## 3 Results and Discussion
### Antioxidant Activity
Taking the above into consideration, in order to achieve the most accurate results, it is necessary to use several methods based on different principles when measuring antioxidant activity. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample**} & **DPPH** & **Reducing Power** \\  & **(mg TE/g DM)** & **(mg TE/g DM)** \\ \hline _Primula veris_ L. & 10.39 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & 322.01 \(\pm\) 3.74 \({}^{\text{g}}\) \\ _Urtica dioica_ L. & 24.09 \(\pm\) 0.36 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 186.53 \(\pm\) 15.29 \({}^{\text{k}}\) \\ _Ribes nigerum_ L. & 16.72 \(\pm\) 0.31 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 417.24 \(\pm\) 11.89 \({}^{\text{e}}\) \\ _Fragaria vesca_ L. & 22.24 \(\pm\) 1.22 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 679.65 \(\pm\) 3.06 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ _Mentha pipertia_ L. & 10.48 \(\pm\) 3.62 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & 328.61 \(\pm\) 11.89 \({}^{\text{g}}\) \\ _Thymus serpyllum_ L. & 9.77 \(\pm\) 1.89 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & 492.69 \(\pm\) 4.08 \({}^{\text{d}}\) \\ _Salvia officinalis_ L. & 7.57 \(\pm\) 0.71 \({}^{\text{g}}\) & 356.81 \(\pm\) 17.67 \({}^{\text{f}}\) \\ _Potentilla anserina_ L. & 13.39 \(\pm\) 1.48 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 206.99 \(\pm\) 4.76 \({}^{\text{i}}\) \\ _Equisetum arrense_ L. & 21.17 \(\pm\) 0.31 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 171.64 \(\pm\) 13.25 \({}^{\text{k}}\) \\ _Melissa officinalis_ L. & 10.26 \(\pm\) 0.21 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & 472.09 \(\pm\) 30.24 \({}^{\text{d}}\) \\ _Rosa canina_ L. & 29.43 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 542.39 \(\pm\) 35.68 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ _Calendula officinalis_ L. & 3.16 \(\pm\) 0.51 \({}^{\text{h}}\) & 185.82 \(\pm\) 5.09 \({}^{\text{k}}\) \\ _Matricia chamoulin_ L. & 12.86 \(\pm\) 0.87 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 223.64 \(\pm\) 2.72 \({}^{\text{h}}\) \\ _Achillea millefolium_ L. & 10.28 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & 197.01 \(\pm\) 12.23 \({}^{\text{k}}\) \\ _Tropacolum majus_ L. & 14.85 \(\pm\) 0.82 \({}^{\text{de}}\) & 237.26 \(\pm\) 2.04 \({}^{\text{h}}\) \\ _Plantago lanccolata_ L. & 10.21 \(\pm\) 2.39 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & 585.43 \(\pm\) 5.87 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Mean \(\pm\) standard deviation; DPPH—2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl; mean \(\pm\) standard deviation; TEAC—Trolox equivalent; different letters in a column denote mean values that statistically differ one from another; dry matter.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Antioxidant activity of tested medicinal herbs. [PERSON] et al. [32] similarly determined the total antioxidant activity, and content of total phenols and flavonoids in water extracts from the leaves of _Fragaria vesca_ L. The total contents of phenols and flavonoids were reported as 9297.53 \(\pm\) 24.57 mg/L GAE (gallic acid equivalent) and 7908.27 \(\pm\) 106.30 mg/L QE (quercetin equivalent), respectively. The total antioxidant activity was measured using the FRAP (ferric-reducing antioxidant power) method, which works on a principle similar to the phosphomolybdenum method, only Fe is reduced instead of Mo. The reported value of the total antioxidant capacity was 43.29 \(\pm\) 0.29 mmol/L TE (Trolox equivalent). Additionally, significant amounts of the following antioxidant compounds were found in the extract: catechchin, epicatechin and epigallocatechin. Using the FRAP method, [PERSON] et al. [33] determined the antioxidant activity of 1727 umol Fe\({}^{\text{II}}\)/L in an aqueous extract from _Plantago lanccolata_ L. [PERSON] et al. [34] identified luteolin-7-O-\(\beta\)-glucoside as the main flavonoid responsible for antioxidant activity in most _Plantago_ species.