## 3 Results and Discussion
### Polyphenolic Profile and Antioxidant Activity--Comparative Assessment  
To further bring out the efficiency of LA-SCDB15, the characteristics of an extract obtained under optimized conditions were compared to those from two preexisting green extraction methods, one performed with methyl \(\beta\)-cyclodextrintrin (m-\(\beta\)-CD) [14] and one with 60% (_w/v_) glycerol/water mixture (GL) [42], but also 60% (_v/v_) aqueous ethanol and 60% (_v/v_) aqueous methanol (Table 4). The LA-SCDB15 extract was found to have significantly higher YTP, which demonstrated its high extraction capacity. Furthermore, the extract displayed AAR comparable to the other extracts, except for water extract, where the AAR was significantly weaker. On the other hand, both LA-SCDB15 and water extracts exhibited significantly lower PR. Three major _S. fruticosa_ polyphenols occurring in LA-SCDB15 extracts were considered for quantification (Figure 8), and the results were compared to GL and m-\(\beta\)-CD. As can be seen in Table 5, extraction with LA-SCDB15 afforded by 31.8% higher yield in chlorogenic acid compared to m-\(\beta\)-CD, but by 8.3% less so compared to GL. On the other hand, the yield attained with LA-SCDB15 for luteolin 7-O-glucuronide was by only 2.7% higher than that attained with m-\(\beta\)-CD, but by 23% higher than that achieved with GL. Likewise, extraction with LA-SCDB15 performed by 38 and 37.6% higher than that with m-\(\beta\)-CD and GL, respectively, with regard to rosmarinic acid recovery. Overall, the extraction with LA-SCDB15 was by 27.6 and 32.9% more efficient than the corresponding carried out with m-\(\beta\)-CD and GL. The outcome presented in Tables 4 and 5 pointed out the higher efficiency of LA-SCDB15 and it was in line with earlier examinations, which demonstrated that polyphenol extraction with DES was more effective than those performed with common conventional solvents, such as aqueous methanol or ethanol [16; 21; 23; 24]. At this point it should be stressed that the content of _S. fruticosa_ in certain major polyphenic phytochemicals depends to a large extent by the time of collection. For example, it has been illustrated that the content of rosmarinic acid, which is the main _S. fruticosa_ polyphenol, may vary from 5.57 to as high as 45.06 mg g\({}^{-1}\) dm, and that of chlorogenic acid from 0.46 to 1.82 mg g\({}^{-1}\) dm [12]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Extract** & **YTP (mg GAE g\({}^{-1}\) dm)** & **AAR (umol DPPH g\({}^{-1}\) dm)** & **Px (umol AAE g\({}^{-1}\) dm)** \\ \hline Water & 63.72 \(\pm\) 0.96 & 613.07 \(\pm\) 12.26 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 529.14 \(\pm\) 7.94 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\
60\% MeOH & 84.71 \(\pm\) 1.27 & 828.54 \(\pm\) 8.29 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 703.98 \(\pm\) 10.56 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) \\
60\% EtOH & 87.66 \(\pm\) 1.31 & 820.45 \(\pm\) 16.41 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 684.20 \(\pm\) 10.26 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) \\ m-\(\beta\)-CD & 85.54 \(\pm\) 1.28 & 820.93 \(\pm\) 16.42 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 590.66 \(\pm\) 14.77 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) \\ GL & 87.26 \(\pm\) 1.31 & 817.58 \(\pm\) 8.18 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 709.12 \(\pm\) 17.23 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) \\ LA-SCDB15 & 98.05 \(\pm\) 1.47 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 751.74 \(\pm\) 7.52 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 521.85 \(\pm\) 7.83 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Comparative assessment of _S. fruticosa_ extracts produced with LA-SCDB15 and other green solvents. Values given represent means \(\pm\) standard deviation.