## 3 Discussion  
As a starting point for this discussion, when comparing the results of the yields and fat contents determined for the RM samples with the available scientific literature, some similarities and differences were found. For example, [PERSON] et al. (2016), [PERSON] (2017), [PERSON] et al. (2017), [PERSON] et al. (2017), and [PERSON] et al. (2017) affirmed that cow's  
Figure 5: Box plots relating compound types (volatile fractions) versus matrix types (milk and SC). SCFAs: short-chain fatty acids (\(\leq\)C\({}_{6}\)), FSFAs: free saturated fatty acids (\(\geq\)C\({}_{7}\)), FUFAs: free unsaturated fatty acids, ESTs: esters, AR-ACIDs: aromatic acids, ALIP-ALDs: aliphatic aldehydes, ALIP-ALCs: aliphatic alcohols, LACTs: lactones, AR-ALDs: aromatic aldehydes, AR-ALCs: aromatic alcohols, MET-ALC-KETs: methyl alcohol ketones, MET-ALK-KETs: methyl alkyl ketones, MONOTS: monoterrepenoids, SESQs: sesquiterpenenes, LHCs: linear hydrocarbons, BHCs: branched hydrocarbons, and AR-HCs: aromatic hydrocarbons. milk contained fat in the range of 2.3-5.3%, which was consistent with the fat content of most of the RM samples in this work, except for that at location 2 (2%), which was outside but close to the lower limit of yields. Furthermore, the FA profiles of raw cow's milk from the literature reviewed were similar to those of this study; i.e., the main fatty acids reported by [PERSON] et al., [PERSON], [PERSON] et al., [PERSON] et al. (2019), [PERSON] et al. (2014), [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2014), [PERSON] et al. (2014), [PERSON] et al. (2014), and [PERSON] et al. (2014), were palmitic (19-39%), oleic (12-34%), stearic (6-15%), and myristic (7-14%) acids. Likewise, the contents of SFAs, MUFAs, PUFAs, and omega acids (n-3 and n-6) in this research were mostly within the ranges reported by [PERSON] et al. (2016), [PERSON] et al. (2014), and [PERSON] et al. (2015), which were SFAs (48-78%), MUFAs (2-30%), PUFAs (2-9%), n-3 (0.3-2%), and n-6 (1-3%); nonetheless, the values of MUFAs and n-3 and n-6 in this study were respectively higher (\(\sim\)27-36%) and lower (0.2-1.2% and 0.6-1.5%) than those recorded by [PERSON] et al. (2016) (MUFAs: 2-30%, n-3: 0.3-1.8%, and n-6: 1.2-3.0%). In addition, [PERSON] et al. (2014) found values of n-3 and n-6 for milk samples (raw/pasteurized) of 2.2-3.2% and 0.4-0.5%, in that order, showing differences with this work. In contrast, [PERSON] et al. (2014) reported n-3 and n-6 values for RM samples of 0.9-1.2% and 2.3-2.8%, correspondingly, which were similar and/or higher than those of this work; furthermore, SFAs (67-70%), MUFAs (26-28%), and PUFAs (4.6-5.2%) values showed some differences in SFA (higher values) and MUFA (lower values) contents. Finally, the calculated AI and TI values were compared with the indices determined by [PERSON] et al. and [PERSON] et al. (2014); (the values reported by these authors ranged between 2.4-3.6 for AI, and 2.2-4.6 for TI, which were higher than or equal to those of this research. The fundamental premise of these indices is that the lower the AI and TI values, the lower the risk of cardiovascular disease ([PERSON], 2014). Since SC is an artisanal product from Colombia, only one report has been found ([PERSON] et al. (2019)) that mentions the chemical analysis of the FA profiles of SC samples manufactured at laboratory and producer scales using three different procedures; nonetheless, no chemical composition related to the FAs was included in that manuscript. Consequently, this would be the first report on yields and fatty acid composition for SC. For this reason, these contents or compositions will be compared and discussed with other artisanal products (like SC) from other countries and with commercial sour creams or fermented creams. Thus, [PERSON] (2014) determined the FA profiles and families of commercial UHT creams fermented with three probiotic strains (_Bifidobacterium lactis_, _L. acidophilus_, and _L.