## 3 Results and Discussion
### Antioxidant Capacity
#### 3.1.2. Thyme  
All methanolic extracts from _T. mastichina_ showed an antioxidant capacity by DPPH radical scavenging and Ferric-reducing antioxidant power assays (Table 4). The samples presented a similar scavenging ability in the DPPH radical assay, ranging between 0.4812 and 0.7205 mmol TE/g DW. No statistical differences (\(p>0.05\)) were found between the sub-samples, except for accessions BPGV10384 and BPGV12078. In BPGV10384, the chalk-green foliage (T2.2) subsample presented the highest DPPH radical scavenging ability (\(p<0.05\)), while in BPGV12078, the subsample with larger leaves and revolute margin (T7.1) showed a lower scavenging ability when compared to the common morphotype. In the FRAP, BPGV10381 presented a much lower ferric-reducing antioxidant power with a mean of 338.5 umol Fe\({}^{2+}\)/g DW, while the other subsamples of seven types of thyme showed an antioxidant power ten times higher (mean \(\sim\)3148 umol Fe\({}^{2+}\)/g DW). One exception was found in BPGV10384, where the subsample with elliptical leaves and larger nodes (T2.1) showed a significantly (\(p<0.05\)) lower antioxidant power when compared to the other subsamples, with 281.95 umol Fe\({}^{2+}\)/g DW. Comparing the subsamples with the common morphotype of _T. mastichina_, a significantly higher (\(p<0.05\)) antioxidant capacity was found for BPGV11276, with 3990.88 umol Fe\({}^{2+}\)/g DW, while the lower antioxidant capacity was found for BPGV11295 (2521.99 umol Fe\({}^{2+}\)/g DW), though collected in Braganca. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Accessions**} & **TPC** & **FRAP** & **DPPH** \\  & **mg GAE/g DW** & **\(\mu\)mol Fe\({}^{2+}\)/g DW** & **mmol TE/g DW** \\ \hline BPGV10423 & 1639.71 \(\pm\) 41.37 a & 1354.86 \(\pm\) 47.60 a & 0.5011 \(\pm\) 0.0310 ab \\ BPGV10442 & 2130.95 \(\pm\) 62.48 abc & 1626.06 \(\pm\) 37.79 ab & 0.5590 \(\pm\) 0.0095 ab \\ BPGV10442 & 2171.24 \(\pm\) 63.73 abc & 1769.20 \(\pm\) 27.09 ab & 0.5739 \(\pm\) 0.0263 ab \\ BPGV11267 & 1927.32 \(\pm\) 272.69 ab & 1548.89 \(\pm\) 163.40 ab & 0.4476 \(\pm\) 0.0350 a \\ BPGV11280 & 2066.20 \(\pm\) 239.83 abc & 1564.58 \(\pm\) 131.87 ab & 0.5335 \(\pm\) 0.0187 ab \\ BPGV11408 & 2660.86 \(\pm\) 0.58 c & 1932.33 \(\pm\) 38.84 b & 0.6029 \(\pm\) 0.0192 b \\ BPGV16272 & 2486.45 \(\pm\) 148.58 bc & 1619.82 \(\pm\) 78.03 ab & 0.5440 \(\pm\) 0.0510 ab \\ BPGV16286 & 2271.46 \(\pm\) 28.90 abc & 1667.45 \(\pm\) 80.86 ab & 0.5364 \(\pm\) 0.0375 ab \\ BPGV16427 & 2014.73 \(\pm\) 81.32 ab & 1567.66 \(\pm\) 45.15 ab & 0.5320 \(\pm\) 0.0064 ab \\ \hline \end{tabular} The results are expressed as mean \(\pm\) standard deviation (SD), from three replicates. Different superscript letters indicate the significant difference (\(p<0.05\)) in each assay. GAE—gallic acid equivalents; TE—Trolox equivalents; DW—dried weight.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Results of the Total Phenolic Content and Antioxidant Capacity in oregano extracts. The FRAP assay indicated intra-variability among subsamples. For example, in BPGV12078, the subsample with larger leaves and a revolute margin (T7.1) presented significantly (\(p<0.05\)) lower antioxidant power when compared with the common morphotype. No statistical differences were found among subsamples of BPGV12093; however, the FRAP assay indicated that the subsample with a light green foliage color (T8.4) had a similarly high antioxidant power of the common morphotype (T8.5) when compared to the other subsamples, possibly indicating that differences in the morphotype of thyme could influence the antioxidant capacity. Other authors evaluated the antioxidant capacity of thyme extracts using different assays. For example, [PERSON] et al. [3] used the ABTS radical, hydroxyl radicals, and nitric oxide radical scavenging assays, where the extract of T. mastichina showed a high antioxidant capacity with 0.20 mmol TE/g DW in the ABTS radical assay. Regarding the TPC, the _T.