## 2 Results
### Experimental Procedure
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**pH**} & **Conductivity** & **Starting** & **Final** & **Power** & **Extraction Type** \\  & & **(a/5/cm)** & **Temperature (°C)** & **Temperature (°C)** & **(dw)** & **Z\({}_{\text{P}}\)** & **Extraction Type** \\ \hline TA6 & \(5.50\pm 0.34\) & \(280.0\pm 7.1\) & \(25.0\pm 0.4\) & \(28.5\pm 0.9\) & \(10.0\pm 0.0\) & 0.10 & \\ \hline TA7 & \(5.12\pm 0.18\) & \(109.6\pm 9.6\) & \(23.6\pm 1.7\) & \(25.1\pm 1.1\) & \(9.0\pm 1.0\) & 0.00 & \\ \hline TA8 & \(6.12\pm 1.12\) & \(116.4\pm 11.5\) & \(20.4\pm 2.3\) & \(27.4\pm 0.8\) & \(17.0\pm 2.0\) & 0.06 & \\ \hline TA9 & \(5.88\pm 0.51\) & \(246.2\pm 12.4\) & \(25.1\pm 0.1\) & \(26.1\pm 1.2\) & \(14.0\pm 0.0\) & 0.13 & HVED extraction \\ \hline TA10 & \(5.60\pm 0.40\) & \(605.0\pm 17.4\) & \(23.2\pm 0.4\) & \(32.3\pm 0.1\) & \(16.0\pm 1.0\) & 0.67 & \\ \hline TA11 & \(6.19\pm 0.18\) & \(89.0\pm 6.3\) & \(23.6\pm 2.4\) & \(24.1\pm 0.2\) & \(12.0\pm 1.0\) & 0.01 & \\ \hline TA12 & \(5.91\pm 0.26\) & \(222.7\pm 20.3\) & \(23.8\pm 1.5\) & \(25.2\pm 0.6\) & \(9.0\pm 0.0\) & 0.08 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: _Cont._  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample**} & \multicolumn{10}{c}{**Concentration (ng/mL)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Extraction**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{4-13}  & & \multirow{2}{*}{**Apigenin**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Camosol**} & & \multirow{  
The analysis of volatile compounds from wild thyme extracts was performed by HS-SPME/GC-MS method. Analyzed compounds included 1,8-cineol, linalool, thymol and carvacrol, and results are shown in Table 5.  
Statistical analysis was performed in in XLStat (MS Excel 2010). An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to analyze the impact of independent variables: treatment time, voltage, ethanol content and treatment type (CE, HVED--nitrogen or HVED--argon) to measured physical and chemical parameters. For UPLC-MS/MS and GC-MS results, all individual (data not shown) and total of all \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Area (\%)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Extraction**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{4-5}  & **1,8-Cineol**o** & **Linalool** & **Thymol** & **(RI = 1302)** & **Carvacrol** \\  & **(RI = 1038)** & **(RI = 1103)** & **(RI = 1302)** & **(RI = 1310)** \\ \hline
3 T0 & 1.40 & 14.97 & 9.12 & 14.78 \\ \hline
9 T0 & / & 0.21 & 0.48 & 0.47 \\ \hline
3 T25 & / & / & / & / \\ \hline
9 T25 & 1.72 & 15.03 & 9.43 & 15.20 \\ \hline
3 T50 & / & 0.30 & 0.76 & 1.21 \\ \hline
9 T50 & / & / & / & / \\ \hline TN1 & / & / & / & / \\ \hline TN2 & 1.41 & 11.36 & 9.21 & 15.30 \\ \hline TN3 & 2.30 & 13.28 & 10.52 & 17.52 \\ \hline TN4 & 3.46 & 13.99 & 10.08 & 17.70 \\ \hline TN5 & / & / & 1.37 & 2.71 \\ \hline TN6 & / & / & 1.14 & 2.44 \\ \hline TN7 & / & / & / & / \\ \hline TN8 & / & / & / & / \\ \hline TN9 & / & / & 1.49 & 2.49 \\ \hline TN10 & 0.96 & 13.00 & 11.50 & 21.86 \\ \hline TN11 & / & / & / & / \\ \hline TN12 & / & / & / & / \\ \hline TA1 & / & / & / & / \\ \hline TA2 & 1.48 & 6.01 & 9.87 & 17.49 \\ \hline TA3 & 1.59 & 9.90 & 10.06 & 17.09 \\ \hline TA4 & 1.22 & 11.44 & 10.41 & 17.88 \\ \hline TA5 & / & 0.92 & 2.76 & 4.33 \\ \hline TA6 & / & 0.61 & 1.86 & 2.85 \\ \hline TA7 & / & / & / & / \\ \hline TA8 & / & / & / & / \\ \hline TA9 & / & / & 1.03 & 1.71 \\ \hline TA10 & 1.27 & 14.42 & 11.50 & 20.55 \\ \hline TA11 & / & / & / & / \\ \hline TA12 & / & / & / & / \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: GC-MS analysis of volatile compounds from wild thyme (measurements for CE and HVED treated samples) (%). compounds was assessed. The p-values present the statistical significance of each of the factor and it was significant at \(p\leq 0.05\), and are shown as bolded in Table 6.  
Furthermore, in order to assure safe and high-quality final product, residue levels of pesticides and metals has been analyzed.