## 3 Results and Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Source**} & **Sum of** & \multirow{2}{*}{**df**} & **Mean** & **F-** & \(p\)**-** \\  & **Squares** & & **Square** & **Value** & **Value** \\ \hline Model & 2.193 \(\times\)\(10^{5}\) & 10 & 21,934.12 & 0.2973 & 0.9726 & not significant \\ A-hydromodule (ratio) & 19,038.69 & 1 & 19,038.69 & 0.2581 & 0.6176 & \\ B-Duration & 25,594.23 & 1 & 25,594.23 & 0.3469 & 0.5632 & \\ C-Temperature & 40,626.75 & 1 & 40,626.75 & 0.5507 & 0.4676 & \\ D-Extractant & 18,704.96 & 1 & 18,704.96 & 0.2535 & 0.6207 & \\ AB & 739.27 & 1 & 739.27 & 0.0100 & 0.9214 & \\ AC & 71,752.47 & 1 & 71,752.47 & 0.9725 & 0.3371 & \\ AD & 12,657.15 & 1 & 12,657.15 & 0.1716 & 0.6836 & \\ BC & 18,765.71 & 1 & 18,765.71 & 0.2544 & 0.6201 & \\ BD & 46,171.53 & 1 & 46,171.53 & 0.6258 & 0.4392 & \\ CD & 30.89 & 1 & 30.89 & 0.0004 & 0.9839 & \\ Residual & 1.328 \(\times\)\(10^{6}\) & 18 & 73,778.38 & & & \\ Lack of Fit & 1.248 \(\times\)\(10^{6}\) & 14 & 89,130.10 & 4.45 & 0.0801 & not significant \\ Pure Error & 80,189.56 & 4 & 20,047.39 & & & \\ Cor Total & 1.547 \(\times\)\(10^{6}\) & 28 & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: ANOVA for 2 FI model Response 4: CUPRAC. Figure 7: DPPH model analysis: (**a**) Perturbation plot; (**b**) contour surface plots of DPPH against hydro module (ratio) and duration (min); (**c**) contour surface plots of DPPH against hydro module (ratio) and temperature; (**d**) contour surface plots of DPPH against hydro module (ratio) and extractant; (**e**) contour surface plots of DPPH against duration (min) and hydro module (ratio); (**f**) contour surface plots of DPPH against duration (min) and temperature. The DPPH assay has been frequently used since its method was published in 1995. Researchers are still relying on it while evaluating the antioxidant capacity of plant matrices [29]. Under the abovementioned conditions, the maximum DPPH values (112.16 \(\upmu\)M TE/100 g fw) could be obtained with a hydro module of 10 for a duration time of 30 min. Figure 7c shows the effect of the hydro module and temperature on the DPPH scavenging ability while keeping duration and extractant at values of 20 and 99.9, respectively. Under these conditions, the maximum DPPH values could be obtained with a hydro module of 10 and a temperature of 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C. Figure 7d shows the effect of the hydro module and extractant on the DPPH while keeping duration and temperature at values of 40 and 70 \({}^{\circ}\)C, respectively. Under these conditions, the maximum DPPH parameters could be obtained with a hydro module of 10 and an extractant of 90%. Figure 7e shows the effect of temperature and extractant on the DPPH while keeping the hydro module and duration at values of 20 and 40, respectively. Under these conditions, the maximum DPPH could be obtained with a 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C and an extractant of 90%. Figure 7f shows the effect of duration and temperature on the DPPH while keeping the hydro module and extractant at values of 5 and 80, respectively. Under these conditions, the maximum DPPH (83.39 \(\upmu\)M TE/100 g fw) could be obtained with a duration of 30 and a temperature of 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C. Other authors also present predicted values of antioxidant activity based on conditions like temperature, duration, and hydro module, stating that such results can aid in presenting the extract of choice as a functional ingredient [30]. It has to be noted that some extracts exhibit a slower reaction with the DPPH radical, resulting in less than the actual antioxidant capacity [31]. Thus, it is important to provide expected values under different conditions since most researchers are aiming at standardization of methods and reliability of results in different laboratories. A quadratic model described the dependence of ABTS on the independent variables and the results are presented in Table 12.  
The coefficient of determination and the standard error in the ABTS model are 0.88 and 31.12, respectively.