## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**Method of** **Determination**}} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Extraction Method**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Sample**} \\ \cline{3-5}  & & _Herba_ & _Radix_ & _Flores_ \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} ABTS\({}^{\star}\) assay \\ IC\({}_{50}\) in \(\mu\)g/mL \\ \end{tabular} } & Soxhlet extraction & \(15.14\pm 0.27\) & \(5.14\pm 0.26\) & \(9.54\pm 0.28\) \\ \cline{2-5}  & \begin{tabular}{c} Maceration \\ extraction \\ \end{tabular} & \(19.46\pm 0.31\) & \(9.46\pm 0.31\) & \(17.46\pm 0.23\) \\ \cline{2-5}  & \begin{tabular}{c} Ultrasound \\ extraction \\ \end{tabular} & \(16.58\pm 0.23\) & \(6.58\pm 0.22\) & \(12.18\pm 0.68\) \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} FRAP assay \\ \(\mu\)mol TE */100 mL \\ \end{tabular} } & Soxhlet extraction & \(163.18\pm 0.16\) & \(251.14\pm 0.17\) & \(197.06\pm 0.06\) \\ \cline{2-5}  & \begin{tabular}{c} Maceration \\ extraction \\ \end{tabular} & \(143.18\pm 0.49\) & \(211.14\pm 0.26\) & \(177.06\pm 0.23\) \\ \cline{2-5}  & \begin{tabular}{c} Ultrasound \\ extraction \\ \end{tabular} & \(152.38\pm 0.81\) & \(236.34\pm 0.63\) & \(182.66\pm 0.81\) \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} CUPRAC assay \\ \(\mu\)mol TE */100 mL \\ \end{tabular} } & Soxhlet extraction & \(146.58\pm 0.17\) & \(222.94\pm 0.21\) & \(181.66\pm 0.06\) \\ \cline{2-5}  & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Maceration \\ extraction \\ \end{tabular} & \(126.58\pm 0.23\) & \(192.94\pm 0.55\) & \(151.66\pm 0.44\) \\ \cline{2-5}  &
\begin{tabular}{c} Ultrasound \\ extraction \\ \end{tabular} & \(133.38\pm 1.11\) & \(201.34\pm 0.63\) & \(166.34\pm 0.98\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
*TE—Trolox equivalent.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: _Cont._Regarding the antioxidant activity of the extracts (Table 4) obtained by Soxhlet extraction, evaluated by the DPPH assay, it was observed that it was significantly higher compared to the other extraction methods. Moreover, the highest value of the antioxidant capacity was obtained at the level of _Lysimachia radix_ in 70% ethanolic extracts by Soxhlet extraction (the IC\({}_{50}\) value was 531.99 \(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro g}\)/mL in the DPPH assay) (Table 3). Among the three different parts of the _Lysimachia nummularia_ L. plant, the _Lysimachia radix_ proved to have the strongest DPPH scavenging capacity. In our study, in agreement with other researchers, it was noticed that there were correlations between the DPPH and ABTS\({}^{+}\) assays, as well as for the FRAP and CUPRAC methods. Otherwise, the variations among the antioxidant methods can be justified by their chemical backgrounds [39; 40; 41]. The highest scavenging activity in the _radix_ part can be explained by its higher content of polyphenols. Phenolic acid compounds are well-known antioxidant compounds. In phenolic compounds, the existence of a 3-hydroxyl structure (caffeic acid, gallic acid) increases the antioxidant effect [42; 43]. Various studies noticed a good linear correlation between the total phenolic content and the antioxidant activity of plants. The values that indicate that the antioxidant activity of the same plant species, reported in different studies in the literature, is also difficult to compare because there is a significant difference depending on the origin of the plant and the methods used to obtain the extracts. In general, the antioxidant activity is attributed to phenolic compounds. Some research papers showed that the phenolic compounds, such as caffeic acid and fertile acid, are related to hydroxcinnamic acids and have apoptotic and anti-proliferative effects on tumor cells [44; 45]. Instead, the caffeic acid phenethyl ester can accelerate wound re-epithelialization and increase keratinocytes' proliferation [46], while gallic acid, which belongs to the hydroxbenzoic acids, can increase the migration and proliferation of fibroblasts and keratinocytes in a dose-dependent manner [47].