## 3 Results and Discussion
### Recovery of Tomato Seed Oil
#### 3.2.3 Fatty Acid Content of Tomato Seed Oil  
The fatty acid composition of tomato seed oil extracted using different methods is presented in Table 3. Linoleic acid (\(\omega\)-6) was the most abundant fatty acid across all extraction methods, confirming that tomato seed oil is rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids, particularly omega-6, which is known for its nutritional benefits. Oleic acid (\(\omega\)-9) was the second most prevalent fatty acid. Among the saturated fatty acids, palmitic acid was the most abundant, while stearic acid was consistently present in lower amounts. Linolenic acid (\(\omega\)-3), an essential polyunsaturated fatty acid, was the least abundant across all methods. These results align with previous studies on the fatty acid composition of tomato seed oil, confirming linoleic acid as the primary fatty acid, with oleic and palmitic acids also present in significant amounts [36]. Soxhlet extraction resulted in the highest concentrations of oleic acid (258.5 \(\pm\) 4.2 mg/g), linoleic acid (608.9 \(\pm\) 4.6 mg/g), and linolenic acid (23.2 \(\pm\) 2.2 mg/g), indicating its effectiveness in extracting unsaturated fatty acids. The PLE method also resulted in high levels of linoleic (544.7 \(\pm\) 4.8 mg/g) and oleic acid (231.7 \(\pm\) 4.3 mg/g), wh  
Figure 6: Effect of the extraction method on the lycopene content of tomato seed oil. Different lowercase letters above the bars indicate statistically significant differences (\(p\) < 0.05). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Fatty Acids** & **PLE** & **UAE-MAE** & **Soxhlet** & **Conventional** \\ \hline Palmitic & 149.2 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 3.0 & 128.4 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 3.6 & 152.3 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 3.9 & 109.7 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 3.2 \\ Stearic & 53.6 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 2.6 & 50.6 \({}^{\text{a,b}}\)\(\pm\) 2.8 & 51.0 \({}^{\text{a,b}}\)\(\pm\) 2.5 & 44.3 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 2.8 \\ Oleic (\(\omega\)-9) & 231.7 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 4.3 & 217.2 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 4.1 & 258.5 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 4.2 & 178.0 \({}^{\text{d}}\)\(\pm\) 4.0 \\ Linoleic (\(\omega\)-6) & 544.7 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 4.8 & 530.5 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 4.7 & 608.9 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 4.6 & 416.3 \({}^{\text{d}}\)\(\pm\) 4.6 \\ Linolenic (\(\omega\)-3) & 20.8 \({}^{\text{a,b}}\)\(\pm\) 2.2 & 21.6 \({}^{\text{a,b}}\)\(\pm\) 2.5 & 23.2 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 2.2 & 16.2 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 2.0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Values labeled with different letters indicate significant differences (\(p\) < 0.05). Values are presented as means \(\pm\) standard deviations (\(n\) = 3).  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Fatty acid composition (mg/g oil) of tomato seed oil extracted using different methods. parable amounts of these fatty acids (530.5 \(\pm\) 4.7 mg/g and 217.2 \(\pm\) 4.1 mg/g, respectively). In contrast, conventional stirring extracted the lowest fatty acid concentrations, particularly for oleic (178.0 \(\pm\) 4.0 mg/g) and linoleic acid (416.3 \(\pm\) 4.6 mg/g), suggesting that this method is less effective at extracting unsaturated fatty acids. Among all methods, Soxhlet extraction achieved the highest overall extraction efficiency, while UAE-MAE and PLE provided competitive yields with significantly shorter processing times. These findings highlight the potential of UAE-MAE and PLE as efficient and environmentally friendly extraction methods for tomato seed oil. The findings of this study demonstrate that UAE-MAE and PLE are promising alternative extraction methods for tomato seed oil, offering comparable yields but increased lycopene and fatty acid recoveries compared to conventional techniques. While Soxhlet extraction remains an effective method for exhaustive oil recovery, its extended processing time and batch-based nature make it unsuitable for large-scale industrial production. Its inability to be integrated into continuous extraction systems further reduces its feasibility for high-throughput applications.