## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Name \({}^{*}\)** & **t\({}_{\text{r}}\) (min)** & **KI** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Intercept** \\ **(a\(\approx\)s)** \\ \end{tabular} & **Slope (b\(\approx\)s)** & **L mg\({}^{-1}\)** & **R\({}^{2}\)** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **LOD** \\ **(mg L\({}^{-1}\))** \\ \end{tabular} & **LOQ** \\ \hline C14.0 & Myristic acid & 17.42 & 1720 & \(0.000\pm 0.024\) & \(0.01306\pm 0.00032\) & 0.998 & 6.0 & 18.3 \\ \hline C15.0 & – & 19.58 & 1821 & \(-0.016\pm 0.011\) & \(0.00707\pm 0.00015\) & 0.998 & 5.1 & 15.6 \\ \hline C16.In-7 & Palmitoleic acid & 22.00 & 1916 & \(-0.0095\pm 0.0093\) & \(0.00665\pm 0.00012\) & 0.999 & 4.7 & 14.3 \\ \hline C16.0 & Palmitic acid & 22.51 & 1936 & \(-0.005\pm 0.024\) & \(0.01408\pm 0.00026\) & 0.998 & 5.6 & 17.1 \\ \hline C17.0 & Margaric acid & 24.62 & 2024 & \(-0.0033\pm 0.0094\) & \(0.00481\pm 0.00012\) & 0.998 & 6.4 & 19.4 \\ \hline C182n-6 & Linoleic acid & 25.18 & 2094 & \(-0.0148\pm 0.0093\) & \(0.00686\pm 0.00011\) & 0.999 & 4.5 & 13.6 \\ \hline C18.In-9 & Olele acid & 26.81 & 2124 & \(-0.018\pm 0.045\) & \(0.02674\pm 0.00057\) & 0.998 & 5.6 & 16.8 \\ \hline C18.0 & Stearic acid & 27.14 & 2140 & \(0.000\pm 0.025\) & \(0.0149\pm 0.00033\) & 0.998 & 5.6 & 16.9 \\ \hline C20.In-9 & Gadoleic acid & 30.24 & 2299 & \(-0.021\pm 0.019\) & \(0.00793\pm 0.00025\) & 0.996 & 7.9 & 24.0 \\ \hline C20.0 & Arachidic acid & 30.71 & 2326 & \(0.002\pm 0.026\) & \(0.008388\pm 0.00046\) & 0.988 & 10.2 & 31.0 \\ \hline C22.0 & Behenic acid & 34.47 & 2523 & \(0.006\pm 0.035\) & \(0.01417\pm 0.00045\) & 0.996 & 8.2 & 24.7 \\ \hline C24.0 & Lignoercic acid & 40.17 & 2724 & \(0.030\pm 0.030\) & \(0.02064\pm 0.00050\) & 0.997 & 4.8 & 14.5 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* fatty acids were analyzed via GC-MS as methyl esters.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Performance data of the optimized gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) separation and quantification method. Figure 2: Total ion chromatogram (TIC) of a standard mixture of fatty acid methyl esters (FAMEs) obtained with the optimized method. For each target analyte, a calibration plot was constructed by reporting (at each calibration level) the area of its chromatographic peak, normalized with the area of the IS peak, as a function of the known concentration of the analyte (mg L\({}^{-1}\)). The signal of a reagent blank containing only the IS in \(n\)-hexane was also measured as control during calibration. Visual inspection of each calibration plot readily showed a linear dependence of the normalized signal from the concentration. In fact, calibration data could be excellently interpolated with a least square regression line (\(y=a+bx\)) in which \(a\) represents the intercept and \(b\) the slope (L mg\({}^{-1}\)) of the least square line through the calibration points. This is easily deduced from the determination coefficient (R\({}^{2}\)) reported in Table 1 which is very close to one. In Table 1 are also reported intercepts and slopes deduced from the twelve calibration plots together with the corresponding standard deviations (respectively, \(s_{a}\) and \(s_{b}\)) which were calculated from the calibration data according to standard statistical procedures [25]. The standard deviation of the intercept, \(s_{a}\), is then used to calculate the method detection limit (LOD) according to the formula: LOD = \(3.3\times s_{a}/b\); and the quantification limit (LOQ) according to the formula: LOQ = \(10\times s_{a}/b\)[25]. In Figure 3 are compared total ion chromatograms (TICs) of the three extracts of _G. lucidum_ spores obtained in this study with different processes (Figure 3A-C) and the commercial liquid extract of _G. lucidum_ spores obtained using supercritical CO\({}_{2}\) extraction (Figure 3D). An example of annotated TIC relative to fatty acids contained in samples of _G.