## 3 Results and Discussion
### Antioxidant Capacity
#### 3.1.2. Thyme
mastichina_ methanolic extracts showed very similar phenolic contents, varying between 365.64 and 529.46 mg GAE/g DW, and not being statistically different (\(p>0.05\)) among subsamples. However, two exceptions to this intra-variability were observed in BPGV10384 and BPGV11288. In BPGV10384, the subsample with chalk-green foliage presented a significantly higher TPC (\(p<0.05\)) than the common morphotype and the other subsample with a reddish fruiting branch with elliptical leaves and larger nodes. In BPGV11288, the subsample with dark green foliage presented a significantly lower TPC (\(p<0.05\)) compared to the common morphotype of _T. mastichina_. No statistical differences (\(p>0.05\)) were found among the common morphotypes of each thyme accession. However, a previous study with methanolic extracts from _T. mastichina_ growing wild in Spain reported a lower TPC when compared to our results (ranging between 2.90 and 9.15 mg GAE/g DW) [29]. This difference might be due to the application of a preliminary extraction with a petroleum ether, probably resulting in the co-extraction of antioxidant compounds. Other studies reported the TPC with different reference compounds (reference \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Accession**} & & **TPC** & **FRAP** & **DPPH** \\  & & **mg GAE/g DW** & **\(\boldsymbol{\mu}\)mol Fe\({}^{2+}\)/g DW** & **mmol TE/g DW** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{BPGV10381} & 1.1 & 410.98 \(\pm\) 10.87 & 342.60 \(\pm\) 4.58 & 0.6143 \(\pm\) 0.0001 \\  & 1.2 & 389.44 \(\pm\) 2.71 & 334.38 \(\pm\) 7.74 & 0.5879 \(\pm\) 0.0220 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{BPGV10384} & 2.1 & 415.17 \(\pm\) 21.24 a  & 281.95 \(\pm\) 2.79 a  & 0.4812 \(\pm\) 0.0371 a  \\  & 2.2 & 529.46 \(\pm\) 9.72 b  & 3940.91 \(\pm\) 34.40 c  & 0.6292 \(\pm\) 0.0046 b  \\  & 2.3 & 448.94 \(\pm\) 2.05 a  & 3362.87 \(\pm\) 225.97 b  & 0.5738 \(\pm\) 0.0363 ab  \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{BPGV11264} & 3.1 & 460.59 \(\pm\) 1.92 & 3431.37 \(\pm\) 233.35 & 0.7205 \(\pm\) 0.0137 \\  & 3.2 & 439.43 \(\pm\) 19.19 & 3818.78 \(\pm\) 16.06 b  & 0.6922 \(\pm\) 0.0091 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{BPGV11276} & 4.1 & 503.70 \(\pm\) 15.97 & 3990.88 \(\pm\) 2.80 c  & 0.6254 \(\pm\) 0.0190 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{BPGV11288} & 5.1 & 371.96 \(\pm\) 17.77 a  & 3395.88 \(\pm\) 10.20 & 0.6205 \(\pm\) 0.0525 \\  & 5.2 & 466.77 \(\pm\) 14.71 b  & 3053.55 \(\pm\) 427.24 AB  & 0.5780 \(\pm\) 0.0471 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{BPGV11295} & 6.1 & 443.80 \(\pm\) 23.58 & 2702.53 \(\pm\) 56.21 & 0.6044 \(\pm\) 0.0292 \\  & 6.2 & 418.92 \(\pm\) 43.04 & 2521.99 \(\pm\) 102.40 A  & 0.6051 \(\pm\) 0.0384 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{BPGV12078} & 7.1 & 440.49 \(\pm\) 12.17 & 2610.13 \(\pm\) 2.27 a  & 0.5814 \(\pm\) 0.0104 a  \\  & 7.2 & 467.09 \(\pm\) 26.92 & 3011.71 \(\pm\) 12.00 b  & 0.6791 \(\pm\) 0.0089 b  \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{BPGV12093} & 8.1 & 365.64 \(\pm\) 19.16 & 2543.83 \(\pm\) 3.42 a  & 0.6267 \(\pm\) 0.0173 \\  & 8.2 & 408.59 \(\pm\) 28.92 & 2928.82 \(\pm\) 26.47 b  & 0.6630 \(\pm\) 0.0113 \\  & 8.3 & 444.87 \(\pm\) 35.08 & 2861.80 \(\pm\) 41.62 b  & 0.6332 \(\pm\) 0.0211 \\  & 8.4 & 422.55 \(\pm\) 43.92 & 3084.56 \(\pm\) 9.95 c  & 0.7011 \(\pm\) 0.0391 \\  & 8.5 & 428.57 \(\pm\) 9.52 & 3109.83 \(\pm\) 78.16 c  & 0.6758 \(\pm\) 0.0197 \\ \hline \end{tabular} The results are expressed as mean \(\pm\) standard deviation (SD) from three replicates. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between the subsamples of each Accession of thyme. Uppercase letters indicate statistically significant differences between the “common morphotype” of each Accession of thyme extracts. GAE—gallic acid equivalents; TE—Trolox equivalents; DW—dried weight.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Results of the Total Phenolic Content and Antioxidant Capacity in thyme extracts. phenolic), which makes the comparison among extracts of thyme difficult. For example, [PERSON] et al. [30] reported that the hydroethanolic extracts of T. mastichina collected in Portugal in 2020 showed 24.61 mg caffeic acid equivalents/g DW.