts of amphiphilic compounds (TAC extracts), since in both the apple pomace (13.2 mg/100 g pomace) and juice (16.8 mg/100 mL juice) the TAC extracts contained much higher TPC than the lower TPC detected in the TLC extracts in both sources, 2.6 mg/100 g pomace and 3.4 mg/100 mL juice, as shown in Table 2.  
This further indicates that the majority of the phenolics present in the TLs, as more polar organic molecules, can be dissolved in hydroalcoholic solvents like the 87% of ethanol used for the counter current distribution methodology, and thus are usually more proportioned towards the more polar TAC extracts of the hydroethanolic phase of this separation system. In contrast, the small amounts of phenolics detected in the TLC extracts seem to belong to more lipophilic polyphenols of higher molecular weight that also exist in plant-based sources and were portioned in the more lipophilic petroleum ether organic phase of this counter current distribution separatory procedure. The total carotenoid contents (TCC) of all TAC, TLC and TL extracts are shown in Table 3, expressed in mg CE (\(\beta\)-Caroten Equivalent) per g of DW of extract. It was found that the TL from the apple juice samples (7.8 mg/100 mL juice) again showed higher carotenoid content from the relevant TCC of the TL of the apple pomace (3.5 mg/100 g pomace). Nevertheless, still the carotenoid content of the TL from apple by-products detected in the present study appears to be higher than the carotenoid content of apple by-products reported to the literature [9; 15]. The majority of carotenoids have less polarity than the phenolics and polar lipids present in the TLs, and thus they usually are mainly portioned at the TLC extracts that were obtained by using the petroleum ether non-polar solvent during the counter current distribution separatory procedure, while some smaller amounts of carotenoids, probably of lower molecular weight that are relatively more polar ones, were partitioned in the TAC extracts that were obtained with the use of the 87% hydroalcoholic solvent. Thus, thrice higher TCC was found in the TLCs (5.2 mg/100 mL apple juice and 2.8 mg/100 g apple pomace) than in that of the TAC extracts (2.04 mg/100 mL apple juice and 0.75 mg/100 g apple pomace). 3.2.2 Evaluation of Antioxidant Activity of the TAC, TLC and TL Extracts from Apple Juice and Pomace  
The quantification of the antioxidant capacity of each extract was based on three different and distinct assays, namely, the 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical scavenging method, the ABTS (2,2\({}^{\prime}\)-azinobis-(3-ethylbenzothazoline6-sulfonic acid)) cation radical decolorization method, as well as the plasma iron reduction antioxidant capacity (FRAP) assay. The results obtained by the DPPH method are shown in Table 4, expressed as TEAC. The TAC of apple juice (1.9 mg/100 mL juice) showed similar antioxidant capacity with the TEAC quantified in the TAC of apple pomace (1.2 mg/100 g by-products). Similarly, the TLCs of the apple by-products (0.3 mg/100 g by-products) showed similar antioxidant capacity to the TEAC of the TLCs of the apple juice (0.2 mg/100 mL juice). Subsequently, there were no statistically significant variations in the TEAC obtained for the TL of both these sources (1.1 mg/100 mL apple juice and 1.4 mg/100 g by-products). Interestingly, the TEAC of the TLs of the apple juice was found to be lower than previously reported ones for apples of different varieties [12; 13; 20; 21], which seems again to be related to the different extraction processes between our study and the ones previously