[@McLerran:2010ex] $$\tau_{p_{\rm T}} =\frac{p_{\text{T}}^{2}}{Q_{\mathrm{s}}^{2}}=\frac{p_{\text{T}}^{2}%
}{Q_{0}^{2}} \left(  \frac{p_{\text{T}}}{W}\right)  ^{\lambda}.\label{taupdef}%$$ Due to our choice of $x_{0}$, transverse momentum in Eq. (\[taupdef\]) is given in GeV/$c$ and scattering energy $W$ in TeV. This form of scaling variable has been successfully tested against data for p-p collisions at the LHC [@McLerran:2010ex; @Praszalowicz:2011tc; @Praszalowicz:2011rm] and also at lower energies of NA61-SHINE experiment at CERN SPS [@Praszalowicz:2013uu], as well as in the case of heavy ion collisions at RHIC [@Praszalowicz:2011rm].

Here we propose that in the case of identified particles another scaling variable should be used in which $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ is replaced by $\tilde{m}_{\mathrm{T}}$ ($\tilde
{m}_{\mathrm{T}}$ – scaling), *i.e.* $$\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T}} =\frac{\tilde{m}_{\text{T}}^{2}}{Q_{0}^{2}}\left(
\frac{\tilde{m}_{\text{T}}}{W}\right)  ^{\lambda}.\label{taumtdef}%$$ This choice is purely phenomenological for the following reasons. Firstly, the gluon cloud is in principle not sensitive to the mass of the particle it finally is fragmenting to, so in principle one should take $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ as an argument of the saturation scale. In this case the proper scaling variable would be $$\tau_{\tilde{m}_{\rm T} p_{\rm T}} =\frac{\tilde{m}_{\text{T}}^{2}}{Q_{0}^{2}}\left(
\frac{p_{\text{T}}}{W}\right)  ^{\lambda}.\label{taumtpdef}%$$ We shall show, however, that this choice ($\tilde{m}_{\mathrm{T}}%
$$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ – scaling) does not really differ numerically from the one given by Eq. (\[taumtdef\]). On the other hand Eq. (\[taumtdef\]) has an advantage over (\[taumtpdef\]) 