## 3 Results and Discussion
### Volatile Profile of the Extract  
The volatile profiles of the extracts prepared with DES-2 with and without PEFs were examined. The results are presented in Table 2. As can be seen, a total of 51 compounds were identified in both extracts. The extract prepared without PEFs contained 38 compounds, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Identified Polyphenol**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Without PEFs**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**With PEFs**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Water** & **DES-2** & **Water** & **DES-2** \\ \hline Luteolin glucoside derivative & 0.159 \(\pm\) 0.005 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.090 \(\pm\) 0.018 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.182 \(\pm\) 0.012 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.101 \(\pm\) 0.004 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ Luteolin glucoside \(p\)-coumaroyl & 0.077 \(\pm\) 0.002 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.767 \(\pm\) 0.018 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.089 \(\pm\) 0.004 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.866 \(\pm\) 0.026 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\
1-Myricetin glucoside & 0.321 \(\pm\) 0.011 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 0.527 \(\pm\) 0.019 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.387 \(\pm\) 0.016 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.602 \(\pm\) 0.021 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Myricetin rhamnide & 1.302 \(\pm\) 0.041 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 1.891 \(\pm\) 0.069 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 1.512 \(\pm\) 0.046 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 2.258 \(\pm\) 0.137 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\
1-Quercetin glucoside derivative & 0.274 \(\pm\) 0.009 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 0.425 \(\pm\) 0.008 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.323 \(\pm\) 0.017 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.485 \(\pm\) 0.028 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Rutin & 0.038 \(\pm\) 0.001 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 0.057 \(\pm\) 0.002 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.044 \(\pm\) 0.002 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.064 \(\pm\) 0.002 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\
2-Quercetin glucoside derivative & 0.158 \(\pm\) 0.005 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 0.258 \(\pm\) 0.007 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.187 \(\pm\) 0.019 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.296 \(\pm\) 0.019 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Quercetin rhamnide derivative & 0.513 \(\pm\) 0.014 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 0.862 \(\pm\) 0.022 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.599 \(\pm\) 0.022 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.975 \(\pm\) 0.046 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\
2-Myricetin glucoside & 0.051 \(\pm\) 0.002 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.122 \(\pm\) 0.003 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.058 \(\pm\) 0.001 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.141 \(\pm\) 0.012 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ _Total extraction yield_ & _2.893_ & _4.999_ & _3.381_ & _5.788_ \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Identified polyphenols in the extracts prepared with and without PEFs, using water or DES-2; Results are expressed as mg of the compounds per g of dw; Values are expressed as the mean values (\(\pm\)SD) of triplicate determinations and means within each row (polyphenol compound), with different superscript letters as significantly (\(p<0.05\)) different. while when the PEF method was employed, a total of 41 compounds could be identified. In many cases, the percentage of each volatile compound in the extract prepared with PEFs was higher, compared to the extract without PEFs. The profile of the volatile compounds determined is similar to the profiles determined in other plants of the Cistus family by [PERSON] et al. [49]. From the results, it can be concluded that the use of PEFs can also affect the volatile profile of the extract.