## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Raw Material** & **TC (mg/g)** & \begin{tabular}{c} **TA** \\ **(mg/g)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **PC** \\ **(\%)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **TAC** \\ **(\(\mu\)mol TE/g Extract)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Blackberry puree (50\% EOH) & 25.83 & 18.80 & 15.88 & 264.27 \\ \hline Grape skin puree (50\% EOH) & 14.00 & 11.06 & 8.97 & 216.19 \\ \hline Blackberry puree (80\% MeOH) & 26.40 & 13.90 & 10.30 & 189.30 \\ \hline Grape skin puree (80\% MeOH) & 21.30 & 7.65 & 5.22 & 168.26 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Composition and characterization of grape skin and blackberry extracts. In order to test this hypothesis, the GSE and BE different solvent extractions HPLC profiles were investigated. Figure 4 presents ESI/MS mass spectra for grape skin extract and the HPLC profile that showed thirteen picks, four of them being of high intensity (peaks 3, 4, 11, and 12), while the blackberry extracts profile showed six picks, one major (pick 1) and one unidentified (peak 6), as presented in Figure 5.  
Figure 4: The total ESI/MS positive—ion mode analysis and HPLC profile of _Othello_ grape skin extract. The red numbers represents the peak number so that it can be identified in Table 2.  
Figure 3: Variation in polyphenol content by solvent concentration. Peaks identification was carried out based on the molecular weight and structural information obtained from their MS spectra, in addition to their retention times from HPLC-UV-visible spectra (Table 2) [14]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Peak Number**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**RT** **(min)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**_m/z_**} & **Mass Assignment** & **Abv. \({}^{*}\)** & **Anthocyanin Content (\%)** \\ \multicolumn{4}{c}{**(M\({}^{*}\) Sau [M + H]\({}^{*}\))**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**_Othello_ grape skin extract**} \\ \hline
1 & 13.9 & 633 & Malvidin-Delphinidin (MvD\({}_{\text{P}}\)- fragment) & M\({}_{1}\) & 1.87 \\ \hline
2 & 15.1 & 617 & Malvidin-Cyanidin (MvCy) fragment & M\({}_{2}\) & 1.87 \\ \hline
3 & 16.2 & 469/303 & Delphinidin-3-O-glucoside & D\({}_{1}\) & 40.64 \\ \hline
4 & 17.6 & 453/287 & Cyanidin-3-O-glucose & C\({}_{1}\) & 17.82 \\ \hline
5 & 18.2 & 453/287 & Cyanidin-3-O-galactoside & C\({}_{2}\) & 5.75 \\ \hline
6 & 19.7 & 467/303 & Delphinidin-3-O-glucose & D\({}_{2}\) & 5.44 \\ \hline
7 & 21.5 & 511/303 & Delphinidin-3-(6-O-acetylglucose) & D\({}_{3}\) & 4.25 \\ \hline
8 & 23.2 & 779/287 & Malvidin-Cyanidin (MvCy) fragment + glucose (G) & M\({}_{3}\) & 4.75 \\  & 495 & Malvidin-3-O-glucose & & \\ \hline
9 & 24.7 & 763 & Cyanidin-3-glucose-Ethyl-counaroyl & C\({}_{3}\) & 1.16 \\ \hline
10 & 25.1 & 763 & Cyanidin-3-glucose-Ethyl-counaroyl & & \\  & 617 & (Cy-3-gic-Ethyl-C) & C\({}_{4}\) & 0.53 \\  & & Malvidin-Cyanidin (MvCy) fragment & & \\ \hline
11 & 25.8 & 807 & Malvidin-3-glucose-8-vinyl(epi)catechin & & \\  & 617 & (Mv-3-glu-8-vinyl(epi)catechin) & M\({}_{4}\) & 9.71 \\  & & Malvidin-Cyanidin (MvCy) fragment & & \\ \hline
12 & 26.8 & 601 & Malvidin-3-(6-O-acetylglucose) pyruvate & M\({}_{5}\) & 6.01 \\ \hline
13 & 28.1 & 645 & Malvidin-Petunidin fragment (MvPt) & M\({}_{6}\) & 0.16 \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Blackberry extract**} \\ \hline
1 & 18.0 & 453/287 & Cyanidin-3-O-glucose & C\({}_{\text{b1}}\) & 86.49 \\ \hline
2 & 19.7 & 437/303 & Delphinidin-3-xyloside & D\({}_{\text{b1}}\) & 0.26 \\ \hline
3 & 20.7 & 422/287 & Cyanidin-3-O-arabinoside & C\({}_{\text{b2}}\) & 6.40 \\ \hline
4 & 21.4 & 540/287 & Cyanidin-3-malonyl-glucose & C\({}_{\text{b3}}\) & 2.15 \\ \hline
5 & 22.9 & 598/287 & Cyanidin-3-rutinoside & C\({}_{\text{b4}}\) & 4.57 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{*}\) Abv.—abbreviation.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Peak assignment, retention time, mass special data, and percentage of grape skin and blackberry anthocyanin detected by HPLC and Electrospray Ionization-MS.  
Figure 5: The total ESI/MS positive—ion mode analysis and HPLC profile of blackberry extract.