## 3 Results
### Influence of the Conventional Extraction Parameters on the TPC, TFC, and TAA of the Extracts
The model fits the experimental values for the TFC, the TPC, and the TAA to a great extent as R\({}^{2}\) is close to 1 for all the responses, according to Table 2. The Durbin-Watson statistic tests indicate the residuals to determine if there is any significant correlation based on the order in which they occur in the data file. As for all the response variables, the \(p>0.05\); there is no indication of a serial autocorrelation in the residuals at the 5.0% significance level. As can be observed from the Pareto charts (Figure 2), the concentration of the hydroalcoholic solution (X\({}_{3}\)) is the independent variable with the biggest statistical effect on the TPC, TFC, and TAA responses. The other independent variables showed no statistical influence on the response variables, as can be observed from the Pareto diagrams (Figure 2). In the case of the extraction time, it would probably be necessary to perform a kinetic study of the phenolics and flavonoid extraction in order to study the effect of the time at shorter times than those used in the experimental design. It seems that the extraction process is very fast, and the time range used in the experimental design only covers the diffusion-controlled period. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variables**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**TPC (mg GAE/g dw)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**TFC (mg QE/g dw)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**TAA (mg TE/g dw)**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **F-Ratio** & \(p\)**-Value** & **F-Ratio** & \(p\)**-Value** & **F-Ratio** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline X\({}_{1}\): Temperature & 3.55 & 0.1184 & 0.15 & 0.7129 & 0.05 & 0.8275 \\ X\({}_{2}\): time & 22.23 & 0.0053 & 0.10 & 0.7621 & 21.59 & 0.0056 \\ X\({}_{3}\): Ethanol & 738.6 & 0.0000 & 206.54 & 0.0000 & 902.40 & 0.0000 \\ X\({}_{1}\)\({}^{2}\) & 36.0 & 0.0018 & 0.63 & 0.4626 & 53.93 & 0.0007 \\ X\({}_{2}\)\({}^{2}\) & 32.83 & 0.0023 & 1.83 & 0.2308 & 50.35 & 0.0009 \\ X\({}_{3}\)\({}^{2}\) & 0.91 & 0.3843 & 22.04 & 0.0054 & 1.46 & 0.2808 \\ X\({}_{1}\) X\({}_{2}\) & 1.31 & 0.3050 & 0.33 & 0.5899 & 9.02 & 0.0300 \\ X\({}_{1}\) X\({}_{3}\) & 0.43 & 0.5413 & 0.01 & 0.9190 & 0.99 & 0.3648 \\ X\({}_{2}\) X\({}_{3}\) & 5.54 & 0.0652 & 1.42 & 0.2867 & 2.92 & 0.1483 \\ \hline R\({}^{2}\) adjusted for D.F. & 0.9833 & & 0.9416 & & 0.9866 \\ \hline R\({}^{2}\) & 0.9941 & & 0.9791 & & 0.9952 \\ \hline Durbin–[PERSON] statistic & 2.74 (\(p=0.844\)) & 2.88 (\(p=0.919\)) & 2.56 (\(p=0.701\)) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: F-test ratio, coefficient of regression R\({}^{2}\), Durbin–[PERSON] statistic and \(p\)-values of the predicted model for TPC, TFC and TAA from cornelian cherry conventional extracts. Different variables were used in the literature to obtain bioactive-rich extracts from the cornelian cherry. [PERSON] et al. [28] used the conventional solvent extraction with 70% ethanol and obtained extracts with antioxidant activity ranging from 4.70-9.32 mg TE/g. [PERSON] at al. [29] obtained extracts with a TPC ranging from 4.94-7.04 mg GAE/g by using ethanol in a concentration of 80%, whereas [PERSON] et al. [30] obtained extracts with a TPC of 3.21-6.69 mg catechin equivalent/g F.W. by using methanol and hydrochloric acid. These differences could be explained by the genetic factors, the environmental conditions,  
Figure 2: Pareto charts for TPC (**a**), TFC (**b**), and TAA (**c**) for the conventional extraction experiments. and the ability to synthesize secondary metabolites, but also could be due to the different methods, solvents, and conditions used for the extraction. It is known that phenolic extracts of plant materials are always a mixture of different classes of phenolics, which are soluble in the solvent used. The solubility of phenolic compounds is controlled by the solvent polarity (which is a function of the solvent and the temperature), as recently demonstrated by [PERSON] et al. [31; 32].