## 3 Results and Discussion
### Elemental Composition of Medicinal Plants  
The experimental results regarding the elemental composition (Table 3) highlight that potassium was the macroelement with the highest concentration present in the analyzed plant matrices, followed by calcium and magnesium. Potassium content varies between 9045.2 ppm in LA and 3459 ppm in AM, in agreement with literature studies that reported \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Chemical Parameters**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Moisture** & **Proteins** & **Lipids** & **Ash** & **Carbohydrates** & **Energy Value** & **Dry Residue** \\  & **(g/100 g)** & **(g/100 g)** & **(g/100 g)** & **(g/100 g)** & **(g/100 g)** & **(f/100 g)** & **(f/5)** \\ \hline MP & 9.57 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 14.10 \(\pm\) 0.34 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 0.99 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 12.37 \(\pm\) 0.28 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 62.97 & 317.17 & 2.00 \(\pm\) 0.01 \\ \hline TS & 7.10 \(\pm\) 0.16 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 8.75 \(\pm\) 0.20 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 0.52 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\rm b,c}\) & 7.60 \(\pm\) 0.18 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 76.03 & 343.80 & 2.22 \(\pm\) 0.03 \\ \hline SO1 & 10.76 \(\pm\) 0.24 \({}^{\rm c}\) & 10.79 \(\pm\) 0.26 \({}^{\rm c}\) & 0.78 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\rm c}\) & 6.84 \(\pm\) 0.17 \({}^{\rm c}\) & 70.83 & 333.50 & 3.05 \(\pm\) 0.02 \\ \hline AM & 7.15 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 12.51 \(\pm\) 0.31 \({}^{\rm d}\) & 1.12 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\rm a,e}\) & 6.45 \(\pm\) 0.16 \({}^{\rm c}\) & 72.77 & 351.18 & 2.34 \(\pm\) 0.02 \\ \hline OV & 7.17 \(\pm\) 0.16 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 9.86 \(\pm\) 0.23 \({}^{\rm e}\) & 0.55 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 7.69 \(\pm\) 0.19 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 74.73 & 343.31 & 2.22 \(\pm\) 0.01 \\ \hline EP & 12.45 \(\pm\) 0.31 \({}^{\rm d}\) & 15.70 \(\pm\) 0.38 \({}^{\rm f}\) & 1.06 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 9.89 \(\pm\) 0.25 \({}^{\rm d}\) & 60.90 & 315.94 & 2.10 \(\pm\) 0.02 \\ \hline HO & 8.37 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\rm e}\) & 11.92 \(\pm\) 0.28 \({}^{\rm d}\) & 0.43 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\rm c}\) & 5.00 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\rm e}\) & 74.28 & 348.67 & 3.21 \(\pm\) 0.03 \\ \hline SO2 & 6.88 \(\pm\) 0.16 \({}^{\rm h,f}\) & 11.54 \(\pm\) 0.27 \({}^{\rm c}\) & 3.84 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{\rm d}\) & 8.21 \(\pm\) 0.20 \({}^{\rm f}\) & 69.53 & 358.84 & 3.20 \(\pm\) 0.01 \\ \hline LA & 11.73 \(\pm\) 0.27 \({}^{\rm d}\) & 10.35 \(\pm\) 0.24 \({}^{\rm c,e}\) & 0.48 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\rm b,c}\) & 7.01 \(\pm\) 0.17 \({}^{\rm c}\) & 70.43 & 327.44 & 3.15 \(\pm\) 0.01 \\ \hline MO & 7.40 \(\pm\) 0.18 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 21.34 \(\pm\) 0.52 \({}^{\rm g}\) & 0.90 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 12.82 \(\pm\) 0.32 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 57.54 & 323.62 & 2.24 \(\pm\) 0.03 \\ \hline HP & 6.19 \(\pm\) 0.14 \({}^{\rm f}\) & 13.69 \(\pm\) 0.33 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 1.21 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 3.57 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\rm g}\) & 75.34 & 367.01 & 3.20 \(\pm\) 0.01 \\ \hline CO & 8.09 \(\pm\) 0.19 \({}^{\rm e}\) & 19.25 \(\pm\) 0.46 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 1.08 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 8.97 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 62.61 & 337.16 & 2.42 \(\pm\) 0.02 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Results are expressed as the mean value of three determinations \(\pm\) standard deviation (SD). The mean differences between samples were compared using a \(t\)-test; data sharing different superscripts (a–h) in the same row show statistically significant differences (\(p<0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Chemical and nutritional composition of medicinal plants. a wide value range (715-29,688 ppm) [29]. No significant differences in K content (\(p<0.05\)) were recorded between the MO/HP, TS/AM/OV, and HO/SO2. The potassium content reported in the literature data for medicinal plants from the Lamiaceae family varies depending on the geographical area and pedological, agotechnical, and climatic conditions.