## 3 Results and Discussion
### Phytochemical Analysis  
We utilized LC-MS to analyze the plant extracts. For the elucidation of the discovered ions, triple quadruple mass spectrometry employed internal libraries. Analysis using the LC-QToF was used to supplement compound characterization. Data from both techniques were cross-referenced to produce the final report. We decided to remove substances with minimal response factors for the sake of simplicity. It is interesting that the resulting, distinctive pieces (M\({}^{+}-[\text{C}_{6}\text{O}_{6}\text{H}_{5}]\)) were employed as validation for the anticipated molecules in the case of hexosides, such as glucosides, glucoronides, etc. Additionally, because analysis was performed in both the ethanolic and aqueous extracts, we were able to rule out false positives that might have occurred because of the makeup of any component. In Figure 2a,b, we illustrate the LC-MS chromatographs (negative and positive mode) for _A. citrodora_ ethanolic extract, while in Figure 2c,d, we illustrate the LC-MS chromatograph (negative and positive mode, respectively) for _A. citrodora_ aqueous extract. The compounds identified in the _A. citrodora_ extracts can be seen in Tables 1-4 in negative and positive ESI modes. Figure 2: _Cont_. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{_Aloysia citrodora_ EtOH Extract—Negative} \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Row No.**} & **Component Name** & **Observed \(mlz\)** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Mass Error** \\ **(mDa)** \\ \end{tabular} & **Response** \\ \hline
1 & Acteoside & 623.1986 & 0.4 & 2,292,685 \\
2 & Isoactoside & 623.1982 & 0 & 1,882,823 \\
3 & Crsiliol & 329.0668 & 0.1 & 963,036 \\
4 & Hispidulin & 299.0562 & 0.1 & 823,986 \\
5 & Eupatorin & 343.0822 & \(-\)0.1 & 591,793 \\
6 & Pectinlaringenin & 313.072 & 0.2 & 387,648 \\
7 & Isorhamentin & 315.051 & 0 & 299,038 \\
8 & Geniposidic-Acid & 373.1138 & \(-\)0.2 & 295,613 \\
9 & Leuccoposide A & 637.2136 & \(-\)0.2 & 208,446 \\
10 & Apigenin & 269.0456 & 0.1 & 132,449 \\
11 & Naringenin & 271.0611 & \(-\)0.1 & 123,043 \\
12 & Luteleon & 285.0403 & \(-\)0.2 & 35,290 \\
13 & Isorhamentin 3-O-glucose & 477.1037 & \(-\)0.1 & 27,382 \\
14 & Homoplanagain\_Tectoridin & 461.1086 & \(-\)0.4 & 23,435 \\
15 & 4-Hydroxybenzoic acid & 299.0768 & \(-\)0.4 & 13,422 \\
4-O-glucose & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Identified compounds in _A. citrodora_ ethanolic extract– (ESI negative mode). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{_Aloysia citrodora_ EtOH Extract—Positive} \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Row No.**} & **Component Name** & **Observed \(mlz\)** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Mass Error** \\ **(mDa)** \\ \end{tabular} & **Response** \\ \hline
1 & Acteoside & 647.1942 & \(-\)0.5 & 797,019 \\
2 & Isoactoside & 647.1949 & 0.3 & 498,939 \\
3 & Crsiliol & 331.0807 & \(-\)0.6 & 486,000 \\
4 & Eupatorin & 345.0961 & \(-\)0.7 & 434,876 \\
5 & Hispidulin & 301.0708 & 0.2 & 354,196 \\
6 & Geniposidic-Acid & 397.11 & \(-\)0.6 & 287,194 \\
7 & Dimethylmatairesinol & 409.1614 & \(-\)0.7 & 165,605 \\
8 & Pectinlaringenin & 315.0855 & \(-\)0.8 & 86,037 \\
9 & Isorhamentin & 317.0647 & \(-\)0.9 & 73,872 \\
10 & Monoglycoside & 543.1831 & \(-\)0.5 & 58,992 \\
11 & Leuccopostidae A & 661.2101 & \(-\)0.2 & 55,225 \\
12 & Kaempfer & 286.0465 & \(-\)0.7 & 30,280 \\
13 & Apigenin & 271.0594 & \(-\)0.7 & 16,561 \\
14 & Naringenin & 273.0749 & \(-\)0.8 & 14,227 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Identified compounds in _A. citrodora_ ethanolic extract– (ESI positive mode). Figure 2: LC/MS chromatographs of the _Aloysia citrodora_ ethanolic (**a**) negative mode and (**b**) positive mode and of the aqueous extracts (**c**) negative and (**d**) positive modes. During our LC-MS-based analysis, several categories of phytochemicals have been identified. Various flavonoids have been determined in the ethanolic and aqueous plant extracts.