## 3 Results and Discussion  
### Total Phenolic Compounds and Antioxidant Activity  
Table 2 shows the results of TPC and antioxidant capacity in millow leaves and grambullo flowers before and after thermal treatment. The total phenolic content of raw mallow was 464.32 mg GAE/100 g db, while that of grambullo flowers was 755.37 mg GAE/100 g db. The content of TPC was higher in flowers compared to leaves; this could be due to the diversity of phytochemicals, which, in addition, give an attractive appearance through their characteristic colors due to the content of betalains, xanthophylls, carotenoids, etc. [19; 41; 42; 43]. On the other hand, this effect could be due to its stage, which could be the flowering stage, where the content of phenolic compounds is higher (flavonoids, proanthocyaniaths, and anthocyanins). In addition, the type of extraction also influences greater extraction. It has been reported that ethanol extracts had a higher phenolic content in the flowers than in the leaves, while the use of methanol extracts a higher content of polyphenols. However, each extract can be considered rich in phenolics [44]. Therefore, the high antioxidant capacity in flowers measured by the ABTS\(\bullet\)+, DPPH\(\bullet\), and FRAP methods were related to the high content of polyphenols in comparison with the leaves. The antioxidant capacity in raw flowers was higher in DPPH\(\bullet\) (13,661.7 \(\upmu\)mol TE/100 g db) and ABTS\(\bullet\)+ (2344.66 \(\upmu\)mol TE/100 g db), and in FRAP, the value was 95.72 \(\upmu\)mol Fe(II). The antioxidant capacity by DPPH\(\bullet\) and ABTS\(\bullet\)+ on mmlow leaves had values of 1268.69 umol TE/100 g db and 331.01 umol TE/100 g db, respectively, while the capacity measured by FRAP was very low (5.55 umol Fe(II)). On the other hand, the thermal treatment provoked an effect in food vegetables, a high retention percentage of total polyphenonic compounds of 78-89%, and, therefore, the antioxidant capacity was shown between 70-77% of DPPH\(\bullet\), ABTS\(\bullet\)+, and FRAP in both plants, except in garmbullo flowers, where the antioxidant capacity by DPPH\(\bullet\) had only 28% retention (Figure 1). The low antioxidant capacity of garmbullo flowers measured by the DPPH\(\bullet\) method after exposure to the thermal treatment could be due to the slow reaction of DPPH\(\bullet\) with low lipophilic antioxidant species extracted according to different authors [45; 46]. We found a high correlation between phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity for both evaluated plants. In the malva plant, the values were 0.966** for DPPH\(\bullet\), 0.996** for ABTS\(\bullet\)+, and 0.997** for FRAP, while the garmbullo flower had the following correlations: DPPH\(\bullet\) (1.00**), ABTS\(\bullet\)+ (0.990**), and FRAP (1.00**). The phytochemical content and, therefore, the antioxidant capacity of plants can be affected mainly due to the type of plant, edible part, growth stage, harvest time, other genotypic and phenotypic factors, and environmental factors [47]. In plant structures, bioactive compounds are located in soluble form and form complexes in the cell wall. Due to this characteristic, after thermal treatment, there is a dis \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline  & & **TPC (mg GAL)** & **DPPH\(\bullet\) (umol TE)** & **ABTS\(\bullet\) (umol TE)** & **FRAP [umol Fe (II)]** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Mallow} & Raw & 464.32 \(\pm\) 1.14 \({}^{\star}\) & 1268.69 \(\pm\) 67.7 \({}^{\star}\) & 331.01 \(\pm\) 4.45 \({}^{\star}\) & 5.55 \(\pm\) 0.17 \({}^{\star}\) \\  & Bølled & 364.32 \(\pm\) 1.97 & 980.45 \(\pm\) 11.49 & 243.37 \(\pm\) 3.37 & 3.99 \(\pm\) 0.07 \\  & Retention \% & 78 & 77 & 74 & 72 \\  & Raw & 755.37 \(\pm\) 0.74 \({}^{\star}\) & 13,661.7 \(\pm\) 370.08 \({}^{\star}\) & 2344.66 \(\pm\) 9.81 \({}^{\star}\) & 95.72 \(\pm\) 0.94 \({}^{\star}\) \\  & Bølled & 672.53 \(\pm\) 0.74 & 3808.8 \(\pm\) 169.81 & 1639 \(\pm\) 79.73 & 68.73 \(\pm\) 0.72 \\  & Retention \% & 89 & 28 & 70 & 72 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}