## 2 Materials and Methods
### Statistical Analysis and Visualization  
The concentration of target polyphenols in the samples was expressed as the mean concentration (mg/L \(\pm\) SD) measured in each sample as illustrated in Figure 1. Statistical differences between the target polyphenol concentrations in each digestive phase were analyzed via a two-way ANOVA Tukey's test, Table 1. The IC50 values (minimum concentration required to inhibit 50% of the bacterial population) and MBC values (minimum bactericidal concentration) were compared to the untreated control and expressed as means \(\pm\) SD of bacterial growth (%). The IC50 values were calculated using Graphpad Prism 9.0. Statistical differences in the antimicrobial activity of digestive treatments were analyzed using a one-way ANOVA test (Figure 2c-f). The bacterial growth trends across crude extract (Ce), gastric digestion of the extract (GDe), and intestinal digestion of the extract (IDe) treatments were analyzed via two-way ANOVA followed by [PERSON]'s test (Figure 2g-j). The Pearson correlation matrix (Figure 3) was produced using the concentration of target polyphenols detected in each phase (mg/L) and their corresponding IC50 values. The MBC values were not included in the correlation analysis, as the data were presented in intervals. The IC50 interval data (e.g., Ce _E. coli_ IC50) were reported using the full interval values. Statistical significance was considered at \(p\) < 0.05 for all analyses and graphically represented as ns, \(p\) > 0.05; * \(p\) \(\leq\) 0.05; ** \(p\) \(\leq\) 0.01; *** \(p\) \(\leq\) 0.001; and *** \(p\) \(\leq\) 0.0001. All statistical tests were performed using GraphPad Prism version 9.0.  
Figure 2: Antimicrobial activity and bactericidal stability of the extract in gastrointestinal environment. (**a**) Crude extract’s bactericidal activity against _E. coli_, _S. aureus_, _S. enterica_, and _L. monocytogenes_ under different concentrations. (**b**) Workflow scheme of the digestive process and sampling. (**c**) Anti-literial activity of the samples taken directly after digestive phases. (**d**) Anti-_S. aureus_ activity of the samples taken directly after digestive phases. (**e**) Anti-_E. coli_ activity of the samples taken directly after digestive phases. (**f**) Anti-Salmonella activity of the samples taken directly after digestive phases. Ce: crude extract; GDE: gastric digestion of the extract; IDE: intestinal digestion of the extract. Gastric fluids control (GF), and intestinal fluids control (IF) are also represented. (**g**) _L. monocytogenes_’ growth tendency in presence of crude and digested extract. (**h**) _S. aureus_’ growth tendency in presence of crude and digested extract. (**i**) _E. coli_’s growth tendency in presence of crude and digested extract. (**j**) _S. enterica_’s growth tendency in presence of crude and digested extract. Assays were performed in triplicate and data are expressed as means and standard deviation and refer to the untreated control (0%). One way (**c**–**f**) and two-way ANOVA (**g**–**j**)’s significative differences between samples are represented as ns, \(p\) > 0.05; * \(p\) \(\leq\) 0.05; *** \(p\) \(\leq\) 0.01; *** \(p\) \(\leq\) 0.001; and *** \(p\) \(\leq\) 0.0001.  
The illustrative schemes in Figures 2 and 3 were created in BioRender ([[https://www.biorender.com/](https://www.biorender.com/)]([https://www.biorender.com/](https://www.biorender.com/))). Licence agreement FK286W1S36.