## 3 Results and Discussion
### Sensitivity Analysis of the Selection Criteria  
The results of the sensitivity analysis are shown in Tables 5 and 6 for the MED and CON systems, respectively, for both scenarios considered as explained in Section 2.2. The average values of the total score are shown in both tables along with the standard deviation calculated over the whole set of altered values of the weights. Table 5 shows that, according to the average score obtained for all possible combinations, the first and the second-best options are savE OM 03 and RT4, respectively, in both Scenarios 1 and 2. The third place is occupied by A3 in scenario1 and by the mixture caprylic acid + lauric acid (9:1 by mol) in Scenario 2. For the CON case, the first place is occupied by RT64 HC, followed by PureTemp 63 in the second place, and by THP 5860 in the third place in both Scenarios 1 and 2. The frequency distributions with respect to the places occupied by the best candidates over the whole set of altered values of the weights are shown in Tables 7 and 8, for the MED and CON systems, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**No.**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Scenario 1**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Scenario 2**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Cornerical Name/Composition**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Average Score**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Standard Deviation**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Commercial Name/Composition**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Average Score**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Standard Deviation**} \\  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & (\%) & (\%) & & (\%) & (\%) \\ \hline
1 & RT64 HC & 68.4 & 7.2 & RT64 HC & 73.3 & 7.2 \\
2 & PureTemp 63 & 60.1 & 6.7 & PureTemp 63 & 66.7 & 6.8 \\
3 & THP5860 & 55.1 & 7.2 & THF5860 & 60.0 & 7.2 \\
4 & Stearylacetate & 46.8 & 8.3 & Stearylacetate & 53.3 & 8.4 \\
5 & Stearyl arachid (C381760Z) & 36.6 & 7.8 & Stearyl arachid (C381760Z) & 33.3 & 7.9 \\
6 & 50\% CHSCONHZ + 50\% C17H3S & 36.6 & 7.8 & C00T & 33.3 & 7.9 \\  & COOM & & & COOM & & \\
7 & RT60 & 26.8 & 6.6 & RT60 & 33.3 & 6.8 \\
8 & Paraffin C27 & 16.6 & 5.0 & Paraffin C27 & 13.3 & 5.0 \\
9 & 0500- QoS BioPCM & 16.6 & 5.0 & 0500- QoS BioPCM & 13.3 & 5.0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Average values obtained by the PCM candidates for the CON system. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**No.**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Scenario 1**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Scenario 2**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Scenario 3**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Average Score**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Standard Deviation**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Commercial Name/Composition**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Average Score**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Standard Deviation**} \\  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & (\%) & (\%) & & (\%) & (\%) & (\%) \\ \hline
1 & savE OM 03 & 61.7 & 4.6 & savE OM 03 & 66.7 & 4.6 \\
2 & RT4 & 51.7 & 5.4 & RT4 & 58.4 & 5.4 \\
3 & A3 & 43.3 & 7.2 & Caprylic acid + lauric acid (9:1 by mol) & 50.2 & 9.6 \\
4 & R3 HC-1 & 41.7 & 7.2 & RT3 HC-1 & 50.1 & 7.2 \\
5 & PureTemp 4 & 41.7 & 7.2 & PureTemp 4 & 50.1 & 7.2 \\
6 & Caprylic acid + lauric acid (9:1 by mol) & 40.2 & 9.6 & A3 & 49.9 & 7.2 \\
7 & PCM-PDRO3P & 33.3 & 7.1 & PCM-PDRO3P & 41.6 & 7.1 \\
8 & Tetrahydrofuran clathrate & 29.9 & 8.4 & Tetrahydrofuran clathrate & 24.9 & 8.4 \\
9 & 0200- Q2 BioPCM & 19.9 & 5.6 & 0200- Q2 BioPCM & 16.6 & 5.6 \\
10 & 0200- Q4 BioPCM & 19.9 & 5.6 & 0200- Q4 BioPCM & 16.6 & 5.6 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Average score obtained by the PCM candidates for the MED system. respectively. As seen in Table 7, savE OM 03 is always the first option in both scenarios, while RT4 is the second-best option in the vast majority of cases in both scenarios. Therefore, it can be concluded that the sensitivity analysis confirms that the results obtained using the decision matrix of the MED concept are reliable and they are practically not affected by reasonably small variations in the weights of the decision parameters.