## 3 Results and Discussion
### Anitradical and Antioxidant Activity
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Type of Tea** & **Additive** & **pH** & *** TEAC**DPPH** & *** TEAC**ABTS** & *** TEAC**FRAP** & **TPC** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{White} & No add-on & 5.77 & 134.4 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\text{A}}\) & 265.0 \(\pm\) 2.1 \({}^{\text{A}}\) & 189.3 \(\pm\) 3.4 \({}^{\text{A}}\) & 270.6 \(\pm\) 7.2 \({}^{\text{A}}\) \\  & Lemon & 4.56 & 123.5 \(\pm\) 1.9 \({}^{\text{BC}}\) & 242.5 \(\pm\) 2.1 \({}^{\text{C}}\) & 188.6 \(\pm\) 9.4 \({}^{\text{A}}\) & 265.5 \(\pm\) 2.3 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) \\  & Quince & 4.30 & 119.0 \(\pm\) 1.9 \({}^{\text{C}}\) & 228.7 \(\pm\) 5.0 \({}^{\text{D}}\) & 160.0 \(\pm\) 5.5 \({}^{\text{C}}\) & 214.1 \(\pm\) 8.2 \({}^{\text{C}}\) \\  & Strawberry & 5.24 & 125.5 \(\pm\) 3.5 \({}^{\text{BC}}\) & 254.2 \(\pm\) 9.2 \({}^{\text{B}}\) & 161.9 \(\pm\) 8.9 \({}^{\text{C}}\) & 231.6 \(\pm\) 1.0 \({}^{\text{BC}}\) \\  & Sweet pepper & 5.69 & 127.1 \(\pm\) 1.8 \({}^{\text{B}}\) & 249.2 \(\pm\) 3.7 \({}^{\text{BC}}\) & 174.8 \(\pm\) 8.5 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) & 239.8 \(\pm\) 3.4 \({}^{\text{BC}}\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Black} & No add-on & 5.14 & 129.0 \(\pm\) 2.9 \({}^{\text{C}}\) & 246.2 \(\pm\) 7.7 \({}^{\text{BC}}\) & 150.8 \(\pm\) 3.5 \({}^{\text{B}}\) & 256.2 \(\pm\) 5.1 \({}^{\text{B}}\) \\  & Lemon & 4.36 & 133.0 \(\pm\) 2.4 \({}^{\text{BC}}\) & 264.6 \(\pm\) 1.7 \({}^{\text{BC}}\) & 145.0 \(\pm\) 4.7 \({}^{\text{BC}}\) & 300.4 \(\pm\) 2.3 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) \\  & Quince & 4.33 & 135.4 \(\pm\) 1.9 \({}^{\text{abc}}\) & 240.8 \(\pm\) 4.6 \({}^{\text{C}}\) & 164.4 \(\pm\) 4.5 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 312.8 \(\pm\) 4.3 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\  & Strawberry & 5.06 & 140.0 \(\pm\) 1.0 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 277.5 \(\pm\) 8.1 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 169.6 \(\pm\) 7.3 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 320.0 \(\pm\) 3.1 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\  & Sweet pepper & 5.25 & 143.5 \(\pm\) 3.1 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 271.7 \(\pm\) 4.6 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 167.3 \(\pm\) 4.9 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 320.2 \(\pm\) 7.2 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* TEAC: Trolox Equivalent Antioxidant Capacity (mg Trolox/100 mL) measured with the DPPH, ABTS, and FRAP methods, respectively. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences of \(p<0.05\) within the same column (type of tea; black tea—small letters, white tea—big letters). The obtained results differed statistically between the types of tea; therefore, the significance of differences between the additives was considered separately for each tea.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Antioxidant and antiradical activity and total phenolic compounds (TPC) in enriched tea infusions. hence, an increase in the antiradical properties of the infusions was observed. Additionally, in both the white and black tea infusions, high negative correlations between the pH value and the content of EGC and EGCG were noted. These results prove that the increase in the acidity of the solution favours the extraction of these compounds. The available literature lacks satisfactory information on changes in the phenolic compound profile of teas with fruit additives. There is particularly little information on white tea. However, based on previous studies describing the chemical composition of different types of teas [11] and possible interactions between active ingredients of plant extracts [44], synergistic or antagonistic interactions between these compounds can be expected. [PERSON] et al. [44] studied the interactions of binary and ternary mixtures of catechin, quercetin, cyanidin, and caffeic and ellagic acids on their antioxidant potential and demonstrated antagonistic effects of catechin in combination with each of the above-mentioned compounds. In the present study, the strongest antagonistic effect was found in the white tea with quince (Table 1). It was associated with a decrease in both TPC and the antiradical activity of this infusion.