Figure 2. GSE characterization. ( A ) The pH values for GSE, 76% G, and pH 76% G. The pH values of the tested compounds Figure 2. GSE characterization. ( A ) The pH values for GSE, 76% G, and pH 76% G . The pH values of the tested compounds are illustrated by the bar graphs as the means ± SD ( n = 3). The pH 76% G was prepared from 76% G using acetic acid, and it are illustrated by the bar graphs as the means ± SD ( n = 3) . The pH 76% G was prepared from 76% G using acetic acid, and did not show any significant difference from the pH value of GSE. ( B ) LC-MS/MS results of GSE. Glycerol and naringin it did not show any significant difference from the pH value of GSE. ( B ) LC-MS/MS results of GSE. Glycerol and naringin were analyzed by LC-MS/MS and LC-MS for quercetin and hesperidin. Because the peaks for quercetin and hesperidin were analyzed by LC-MS/MS and LC-MS for quercetin and hesperidin. Because the peaks for quercetin and hesperidin were too small (not visible on the graph), their peaks were replaced by dashed boxes. The numbers above the arrows and peaks represent the retention times. p values were calculated using one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple comparisons were too small (not visible on the graph), their peaks were replaced by dashed boxes. The numbers above the arrows and test in this figure. ns, not significant; **** p < peaks represent the retention times. p values were calculated using one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple compari- sons test in this figure. ns, not significant; **** p < 0.0001.