## 3 Results and Discussion
The temperature does not affect the extraction of TFC (Figure 2). Other authors also support this finding in their work, stating that the flavonoid and total phenolic contents were not influenced by temperature, time, and milling treatment [28]. Diagnostics of the model are performed by plots of the normal distribution of residuals, residuals versus predicted values, and predicted versus actual values, presented in Figure 2. Based on them, it can be said that the residuals are normally distributed and there are no extreme values among them. Figure 3 presents the perturbation and contour plots. It is clear that the extractant factor has the most significant influence. Figure 3b shows the influence of the factors hydro module and duration, while the temperature and the extractant are constants, 70 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 99.9%, respectively. A design point with its actual and predicted value is also presented. Figure 3c shows the influence of the factors hydro module and extractant, while the temperature and the duration are constants, 70 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 40, respectively. Under these conditions, the maximum TFC value is 17.73 \(\upmu\)g QE/100 g fw. Figure 3d shows the influence of the factors duration and extractant, while the temperature and the hydro module are constants, 70 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 20, respectively. The model describing the dependence of FRAP on the independent variables is quadratic and the results are presented in Table 7. The F-value of the model is 23.64, which indicates the significance. There is only a 0.01 chance that an F-value this large could occur due to noise. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Source** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Sum of** \\ **Squares** \\ \end{tabular} & **df** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Mean** \\ **Square** \\ \end{tabular} & **F-Value** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **\(p\)-** \\ **Value** \\ \end{tabular} & \\ \hline Model & 1085.61 & 8 & 135.70 & 11.68 & \textless{}0.0001 & significant \\ A-hydromodule (ratio) & 128.26 & 1 & 128.26 & 11.04 & 0.0034 & \\ B-Duration & 65.29 & 1 & 65.29 & 5.62 & 0.0279 & \\ D-Extractant & 212.31 & 1 & 212.31 & 18.27 & 0.0004 & \\ AB & 52.76 & 1 & 52.76 & 4.54 & 0.0457 & \\ AD & 186.50 & 1 & 186.50 & 16.05 & 0.0007 & \\ BC & 68.50 & 1 & 68.50 & 5.89 & 0.0248 & \\ BD & 216.94 & 1 & 216.94 & 18.67 & 0.0003 & \\ CD & 288.59 & 1 & 288.59 & 24.83 & \textless{}0.0001 & \\ Residual & 232.44 & 20 & 11.62 & & & \\ Lack of Fit & 212.86 & 16 & 13.30 & 2.72 & 0.1721 & not significant \\ Pure Error & 19.58 & 4 & 4.89 & & & \\ Cor Total & 1318.05 & 28 & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: ANOVA for 2 FI model for Response 2: TFC. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Source** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Sum of** \\ **Squares** \\ \end{tabular} & **df** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Mean** \\ **Square** \\ \end{tabular} & **F-Value** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **\(p\)-** \\ **Value** \\ \end{tabular} & \\ \hline Model & 277.13 & 4 & 69.28 & 1.60 & 0.2074 & not significant \\ A-hydromodule (ratio) & 126.49 & 1 & 126.49 & 2.92 & 0.1006 & \\ B-Duration & 36.09 & 1 & 36.09 & 0.8322 & 0.3707 & \\ C-Temperature & 4.93 & 1 & 4.93 & 0.1136 & 0.7390 & \\ D-Extractant & 109.65 & 1 & 109.65 & 2.53 & 0.1249 & \\ Residual & 1040.92 & 24 & 43.37 & & & \\ Lack of Fit & 1021.34 & 20 & 51.07 & 10.43 & 0.0174 & significant \\ Pure Error & 19.58 & 4 & 4.89 & & & \\ Cor Total & 1318.05 & 28 & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: ANOVA for a Linear model for Response 2: TFC. Figure 2: Diagnostics of the TFC model: (**a**) normal plot of residuals; (**b**) residuals vs. predicted plot; (c) predicted vs. actual plot.