## 3 Results and Discussion
### Lipid Hydrolysis
#### 3.3.2 Influence of Lipase/Lipidic Substrate Ratio (\(Eo^{\prime}\)/\(So^{\prime}\))
This result is consistent with the fatty acid composition of the lipid fraction of meat waste used (see Table 1), where saturated fatty acids show the highest percentage (46.64%), followed by polyunsaturated (28.09%), and monounsaturated (25.27%) fatty acids. This recovery of fatty acids based on the initial composition of the raw material hydrolyzed was also observed by [PERSON] et al. [73], who hydrolyzed sardine oil with different lipolytic enzymes such as \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Fatty Acid**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{_Eo’/So’_ (kLU/g)} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **0.28** & **0.55** & **0.83** & **1.11** & **1.19** \\ \hline C14:0 & 18.78 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 22.46 \(\pm\) 1.09 & 27.08 \(\pm\) 1.14 & 29.06 \(\pm\) 0.95 & 32.49 \(\pm\) 0.04 \\ C14:1 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.00 \\ C15:0 & 0.79 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.84 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.97 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 1.07 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 1.08 \(\pm\) 0.03 \\ C15:1 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.00 \\ C16:0 & 146.43 \(\pm\) 0.338 & 164.41 \(\pm\) 0.81 & 20.42 \(\pm\) 8.54 & 218.87 \(\pm\) 0.67 & 222.16 \(\pm\) 7.27 \\ C16:1 & 0.77 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.89 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 1.07 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 1.15 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 1.22 \(\pm\) 0.03 \\ C17:0 & 15.46 \(\pm\) 0.05 & 16.87 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 20.80 \(\pm\) 0.95 & 22.56 \(\pm\) 0.28 & 23.19 \(\pm\) 0.76 \\ C17:1 & 2.72 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 2.99 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 3.40 \(\pm\) 0.13 & 3.60 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 3.72 \(\pm\) 0.13 \\ C18:0 & 95.90 \(\pm\) 1.64 & 105.30 \(\pm\) 0.52 & 129.86 \(\pm\) 5.47 & 143.38 \(\pm\) 0.84 & 140.78 \(\pm\) 4.61 \\ C18:In9c + t & 160.44 \(\pm\) 0.70 & 172.10 \(\pm\) 0.86 & 225.59 \(\pm\) 7.82 & 257.30 \(\pm\) 1.34 & 236.92 \(\pm\) 8.96 \\ C18:2n6c + t & 88.54 \(\pm\) 1.38 & 98.91 \(\pm\) 0.17 & 121.08 \(\pm\) 5.10 & 125.62 \(\pm\) 2.95 & 136.27 \(\pm\) 4.46 \\ C18:3n3 & 27.90 \(\pm\) 0.12 & 29.22 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 30.80 \(\pm\) 1.10 & 31.84 \(\pm\) 0.67 & 33.35 \(\pm\) 0.28 \\ C18:3n6 & 0.37 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.59 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 1.09 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 1.20 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 1.29 \(\pm\) 0.01 \\ C20:0 & 0.68 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.79 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.99 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 1.06 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 1.10 \(\pm\) 0.02 \\ C20:1 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.00 \(\pm\) 0.00 \\ C20:2 & 9.36 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 10.53 \(\pm\) 0.25 & 13.09 \(\pm\) 0.53 & 14.14 \(\pm\) 0.23 & 14.35 \(\pm\) 0.87 \\ C20:3n3 & 21.10 \(\pm\) 0.23 & 23.74 \(\pm\) 0.98 & 29.42 \(\pm\) 1.07 & 32.40 \(\pm\) 0.13 & 32.58 \(\pm\) 0.13 \\ C20:3n6 + c21:0 & 34.81 \(\pm\) 0.17 & 38.19 \(\pm\) 0.16 & 42.24 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 43.58 \(\pm\) 0.86 & 45.47 \(\pm\) 1.49 \\ C20:4n6 & 15.69 \(\pm\) 0.30 & 17.20 \(\pm\) 0.22 & 22.46 \(\pm\) 0.96 & 24.05 \(\pm\) 0.25 & 24.59 \(\pm\) 0.10 \\ Total & 639.74 \(\pm\) 0.32 & 705.02 \(\pm\) 1.98 & 874.16 \(\pm\) 30.75 & 950.88 \(\pm\) 3.48 & 950.57 \(\pm\) 10.48 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 12: Amounts of fatty acids obtained at different lipase/lipidic substrate ratios (_Eo’/So’_) (mgfatty acid/glipids). Lipozyme RM IM (a lipase from _Rhizomucor miehei_) and Novozyme 435 (a lipase from _Candida antarctica_). From a lipase/lipidic substrate ratio of 0.83 kLU/g, the increase in the amounts of released fatty acids is not notable: the maximum increase corresponds to C16:0 and is only 8%, which is far higher than the increase for the other acids released. This suggests that we should work with the _Eo'/So'_ ratios around 0.83 kLU/g so as not to make the process unnecessarily more expensive.