## 2 Materials and Methods  
### FAME Selection  
The list of FAME available on the ECHA website ([[https://echa.europa.eu/it/regist](https://echa.europa.eu/it/regist)]([https://echa.europa.eu/it/regist](https://echa.europa.eu/it/regist)) ration-dossier/-registered-dossier/15897/7/2/1 (accessed on 23 September 2023) was examined in order to choose potential FAME to employ in the experiment. Table 1 presents a list summary of FAME found on the ECHA website, reporting their name, their formula, and when available, the compound structure.  
The solubility parameters were evaluated from the list of FAME shown in Table 1, starting with the Hansen solubility parameters (HSPs). The cohesive energy or HSPs of FAME were computed using the commercial software HSPiP 6.0, and they were based on two methods: the van Krevelen\(-\)[PERSON] approach and the Stefanis and Panayiotou approach [29; 30].  
The former, based on the additive theory of functional group contributions, computes the solubility parameter components (\(\delta\)d, \(\delta\)p, and \(\delta\)h) from group force contributions  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Compound Name** & **Formula** & **Structure** \\ \hline Methyl Canolate & CH\({}_{3}\)(CH\({}_{2}\))\({}_{10}\)CO\({}_{2}\)CH\({}_{2}\)CO\({}_{3}\)Na & - \\ \hline Methyl Caprate (Methyl decanoate) & C\({}_{11}\)H\({}_{22}\)O\({}_{2}\) & - \\ \hline Methyl Caproate (Methyl hexanoate) & C\({}_{2}\)H\({}_{14}\)O\({}_{2}\) & - \\ \hline Methyl Capylate (Octanoate) & CH\({}_{3}\)(CH\({}_{2}\))\({}_{6}\)CO\({}_{2}\)CH\({}_{3}\) & - \\ \hline Methyl Cocinate & C\({}_{14}\)H\({}_{28}\)O\({}_{2}\) & - \\ \hline Methyl Laurate (Methyl Dodecanoate) & C\({}_{13}\)H\({}_{26}\)O\({}_{2}\) & - \\ \hline Methyl Linoleate & C\({}_{19}\)H\({}_{34}\)O\({}_{2}\) & - \\ \hline Methyl Linolenate & C\({}_{19}\)H\({}_{32}\)O\({}_{2}\) & - \\ \hline Methyl Myristate (Methyl tetradecanoate) & C\({}_{15}\)H\({}_{30}\)O\({}_{2}\) & - \\ \hline Methyl Oleate (Methyl (Z)-9-Octadecenoate) & C\({}_{19}\)H\({}_{36}\)O\({}_{2}\) & - \\ \hline Methyl Palmitate & C\({}_{17}\)H\({}_{34}\)O\({}_{2}\) & - \\ \hline Methyl Ricinoleate & C\({}_{19}\)H\({}_{36}\)O\({}_{3}\) & - \\ \hline Methyl Stearate & C\({}_{19}\)H\({}_{38}\)O\({}_{2}\) & - \\ \hline Methyl Soyate & Fatty acids C16–18. & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: List of FAME.  
using a first-order equation. Meanwhile, the latter employs a second-order equation to achieve greater accuracy in determining these parameters. The average between FAME van Krevelen\(-\)Hoftyzer and Stefanis and Panayiotou solubility parameters was transformed into Teas parameters that are mathematically derived from Hansen values using the following equations by allowing a 2D view of 3D data:  
\[\text{Fd}=\delta\text{d}\ /\delta\text{d}+\delta\text{p}+\delta\text{h};\quad \text{Fp}=\delta\text{p}/\delta\text{d}+\delta\text{p}+\delta\text{h};\quad \text{Fh}=\delta\text{h}/\delta\text{d}+\delta\text{p}+\delta\text{h}\]  
\[\text{Fd}+\text{Fp}+\text{Fh}=100\]  
where Fd is the dispersion component of the fractional cohesion, Fp is the polar component, and Fh is the hydrogen bonding.  
From the list of FAME presented in Table 1, six pure FAME were then selected based on the Teas Chart and compared to Ligroin and Mineral spirits (which were taken as reference solvent), respectively employed as common solvent for the removal of microcrystalline wax and varnish called \"Regalrez 1094\". These were further compared to a commercially available FAME product consisting of a blend of methyl esters (Agnique(r) ME).