## Results and Discussion
### Diversity of volatiles isolated by headspace solid-phase microextraction (HS-SPME)
#### Diversity of volatiles isolated by ultrasonic solvent extraction (USE)
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l} \hline
35. & Dodecan-1-ol\({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1479 & 0.0 & 1.3 & 0.53 & 0.68 \\
36. & Pentadecane\({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1500 & 0.1 & 0.8 & 0.40 & 0.36 \\
37. & 4-Methyl-2,6-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)- & 1514 & 2.9 & 4.2 & 3.60 & 0.66 \\  & phenol & & & & & \\
38. & 4-Hydroxybenzoic acid\({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1522 & 0.9 & 2.3 & 1.47 & 0.73 \\  & (\(p\)-Salicylic acid) & 1563 & 0.2 & 0.7 & 0.47 & 0.25 \\
39. & 4-Hydroxyphenylacetic acid\({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1566 & 0.2 & 0.6 & 0.43 & 0.21 \\  & (Vanillic acid) & & & & & \\
41. & 4-Hydroxy-3,5-dimethoxy- & 1661 & 0.0 & 1.7 & 0.73 & 0.87 \\  & benzaldehyde (Syringyl aldehyde) & 1678 & 0.0 & 0.4 & 0.13 & 0.23 \\
42. & Tetradecan-1-ol\({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1774 & 5.8 & 8.2 & 7.40 & 1.39 \\
43. & Methyl 3,5-dimethoxy-4- & 1789 & 0.0 & 0.6 & 0.20 & 0.35 \\  & acid (4-Hydroxy cinnamic acid) & 1790 & 1.4 & 7.5 & 3.17 & 3.77 \\
46. & 3,5-Dimethoxy-4-hydroxybenzoic acid & 1817 & 0.0 & 0.6 & 0.23 & 0.32 \\
47. & 3-(4-Hydroxy-3-methoxyphenyl)- & 1867 & 0.6 & 1.2 & 0.83 & 0.32 \\  & prop-2-enoic acid\({}^{\text{a}}\) (Ferulic acid) & 1869 & 0.6 & 1.0 & 0.77 & 0.21 \\
48. & Diisobutyl phthalate & 1882 & 2.5 & 8.2 & 5.23 & 2.86 \\
49. & Hexadecan-1-ol\({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1890 & 0.0 & 0.4 & 0.13 & 0.23 \\
50. & 2,5-Dimethoxy-4-ethylbenzaldehyde & 1890 & 0.0 & 0.6 & 0.27 & 0.31 \\
51. & 3-Hydroxy-4-methoxycinamic acid & 1869 & 1.4 & 1.9 & 1.70 & 0.26 \\  & (Isoferulic acid) & 2060 & 5.2 & 16.8 & 11.87 & 5.99 \\
52. & Heneicosane\({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2100 & 0.0 & 3.9 & 1.97 & 1.95 \\
56. & (\(Z\))-Octadec-9-enoic acid\({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2147 & 0.0 & 2.5 & 1.50 & 1.33 \\
57. & Tetracosane\({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2400 & 1.0 & 2.0 & 1.67 & 0.58 \\  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Total identified**} & 90.7-96.3\% \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{l} RI = retention indices on HP-5 MS column; Min. = minimal percentage;Max. = maximal percentage; Av. = average percentage; SD. = standard deviation; \({}^{\text{a}}\) – identification confirmed with reference compound; \({}^{\text{*}}\) - tentatively identified; \({}^{\text{**}}\) - correct isomer not identified. \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Cont. (3.5-9.1%), 2-ethylfuran (0.7-2.3%) and 4,5-dimethyl-2-formylfuran (0.2-0.9%), not as the honey markers but rather as indicators of heat treatment and prolonged or improper storage conditions. _Free radical scavenging ability of ultrasonic solvent extracts compared to the honey samples_  
The 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) assay was used to evaluate the free radical scavenging ability of the ultrasonic solvent extracts, as well as the honey samples. The decrease in absorbance was measured at room temperature after 1 h. The percent inhibition of the DPPH radical as a function of the honey samples and their ultrasonic solvent extracts concentrations is shown in Figure 3. The term IC\({}_{50}\) corresponds to the concentration of the extract where 50% of its maximal effect on reduction of DPPH radical is observed. IC\({}_{50}\) value was determined graphically from the graph in Figure 3(a). The IC\({}_{50}\) value for ultrasonic solvent extract mean curve [Figure 3(a)] was 0.6 g/L, while the IC\({}_{50}\) for the honey samples was undetermined because at the maximum concentration (45 g/L) a maximum of 25% of DPPH inhibition was achieved. These measurements show that the ultrasonic solvent extracts exhibited significantly higher free radical scavenging potential than the honey samples at approximately 25 times lower concentration ranges (up to 2 g/L). **Figure 3.** DPPH reduction percentage against increasing concentration of _A. fruticosa_ USE extracts (**a**) and the honey samples (**b**) Results are expressed as mean values \(\pm\) SD.