## 3 Results and Discussion
### Optimization Studies of Different 'Green' Extraction Methods
#### 3.5.1 Process Optimization of Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction (UAE)
** (\({}^{\circ}\)C) & **GAE/g dw)** & **CATE/g dw)** & **(mg/g dw)** & **ABTS** & **DPPH** & **FRAP** \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE)} \\ \hline
10 & 30 & 60.23 \(\pm\) 0.64 \({}^{\circ}\) & 116.14 \(\pm\) 5.46 \({}^{\circ}\) & 65.43 \(\pm\) 0.81 \({}^{\circ}\) & 96.74 \(\pm\) 1.14 \({}^{\circ}\) & 106.22 \(\pm\) 1.57 \({}^{\circ}\) & 49.89 \(\pm\) 0.40 \({}^{\circ}\) \\
20 & 30 & 63.98 \(\pm\) 1.12 \({}^{\mathrm{ab}}\) & 116.82 \(\pm\) 3.86 \({}^{\circ}\) & 67.27 \(\pm\) 1.03 \({}^{\mathrm{bc}}\) & 109.66 \(\pm\) 2.28 \({}^{\mathrm{ab}}\) & 109.70 \(\pm\) 2.95 \({}^{\mathrm{ab}}\) & 60.81 \(\pm\) 0.56 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\
30 & 30 & 63.07 \(\pm\) 0.16 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 122.50 \(\pm\) 2.25 \({}^{\circ}\) & 67.31 \(\pm\) 0.98 \({}^{\mathrm{bc}}\) & 110.88 \(\pm\) 2.86 \({}^{\mathrm{ab}}\) & 111.92 \(\pm\) 1.38 \({}^{\mathrm{ab}}\) & 60.92 \(\pm\) 0.24 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\
40 & 30 & 63.64 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{\mathrm{ab}}\) & 120.45 \(\pm\) 2.57 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 69.27 \(\pm\) 1.03 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 110.88 \(\pm\) 2.86 \({}^{\mathrm{ab}}\) & 113.73 \(\pm\) 2.75 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 62.29 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\
20 & 45 & 64.89 \(\pm\) 0.16 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 120.55 \(\pm\) 3.54 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 72.00 \(\pm\) 1.41 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 118.69 \(\pm\) 1.88 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 111.37 \(\pm\) 5.31 \({}^{\mathrm{ab}}\) & 62.17 \(\pm\) 2.49 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\
20 & 60 & 63.52 \(\pm\) 0.16 \({}^{\mathrm{ab}}\) & 116.14 \(\pm\) 0.32 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 69.47 \(\pm\) 0.75 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 104.01 \(\pm\) 1.14 \({}^{\mathrm{bc}}\) & 109.84 \(\pm\) 0.79 \({}^{\mathrm{ab}}\) & 62.86 \(\pm\) 0.72 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Microwave-assisted extraction (MAE)} \\ \hline
30 & 40 & 58.00 \(\pm\) 0.56 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 123.00 \(\pm\) 0.36 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 46.05 \(\pm\) 1.36 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 95.03 \(\pm\) 2.36 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 102.56 \(\pm\) 0.65 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 53.60 \(\pm\) 0.45 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) \\
30 & 60 & 59.91 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 128.00 \(\pm\) 1.54 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 48.90 \(\pm\) 1.56 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 99.36 \(\pm\) 0.46 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 100.31 \(\pm\) 9.47 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 55.84 \(\pm\) 0.58 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\
30 & 90 & 61.73 \(\pm\) 0.90 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 131.82 \(\pm\) 0.26 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 52.68 \(\pm\) 1.87 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 112.93 \(\pm\) 3.20 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 107.17 \(\pm\) 9.87 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 55.52 \(\pm\) 0.39 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Accelerated-solvent extraction (ASE)} \\ \hline
30 & 60 & 56.82 \(\pm\) 0.96 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 114.55 \(\pm\) 1.93 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 44.49 \(\pm\) 2.11 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 99.77 \(\pm\) 0.29 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 98.80 \(\pm\) 5.38 \({}^{\mathrm{ab}}\) & 55.23 \(\pm\) 0.56 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\
30 & 90 & 59.18 \(\pm\) 1.54 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 111.00 \(\pm\) 0.39 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 43.68 \(\pm\) 1.87 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 100.10 \(\pm\) 2.74 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 103.72 \(\pm\) 3.85 \({}^{\mathrm{ab}}\) & 53.79 \(\pm\) 0.77 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\
30 & 120 & 4 leading to the enhancement of its nutritional factors, and health and well-being benefits. These findings align with the literature data emphasizing the importance of sonication time and temperature in optimizing phenolic compound extraction from freeze-dried olive fruit material by ultrasonic probe accompanied with a three-step extraction of 20 min at 45 \({}^{\circ}\)C [64]. Similarly, [PERSON] et al. [65] appraised optimal extraction conditions to be a 32 min time and 43 \({}^{\circ}\)C temperature for the best recovery of TPC and antioxidant potential of Gemlik olive fruit.