## 2 Results and Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**RI** & **Fatty Acids** & **“Modesto”** & **“Stanley”** & **“Stendesto”** \\ \hline
1519 & Lauric acid & 3.93 \(\pm\) 1.12 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 3.16 \(\pm\) 1.12 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.67 \(\pm\) 1.12 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\
1572 & Dodecanol & 1.59 \(\pm\) 0.45 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.04 \(\pm\) 0.45 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.97 \(\pm\) 0.45 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\
1725 & Mirystic acid & 8.75 \(\pm\) 2.51 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 8.00 \(\pm\) 2.51 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 8.66 \(\pm\) 2.51 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\
1874 & Tetradecanol & 0.33 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.21 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.24 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\
1920 & Palmitic acid & 1.16 \(\pm\) 0.33 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.94 \(\pm\) 0.33 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.07 \(\pm\) 0.33 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\
1943 & Hexadecanol & 0.48 \(\pm\) 0.14 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.34 \(\pm\) 0.14 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.64 \(\pm\) 0.14 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\
2094 & Linoleic acid & 7.06 \(\pm\) 2.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.27 \(\pm\) 2.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 5.08 \(\pm\) 2.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\
2101 & Oleic acid & 12.68 \(\pm\) 3.63 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 11.00 \(\pm\) 3.63 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 13.39 \(\pm\) 3.63 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\
2106 & Linolenic acid & 0.78 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 1.24 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.38 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\
2128 & Stearic acid & 0.94 \(\pm\) 0.27 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 1.41 \(\pm\) 0.27 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 1.71 \(\pm\) 0.27 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\
2157 & Octadecanol & 0.89 \(\pm\) 0.25 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.12 \(\pm\) 0.25 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.44 \(\pm\) 0.25 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\
2311 & Eicosanoic acid & 1.00 \(\pm\) 0.29 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.52 \(\pm\) 0.29 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.79 \(\pm\) 0.29 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline \end{tabular} RI—retention index. Different letters in the same row indicate statistically significant differences (\(p<0.05\)) according to ANOVA and the Tukey test.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Fatty acids (mg/g dry weight) identified in studied kernels analyzed by HS-SPME-GC–MS. Figure 1: Distribution of metabolites in studied fruit kernels according to their chemical families. Different letters in the same chemical family indicate statistically significant differences (\(p<0.05\)) according to ANOVA and the Tukey test. potential [35]. It can be seen that the hybrid inherited the presence of all the identified fatty acids from its parents. Only the amounts of dodecanol and linoleic acids in the plum-apricot hybrid's kernels were less than identified in both plum and apricot. On the other hand, the plum-apricot kernel accumulated more octadecanol, oleic, and stearic acids than both its parents. Other papers investigated the composition of the oil from plum and apricot kernels, where they identified ten fatty acids with the prevalence of oleic and linoleic acids [36], demonstrating consistency with the current results. The investigated volatile compounds are presented in Table 3. The HS-SPME-GC-MS analysis revealed the existence of thirty-five compounds profiled as aldehydes, alcohols, ketones, furans, acids, esters, and alkanes. While most metabolites were present in all the samples, alkanes were only identified in the apricot kernel. This hinted that the volatile profile of the hybrid kernel was more similar to the plum than to the apricot in terms of class distinction.