## 3 Results and Discussion
### Energy Consumption during Pulsed Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction  
Energy consumption during sonication is mainly dependent on the time and amplitude of the ultrasonic vibrations and, to a lesser extent, on factors related to the extraction environment, such as the viscosity and temperature of the solvent and the size and concentration of the immersed solids. Some of these parameters can be changed during treatment. Because of this, it is important to determine the total quantity of energy emitted into the solid-liquid system [21]. The energy emitted by the ultrasonic device during extraction is presented in Table 7.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt}} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Optimized Condition**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Extraction Variables**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Yield of Extraction**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{X_{1}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{X_{2}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\mathbf{X_{3}}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Response**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Predicted**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Experimental \({}^{\mathbf{a}}\)**} & **Predictive Capacity (\%)** \\ \hline TFC & 0.59 & 10.71 & 7.13 & TFC & 9.28 & 8.98 \(\pm\) 0.21 & 96.77 \(\pm\) 2.27 \\ \hline TAC & 0.25 & 15 & 8.60 & TAC & 20.27 & 17.83 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 87.96 \(\pm\) 5.43 \\ \hline TFC and TAC & 0.60 & 12.51 & 8.60 & TFC & 8.99 & 8.52 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 94.77 \(\pm\) 2.22 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \(\chi_{1}\)—particle size (mm); \(\chi_{2}\)—extraction time (min); \(\chi_{3}\)—ultrasound intensity (W\(\cdot\)cm\({}^{-2}\)); \({}^{\mathbf{a}}\)—mean \(\pm\) standard deviation of the three experiments.  
\end{table}
Table 6: Comparison between the experimental yields and predicted yields of total flavonoid content (TFC), total anthocyanin content (TAC), and the simultaneous extraction of both bioactive compounds (TFC and TAC) determined in the optimized conditions.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt}} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Source**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Sum of Squares**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**DF**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Mean Square**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**F-Value**} & \multirow{2}{*}{_p-Value_} \\ \hline Yield (\%) & & & & & \\ \hline Model & 123.55 & 3 & 41.18 & 25.33 & \textless{}0.0001 & significant \\ \(\chi_{1}\) & 15.47 & 1 & 15.47 & 9.52 & 0.0104 & \\ \(\chi_{2}\) & 23.68 & 1 & 23.68 & 14.56 & 0.0029 & \\ \(\chi_{3}\) & 84.40 & 1 & 84.40 & 51.90 & \textless{}0.0001 & \\ \hline Residual & 17.89 & 11 & 1.63 & & & \\ \hline Lack of Fit & 17.26 & 9 & 1.92 & 6.15 & 0.1476 & not significant \\ \hline Pure Error & 0.6236 & 2 & 0.3118 & & & \\ \hline Total & 141.44 & 14 & & & & \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{7}{p{42.7 pt}}{R\({}^{2}\) = 0.8735; adj-R\({}^{2}\) = 0.8390; CV = 9.17; Adeq Precision = 15.09} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: ANOVA results for extraction efficiency and total anthocyanin content.  
The analysis of the data contained in Table 7 shows a directly proportional relationship between the time of ultrasonic treatment and energy consumption; thus, it can be assumed that, during sonication, the physical properties of the solvent were constant.