## 3 Results and Discussion
### Extraction Yield of Anthocyanins
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Material/Solvent** \\ **Ratio** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Time** \\ **(min)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{**Temperature (\({}^{\circ}\)C)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Water–Ethanol with HCl Solvent**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Water–Citric Acid Solvent**} \\ \cline{4-7}  & & & **Average Values** & **Extraction** & **Average Values** & **Extraction** \\  & & & **(mg/100 mL)** & **Yield (\%)** & **(mg/100 mL)** & **Yield (\%)** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{1:20 *} & 15 & & 80.7 \(\pm\) 3.6 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 80 & 79.1 \(\pm\) 1.4 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 79 \\  & 30 & 25 & 74.7 \(\pm\) 3.5 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 74 & 80.3 \(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 80 \\  & 60 & & 73.9 \(\pm\) 1.4 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 74 & 76.6 \(\pm\) 1.2 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 76 \\ \cline{2-7}  & 15 & & 91.2 \(\pm\) 2.3 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 91 & 72.5 \(\pm\) 2.3 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 72 \\  & 30 & 35 & 91.0 \(\pm\) 2.4 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 91 & 75.0 \(\pm\) 1.8 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 75 \\  & 60 & & 93.0 \(\pm\) 3.2 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 93 & 76.2 \(\pm\) 3.8 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 76 \\ \cline{2-7}  & 15 & & 75.7 \(\pm\) 1.0 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 75 & 80.6 \(\pm\) 0.3 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 80 \\  & 30 & 45 & 77.5 \(\pm\) 2.3 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 77 & 81.9 \(\pm\) 1.5 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 82 \\  & 60 & & 71.4 \(\pm\) 1.2 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 71 & 79.0 \(\pm\) 1.2 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 79 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{1:7 \({}^{\text{a}}\)} & 15 & & 254 \(\pm\) 7.1 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 85 & 198 \(\pm\) 1.5 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 66 \\  & 30 & 25 & 248 \(\pm\) 3.5 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 83 & 196 \(\pm\) 4.7 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 66 \\  & 60 & & 244 \(\pm\) 5.4 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 82 & 190 \(\pm\) 4.8 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 64 \\ \cline{2-7}  & 15 & & 277 \(\pm\) 5.4 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 93 & 189 \(\pm\) 5.0 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 63 \\  & 30 & 35 & 267 \(\pm\) 4.6 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 89 & 188 \(\pm\) 6.6 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 63 \\  & 60 & & 258 \(\pm\) 7.9 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 86 & 188 \(\pm\) 2.1 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 63 \\ \cline{2-7}  & 15 & & 258 \(\pm\) 6.6 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 86 & 205 \(\pm\) 3.4 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 68 \\  & 30 & 45 & 230 \(\pm\) 9.5 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 77 & 195 \(\pm\) 4.2 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 65 \\  & 60 & & 221 \(\pm\) 3.0 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 74 & 190 \(\pm\) 6.1 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 64 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* for material/solvent ratio 1:20, the maximum total anthocyanins content indicating 100% extraction yield is 100.9 mg/100 mL; ** for material/solvent ratio 1:7, the maximum total anthocyanins content indicating 100% extraction yield is 298.7 mg/100 mL; The values in the same column (for specific material/solvent ratio) with different letters are significantly different (\(p<0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Total anthocyanins content in obtained extracts and extraction yield. As for temperature, in our study, its effect depended on the solvent used. For the water-ethanol solvent, the best results were achieved at 35 \({}^{\circ}\)C (Figure A1). A temperature of 45 \({}^{\circ}\)C negatively affected the extraction efficiency, which was more noticeable as the process time increased. However, for the water-citric acid mixture, the temperature only mattered for the 1:20 ratio, where the best yield was obtained at 45 \({}^{\circ}\)C and the worst at 35 \({}^{\circ}\)C. For this solvent, with a material-to-solvent ratio of 1:7, temperature and time had no practical effect since the extraction yield was almost the same. According to the literature, an increase in temperature during phenol extraction has a positive impact up to a certain value, after which the yield decreases due to the weakening of the cavitation effect. [PERSON] et al. (2018) obtained the best extraction efficiency at 45 \({}^{\circ}\)C, above which they achieved only worse results. [PERSON] et al. (2018) reported 50 \({}^{\circ}\)C as the most effective temperature.