## 3 Results and Discussion
### Selection of the Crucial Operational Extraction Process Variables
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Type of Sample**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Methanol**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Ethanol**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Water**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **ABTS [\(\upmu\)mol** & **TPC [\(\upmu\)mol** & **ABTS [\(\upmu\)mol** & **TPC [\(\upmu\)mol** & **ABTS [\(\upmu\)mol** & **TPC [\(\upmu\)mol** \\  & **Trolox/g d.m.]** & **GAE/g d.m.]** & **Trolox/g d.m.]** & **GAE/g d.m.** \\ \hline
1 & 33.43 \(\pm\) 0.62 & 18.91 \(\pm\) 0.15 & 35.52 \(\pm\) 0.29 & 27.57 \(\pm\) 0.27 & 11.66 \(\pm\) 0.29 & 13.46 \(\pm\) 0.10 \\
2 & 24.75 \(\pm\) 1.05 & 15.47 \(\pm\) 0.19 & 23.65 \(\pm\) 1.49 & 22.10 \(\pm\) 0.17 & 11.65 \(\pm\) 0.27 & 13.15 \(\pm\) 0.11 \\
3 & 26.90 \(\pm\) 0.84 & 23.08 \(\pm\) 0.24 & 32.37 \(\pm\) 0.38 & 27.17 \(\pm\) 0.14 & 56.65 \(\pm\) 1.45 & 24.27 \(\pm\) 0.71 \\
4 & 22.92 \(\pm\) 1.14 & 15.96 \(\pm\) 0.11 & 23.97 \(\pm\) 1.05 & 24.95 \(\pm\) 0.24 & 64.16 \(\pm\) 0.72 & 27.44 \(\pm\) 0.99 \\
5 & 71.54 \(\pm\) 1.01 & 46.39 \(\pm\) 0.46 & 70.27 \(\pm\) 0.81 & 48.44 \(\pm\) 0.64 & 14.94 \(\pm\) 0.16 & 16.91 \(\pm\) 0.09 \\
6 & 73.90 \(\pm\) 1.33 & 36.30 \(\pm\) 0.93 & 65.10 \(\pm\) 1.41 & 25.95 \(\pm\) 0.88 & 11.16 \(\pm\) 0.23 & 13.07 \(\pm\) 0.04 \\
7 & 52.28 \(\pm\) 1.43 & 42.46 \(\pm\) 0.81 & 56.93 \(\pm\) 1.60 & 37.53 \(\pm\) 0.49 & 51.46 \(\pm\) 1.65 & 27.30 \(\pm\) 0.33 \\
8 & 62.40 \(\pm\) 1.17 & 29.60 \(\pm\) 1.17 & 70.34 \(\pm\) 0.89 & 34.02 \(\pm\) 1.36 & 48.00 \(\pm\) 1.76 & 24.18 \(\pm\) 1.73 \\
9 & 41.57 \(\pm\) 0.45 & 22.98 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 31.16 \(\pm\) 0.68 & 21.36 \(\pm\) 0.11 & - & - \\
10 & 23.46 \(\pm\) 0.72 & 16.71 \(\pm\) 0.05 & 18.62 \(\pm\) 0.71 & 18.52 \(\pm\) 0.07 & - & - \\
11 & 38.64 \(\pm\) 0.28 & 23.65 \(\pm\) 0.15 & 25.31 \(\pm\) 0.55 & 19.94 \(\pm\) 0.13 & - & - \\
12 & 26.61 \(\pm\) 0.20 & 15.69 \(\pm\) 0.17 & 22.76 \(\pm\) 0.69 & 17.09 \(\pm\) 0.20 & - & - \\
13 & 92.48 \(\pm\) 1.89 & 37.46 \(\pm\) 0.56 & 86.61 \(\pm\) 2.84 & 42.18 \(\pm\) 0.69 & - & - \\
14 & 61.43 \(\pm\) 1.56 & 28.30 \(\pm\) 0.82 & 60.22 \(\pm\) 1.06 & 30.06 \(\pm\) 0.55 & - & - \\
15 & 80.78 \(\pm\) 1.02 & 35.61 \(\pm\) 0.39 & 93.05 \(\pm\) 1.89 & 44.79 \(\pm\) 0.65 & - & - \\
16 & 63.49 \(\pm\) 1.07 & 42.12 \(\pm\) 1.21 & 58.22 \(\pm\) 0.66 & 30.74 \(\pm\) 1.28 & - & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: The results of the applied RSM responses in the first stage of extraction optimization experimental design—ABTS and TPC assays values for tested variants of methanolic, ethanolic, and aqueous CS extracts. Based on the findings obtained in the first stage of CS bioactive compounds extraction optimization, it can be seen that the aqueous CS extracts were characterized by significantly lower antioxidant activity and the TPC compared to methanol and ethanol extracts. A similar trend was demonstrated in the works of [PERSON] and [PERSON] [59] and [PERSON] et al. [60], in which alcoholic extracts showed a greater antioxidant activity and TPC compared to other extracts. For this reason, the possibility of using water as an extractant was excluded from further experimental extraction. In order to compare the effects of the applied extraction process variables, Pareto charts were plotted (Figure 2). They make it possible to check which variables have a statistically significant impact on the tested experimental plan. In this figure, bars extending beyond the vertical line correspond to the effects statistically significant at 95% confidence level. It can be noticed that in the case of the tested model, both in terms of antioxidant activity and the TPC, the type of solvent proved to be statistically insignificant. In light of the health and safety risks and environmental concerns, there is a need for \"green\", safe, and efficient extraction solvents. Despite methanol being a good solvent for phenolic recovery from plant-based materials [61; 62], it poses a threat to human health.