Accepted Manuscript

Title: Sensory evaluation of high-quality virgin olive oil: panel

analysis vs. consumer perception

Authors: Gabriel D. Fernandes, Ana Claudia Ellis De Luca,

Adriana Gámbaro Garcı́a, Daniel Barrera-Arellano

PII: S2214-7993(17)30227-8
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2018.06.001
Reference: COFS 382

To appear in:

Please cite this article as: Fernandes GD, De Luca ACE, Garcı́a AG,
Barrera-Arellano D, Sensory evaluation of high-quality virgin olive oil: panel
analysis vs. consumer perception, Current Opinion in Food Science (2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2018.06.001

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
 1

Sensory evaluation of high-quality virgin olive oil: panel analysis vs. consumer perception.

Gabriel D. Fernandes1*, Ana Claudia Ellis De Luca2, Adriana Gámbaro García2, Daniel Barrera-Arellano1

1
Fats and Oils Laboratory, Food Technology Department, Faculty of Food Engineering, University of
Campinas. CEP 13083-970, PO Box 6091, Campinas, SP, Brazil

T
2
Sensory Evaluation Laboratory, Food Science and Technology Department, Facultad de Química

IP
(School of Chemistry), Universidad de la República, Montevideo, Uruguay.

R
SC
*
Corresponding author: gabrieldfcac@hotmail.com

Graphical Abstract:
U
N
A
M
ED
E PT
CC
A
 2

Highlights

 Sensory analysis of olive oil is officially performed by trained testers

 Sensory analysis is one of the most important quality parameters
 Both positive and negative attributes must be evaluated
 Consumers have different perceptions about sensory attributes of VOO
 Consumer perception depends on the cultural knowledge about VOO

T
IP
Abstract

R
Sensory analysis of olive oils is one of the most important evaluations for determining the quality of

SC
virgin olive oils. Sensory evaluation is carried out by a panel of trained tasters, and the median values
of the positive and negative attributes are used for classification based on the guidelines set by the
International Olive Council. The main purpose of this quality assessment is to ensure that consumers

U
have access to high-quality olive oils. However, consumer perception of the sensory characteristics of
N
high-quality olive oils does not always agree with the panel evaluation. This review aims to discuss the
A
relationship between the two approaches, the official method and consumer evaluation.
M

Keywords: Sensory analysis, virgin olive oil, consumers, tasters.

ED
E PT
CC
A
 3

Introduction

The International Olive Council (IOC) defines virgin olive oil (VOO) as the oil from the fruits of olive
trees. The oil must be obtained exclusively by mechanical or other physical processes under specific
conditions, especially thermal conditions, that do not provoke any alteration in the oil. Washing,
decantation, centrifugation, and filtration are the only mechanical and physical permitted process [1].

T
Currently, due to the globalization and the popularization of gourmet foods, olive oil consumption is

IP
continuously increasing in both traditional and new markets. One of the main concerns regarding

R
market expansion lies in the maintenance of the identity and quality of the product to the consumer.
Consumers are not specialists in food science and technology; however, when they look for a VOO,

SC
they expect to find a product with full nutraceutical and sensory characteristics [2].

Taking this into account, the IOC has established identity and quality standards for the classification

U
and commercialization of VOO. The quality of olive oil can be defined from commercial, nutritional or
N
sensory standpoints [3]. The nutritional value of olive oil is associated with its high content of oleic acid
A
and with the presence of minor components, such as phenolic compounds, while its flavor is strongly
influenced by the presence of volatile compounds [4]. The sensory profile of an olive oil varies
M

according to the olive variety, soil characteristics, climate, tree health, fruit maturity at the time of
harvest, olive collection process, olive storage conditions, oil extraction process, olive oil storage
ED

method prior to packaging, packaging method and preservation method and/or additives [5]. Among
the legal standards for identity (chemical composition) and quality (free acidity, peroxide value, UV
PT

absorbency, and sensory evaluation), sensory evaluation is one of the most important methods to
differentiate high-quality from low-quality olive oil.
E

According to the IOC, the commercial grading of olive oil is based on physico-chemical and sensory
CC

analyses [6]. Based on the results of sensory analysis, olive oils are classified on a 10-point scale as
extra virgin (the median of defects is 0 and the median of the fruity attribute is greater than 0), virgin
(the median of defects is greater than 0 but no greater than 3.5, and the median of the fruity attribute
A

is greater than 0), ordinary virgin (the median of the defects is greater than 3.5 but no greater than
6.0, or the median of the defects is no greater than 3.5 and the median of the fruity attribute is 0) and
lampante virgin (the median of the defects is greater than 6.0). Olive oils classified as lampante virgin
cannot be sold and must be refined, and after refinement, they can no longer be classified as virgin [1].
 4

To ensure the correct classification and inspection for consumer protection, the IOC has established
rules for the implementation and operation of sensory panels around the world. The aim of the panels
is to determine the intensity of the defects as well as the positive characteristics to correctly classify
the oil into its appropriate category, guaranteeing that the description on the label matches the oil in
the package [1].

In terms of consumer perception, sensory analysis of an olive oil may start with the visual impression
of the package, brand, oil description, origin indication, and other visual characteristics. Consumers

T
generally believe the information on labels and associate the smell and taste of the oil with the label’s
description [7,8]. This is the reason why is so important to have well-established sensory standards.

IP
On the other hand, is very important for consumers to be aware of the positive and negative attributes

R
of olive oil.

SC
At the moment, some major questions remain. What are the sensory and chemistry characteristics of
high-quality VOO? Do consumers know how to recognize the positive and negative attributes of VOO?

U
What is the current relationship between the classification or inspection analysis carried out by an IOC-
recognized panel and the consumer perception of virgin olive oils? This paper aims to present the
N
sensory attributes of VOO as well as its chemistry and discuss the differences between the rigorous
A
sensory evaluation carried out by panel tasters and the consumer perception of the sensory qualities
of VOO and their preferences.
M

The official method for evaluating olive oil

ED

In 1985, Camurati and coworkers [32] published the first systematic method for the sensory analysis
of olive oil. The method was developed to evaluate the positive and negative attributes of olive oil as
PT

well as the intensity of those attributes using a structured scale (0 to 5). Based on this work, the IOC
published a set of documents in 1987 to standardize the procedure for olive oil sensory analysis
(IOC/T.20/DOC. 4,5,6/1987 no longer available).
E
CC

In 1991, the European Economic Community launched consolidated regulations for the classification
and analysis of olive oil, and after that, all countries in the EEC had to strictly operate under those
guidelines. Part of this document was dedicated to the "Organoleptic assessment of olive oil", making
A

this the first official method for the sensory evaluation of olive oil [33]. Five years later, the IOC issued
new documents to improve the sensory analysis of olive oil following the methodology previously
published by the EEC. The most significant modification was made in the profile sheet, changing the
intensity scale to an unstructured 10 cm scale.
 5

Currently, sensory evaluation of olive oil for legal purposes such as classification and/or inspection
must be carried out by an official panel, and each sample must be tasted by a group of between 8 and
12 trained tasters. The selection and training of tasters must be performed under specific rules, and
the tasting glasses and the test room are also well-regulated [1].

Each panel has a leader that is a skilled expert with a thorough knowledge of olive oil science and
technology as well as solid knowledge of different kinds of oils from different countries around the
world. The panel leader is responsible for the selection and training of the tasters and the operation

T
of the panel[1]. The selection of tasters starts with a screening of the physio-psychological and sensory
skills of the candidates. After that, the selected candidates are directed to training. According to the

IP
IOC, the main aims of the training stage are to familiarize the tasters the various positive and negative

R
attributes of olive oils (Table 1), to explain the specific sensory methodology, and to improve individual
sensory skills in way that allows the tasters to identify and quantify sensory attributes in a precise and

SC
repetitive way. Although it appears to be a simple training, it is a very rigorous process that can take a
long time (in some cases, a year or more) [1,34].

U
In addition to the training stage, some physical structure is required for the panel to be certified. One
N
of the requirements is regarding the tasting glasses. In previous years glasses had to be made
A
exclusively of blue color, and only recently the use of red glass has been proposed. In addition, specific
dimensions are required for the glasses in order to hide the color of the oil to be tasted and to
M

concentrate the volatile compound into the gustatory and olfactory paths [35,36]. The oil samples have
to be maintained at 28±2°C to guarantee the release of the volatile compounds [1]. The tasting room
ED

must also meet certain specifications; the tasters must be separated from each other, and the
atmosphere must be properly cleaned and completely odor-free [34].
PT

When the panel leader considers the panel properly established, it is submitted for an international
evaluation controlled by the IOC. There are 77 panels certified by the IOC in 23 countries around the
E

world. The IOC recognition program certifies that the panels correctly apply the methods
CC

recommended by the IOC in a way that guarantees that a result obtained in Chile has the same
meaning as a result obtained in Spain. In addition to the initial certification, the IOC runs collaborative
tests to analyze the repeatability of the results among all the panels. The sensory analysis carried out
A

by the official panels follows a very rigorous scientific methodology in order to guarantee the high
quality of the virgin olive oils available to consumers.

Consumer perception of sensory attributes of VOO

As previously described, consumers’ sensory perception of VOO is strongly influenced by extrinsic

characteristics, such as label information, origin, brand and even price. However, when consumers are
 6

able to taste the oil and forced to reassess the flavor characteristics, they are able to differentiate and
choose oils according to their sensory attributes. In most cases, when compared to a trained panel,
consumers report similar descriptors for general attributes.

In 2010, during an olive oil fair in Imola (Emilia–Romagna, Italy), Predieri and coworkers asked 133
consumers to taste four VOO samples (previously selected by the authors) describing the sensory
attributes related to the VOO quality, based on their preferences. The same samples were also tasted
by a trained panel and the results were compared. The majority of consumers highlighted fruitiness,

T
bitterness, and pungency as high-quality attributes as did the trained panel, and 66% of the consumers
assigned the higher pungency and more bitter VOO as the higher-quality sample [37].

IP
Barbieri and coworkers studied the ability of northern Italian consumers to recognize positive sensory

R
attributes in olive oil compared to those attributes previously determined by a sensory panel. During

SC
this study, 60 consumers were invited to blind taste eighth samples of EVOO and indicate the intensity
of the sample’s fruitiness, bitterness, pungency, and sweetness on a “just-about-right” (JAR) scale.

U
When comparing the result from the panel and the consumers, the authors showed that the samples
characterized as intensely bitter by the panel (two samples) were also reported to be "too much" or
N
"way too much" by consumers. In the same way, all the samples were found to have between light
A
and medium pungency by the panel, while the consumers indicate the pungency as "too little" or "way
too little" for all samples. Regarding their liking scores, consumers preferred pungent samples with
M

high-intensity green fruitiness and low bitterness [38].

ED

An opposite result was found by Delgado and Guinard during a comparison between a group of 23
olive oil experts and 110 US consumers on the evaluation of 22 samples of olive oil. No correlations
were found between the evaluations by the experts and US consumers. Experts classified the more
PT

pungent and bitter samples as the higher-quality VOO, while US consumers preferred less intense
samples. In some cases, consumers even preferred samples with sensory defects, such as rancid,
E

mustiness, fustiness, and winney. Only in a few cases were the scores correlated [39].
CC

In Finland, Recchia and coworkers asked 74 consumers to taste four different olive oils that had
previously been evaluated by a trained panel. The panel classified two of them as a high-quality olive
A

oils, and those samples had intense green fruitiness, bitterness and pungency flavors. The consumers
were divided into three groups according to their general knowledge of olive oil. The authors expected
to obtain a good correlation between the panel and the most committed group. All the groups
disagreed with the panel classification; they preferred less intense oils. The explanation presented by
the authors was based on the lack of sensory experience of the consumers. A high level of involvement
 7

with olive oil does not mean that the consumer has enough experience with the sensory characteristics
to properly judge its quality [40].

In Uruguay, Gámbaro, Ellis and Raggio studied the perceptions of 99 habitual olive oil consumers of 2
extra virgin and 2 ordinary olive oils in terms of overall liking and willingness to purchase based on 9-
point structured scales and responses to a check-all-that-apply question comprising a list of 18 positive
and negative attributes. In a second session, the same consumers evaluated the same oils again based
on their respective commercial specifications and sensory profiles previously prepared by a panel of 9

T
trained tasters. Two consumer clusters with contrasting behavior were identified. Although, 52% of

IP
respondents gave high overall liking scores to the extra virgin oils and scores below the commercially
acceptable limits to those of ordinary virgin quality, 48% gave low overall liking scores to the extra

R
virgin oils and high overall liking scores to the oils that were defective. None of the consumers in either

SC
cluster were influenced by the information made available in the second session. Although a slight
majority of consumers described the oils consistently with the sensory profiles available from the

U
tasting panel, an alarmingly large number of respondents described the two extra virgin oils as
defective, bad-tasting, strange-tasting, poor quality and rancid, and those oils that were defective in
N
terms of quality were described as tasty, sweet, aromatic, mild-flavored, delicious and fresh [41].
A
To compare the cross-cultural perceptions of consumers, Vázquez-Araújo and coworkers, compared
M

the results from Spanish and US consumers against six olive oil samples. Two oil samples were from
the US and the rest, including one refined olive oil, were from Spain. A trained panel characterized the
ED

sensory attributes of the samples; a combination of twenty-nine positive and negative attributes were
detected in the samples by the panel. Regarding flavor characteristics, 100 consumers from each
country were asked about overall liking and their perceptions of the flavor (general), fruity, pungency,
PT

and bitterness of the samples. The consumers did not report negative attributes like the panel did since
they were not asked about them. In general, Spanish consumers preferred oils with high flavor
E

intensities and those that were more bitter and pungent, which coincidentally were the Spanish VOO
CC

samples, and their perceptions were consistent with those of the panel; however, US consumers
disliked these samples. The authors cited in their conclusions that Spanish consumers have more
knowledge of the characteristics of high-quality VOOs [42].
A

It is clear that in traditional countries, there is good correlation between trained panels and consumer
perceptions of high-quality olive oils, and the opposite behavior is noticed in new markets and
nontraditional countries. In addition to that, there is no clear understanding of the relationship
between the sensory characteristics and health properties since the more pungent and bitter a VOO
is, the higher its content of phenolic compounds, which results in a VOO with greater health benefits
 8

[43]. In this way, an education process is necessary to acquaint consumers with the characteristics of
high-quality VOO and its benefits.

Conclusion

Sensory evaluation of VOO as carried out by an official tester panel is a strongly regulated analysis that
aims to protect the market and consumers and prevent low-quality oils from being sold as high-quality.
The consumers are concerned about the quality of VOO mainly due to its relationship with the
nutritional value; and in addition to that, they generally correlate the flavor and taste with the quality.

T
In countries with a tradition of VOO consumption, the sensory perception of the consumers regarding

IP
a high-quality olive oil matches to the perception of panel tasters; however, this correlation was not
observed with consumers in nontraditional countries. This lack of knowledge on the part of the

R
consumers in new markets is highly concerning for the global VOO market since unfit companies can

SC
use it to justify the sale of low-quality VOO as high-quality VOO. In this way, the establishment of
sensory educational programs for consumers is very important to increase the market for high-quality
virgin olive oils.
U
N
A
Funding sources
M

Fernndes, G. D. was supported by the Coordination of Superior Level Staff Improvement through post-
doctoral grant.
ED

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest

E PT
CC
A
 9

References

1. IOC: Sensory analysis of olive oil method for the organoleptic assessment of virgin olive oil. Edited
by IOC; 2017. vol COI/T.20/Doc. No 15/Rev. 9.*
2. Chousou C, Tsakiridou E, Mattas K: Valuing Consumer Perceptions of Olive Oil Authenticity. Journal
of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing 2017, 30:1-16.*
3. Duran RM: Relationshipbetween the Composition and Ripening of the Olive and the Quality of the
Oil. Acta-Horticulturae 2010, 286:10.
4. Angerosa F: Influence of volatile compounds on virgin olive oil quality evaluated by analytical

T
approaches and sensor panels. European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology 2002,
104:639-660.

IP
5. Uceda M, Agruilera MP, Mazzucchelli I: Manual de cata y maridaje del aceite de oliva. Cordoba, ES:
Almuzara; 2010.
6. IOC: Trade standard applying to olive oils and olive-pomace oils. Edited by IOC; 2016. vol

R
COI/T.15/NC No 3/REV. :1-160.

SC
7. Del Giudice T, Cavallo C, Caracciolo F, Cicia G: What attributes of extra virgin olive oil are really
important for consumers: a meta-analysis of consumers’ stated preferences. Agricultural and
Food Economics 2015, 3:1-15.
8. Liberatore L, Casolani N, Murmura F: What’s behind organic certification of extra-virgin olive oil?

U
A response from Italian consumers. Journal of Food Products Marketing 2018:1-14.
9. Campestre C, Angelini G, Gasbarri C, Angerosa F: The Compounds Responsible for the Sensory
N
Profile in Monovarietal Virgin Olive Oils. Molecules 2017, 22:1-28.**
10. Aparicio R, Luna G: Characterisation of monovarietal virgin olive oils. European Journal of Lipid
A
Science and Technology 2002, 104:614-627.
11. IOC: Sensory analysis of olive oil standard sensory analysis: General basic vocabulary. Edited by
M

IOC; 2007. vol COI/T.20/Doc. No 4/Rev. 1.

12. Andrewes P, Busch JLHC, de Joode T, Groenewegen A, Alexandre H: Sensory properties of virgin
olive oil polyphenols: Identification of deacetoxy-ligstroside aglycon as a key contributor to
ED

pungency. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2003, 51:1415-1420.

13. Veneziani G, Esposto S, Taticchi A, Urbani S, Selvaggini R, Sordini B, Servili M: Characterization of
phenolic and volatile composition of extra virgin olive oil extracted from six Italian cultivars
using a cooling treatment of olive paste. LWT - Food Science and Technology 2018, 87:523-
PT

528.
14. Angerosa F, Servili M, Selvaggini R, Taticchi A, Esposto S, Montedoro G: Volatile compounds in
virgin olive oil: occurrence and their relationship with the quality. Journal of Chromatography
E

A 2004, 1054:17-31.
15. Servili M, Montedoro G: Contribution of phenolic compounds to virgin olive oil quality. European
CC

Journal of Lipid Science and Technology 2002, 104:602-613.

16. Angerosa F, dAlessandro N, Corana F, Mellerio G: Characterization of phenolic and secoiridoid
aglycons present in virgin olive oil by gas chromatography chemical ionization mass
spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography A 1996, 736:195-203.
A

17. Fregapane G, Salvador MD: Fate and Prediction of Phenolic Secoiridoid Compounds throughout
the Different Stages of the Virgin Olive Oil Making Process. Antioxidants 2017, 6:1-11.
18. Mateos R, Cert A, Perez-Camino MC, Garcia JM: Evaluation of virgin olive oil bitterness by
quantification of secoiridoid derivatives. Journal of the American Oil Chemists Society 2004,
81:71-75.
19. Angerosa F, d'Alessandro N, Basti C, Vito R: Biogeneration of volatile compounds in virgin olive
oil: Their evolution in relation to malaxation time. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
1998, 46:2940-2944.
 10

20. Angerosa F, Mostallino R, Basti C, Vito R: Influence of malaxation temperature and time on the
quality of virgin olive oils. Food Chemistry 2001, 72:19-28.
21. Lukic I, Zanetic M, Jukic Spika M, Lukic M, Koprivnjak O, Brkic Bubola K: Complex interactive effects
of ripening degree, malaxation duration and temperature on Oblica cv. virgin olive oil
phenols, volatiles and sensory quality. Food Chem 2017, 232:610-620.
22. Angerosa F, Basti C: Olive oil volatile compounds from the lipoxygenase pathway in relation to
fruit ripeness. Italian Journal of Food Science 2001, 13:421-428.
23. Angerosa F, Basti C, Vito R: Virgin olive oil volatile compounds from lipoxygenase pathway and
characterization of some Italian cultivars. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 1999,
47:836-839.
24. Angerosa F, DiGiacinto L, dAlessandro N: Quantitation of some flavor components responsible for

T
the ''green'' attributes in virgin olive oils. Hrc-Journal of High Resolution Chromatography
1997, 20:507-510.

IP
25. Essid F, Sifi S, Beltran G, Sanchez S, Raies A: Sensory and Volatile Profiles of Monovarietal North
Tunisian Extra Virgin Olive Oils from 'Chetoui' Cultivar. J Oleo Sci 2016, 65:533-542.
26. Kalua CM, Allen MS, Bedgood DR, Bishop AG, Prenzler PD, Robards K: Olive oil volatile compounds,

R
flavour development and quality: A critical review. Food Chemistry 2007, 100:273-286.
27. Cayuela JA, Gómez-Coca RB, Moreda W, Pérez-Camino MC: Sensory defects of virgin olive oil from

SC
a microbiological perspective. Trends in Food Science & Technology 2015, 43:227-235.
28. Angerosa F, Lanza B, Marsilio V: Biogenesis of <<fusty>> defect in virgin olive oils. Grasas y Aceites
1996, 47:142-159.

U
29. Angerosa F, Lanza B, D´Alessandro N, Marsilio V, Cumitini S: Olive oil off-odour compounds
produced by Aspergillus and Penicillium. Acta Horticulturae 1999, 474:695-699.
N
30. Aparicio R, Rocha SM, Delgadillo I, Morales MT: Detection of rancid defect in virgin olive oil by the
electronic nose. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2000, 48:853-860.
A
31. Velasco J, Dobarganes C: Oxidative stability of virgin olive oil. European Journal of Lipid Science
and Technology 2002, 104:661-676.
M

32. Camurati F, Cozzoli O, Fedeli E: Valutazione organolettica di oli extra vergini di oliva. La Rivista
Italiana delle Soztanze Grasse 1985, 62:7.
33. EEC: Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 of 11 July 1991 on the characteristics of olive oil
and olive-residue oil and on the relevant methods of analysis. Edited by; 1991:137.
ED

34. IOC: Sensory analysis of olive oil standard guide for the installation of a test room. Edited by IOC;
2007. vol COI/T.20/Doc. No 6/Rev.1.
35. IOC: Sensory analysis of olive oil standard glass for oil tasting. Edited by IOC; 2007. vol
PT

COI/T.20/Doc. No 5/Rev. 1.
36. CEAOAO: Nueva copa de cata de AOVE color rojo. Edited by CEAOAO; 2017. http://www.cea-
olivaryaceitesdeoliva.com/nueva-copa-de-cata-de-color-rojo/ Accessed in 02/02/2018.
37. Predieri S, Medoro C, Magli M, Gatti E, Rotondi A: Virgin olive oil sensory properties: Comparing
E

trained panel evaluation and consumer preferences. Food Research International 2013,
CC

54:2091-2094.
38. Barbieri S, Bendini A, Valli E, Gallina Toschi T: Do consumers recognize the positive sensorial
attributes of extra virgin olive oils related with their composition? A case study on
conventional and organic products. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 2015, 44:186-
A

195.*
39. Delgado C, Guinard JX: How do consumer hedonic ratings for extra virgin olive oil relate to quality
ratings by experts and descriptive analysis ratings? Food Quality and Preference 2011, 22:213-
225.
40. Recchia A, Monteleone E, Tuorila H: Responses to extra virgin olive oils in consumers with varying
commitment to oils. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 24:153-161.
41. Gámbaro A, Ellis A, Raggio L: Virgin Olive Oil Acceptability in Emerging Olive Oil-Producing
Countries. Food and Nutrition Sciences 2013, 4:1060-1068.*
 11

42. Vazquez-Araujo L, Adhikari K, Chambers Et, Chambers DH, Carbonell-Barrachina AA: Cross-cultural
perception of six commercial olive oils: A study with Spanish and US consumers. Food Sci
Technol Int 2015, 21:454-466.**
43. Vitaglione P, Savarese M, Paduano A, Scalfi L, Fogliano V, Sacchi R: Healthy virgin olive oil: a matter
of bitterness. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 2015, 55:1808-1818.

Annotations

1. IOC: Sensory analysis of olive oil method for the organoleptic assessment of virgin olive oil. Edited
by IOC; 2017. vol COI/T.20/Doc. No 15/Rev. 9.*

T
This is the main legislation behind sensory analysis of olive oil as it determines how the sensory panel

IP
must carry out the analysis. This is the most recent revision of the document and was
determinant to the description of the official methods of analysis.

R
2. Chousou C, Tsakiridou E, Mattas K: Valuing Consumer Perceptions of Olive Oil Authenticity. Journal
of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing 2017, 30:1-16.*

SC
This paper applied mathematical tools to determine consumer perceptions of olive oil, mainly
regarding the perception of the olive oil authenticity and its characteristics. It was essential to
understand what consumer expect from a good quality and authentic olive oil.

U
9. Campestre C, Angelini G, Gasbarri C, Angerosa F: The Compounds Responsible for the Sensory Profile
N
in Monovarietal Virgin Olive Oils. Molecules 2017, 22:1-28.**
A
This paper was a very good review of the chemical compounds behind sensory characteristics of olive
oil, it deeply discusses the biochemical pathways involved in the formation of quality and
M

defects of olive oil. It was of great importance to provide other references of this subject, as
well as to develop the table 1.

38. Barbieri S, Bendini A, Valli E, Gallina Toschi T: Do consumers recognize the positive sensorial
ED

attributes of extra virgin olive oils related with their composition? A case study on conventional
and organic products. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 2015, 44:186-195.*

During this paper, the authors performed an experimental comparison between a trained panel and
PT

consumers on olive oil preferences in a traditional consumer country. It was very important to
the the conclusion of this review.
E

41. Gámbaro A, Ellis A, Raggio L: Virgin Olive Oil Acceptability in Emerging Olive Oil-Producing
Countries. Food and Nutrition Sciences 2013, 4:1060-1068.
CC

In this paper, the authors performed an experimental approach to consumer preferences on olive oil
in a non-traditional consumer country. It has significantly contributed a lot to the conclusions
of this paper.
A

42. Vazquez-Araujo L, Adhikari K, Chambers Et, Chambers DH, Carbonell-Barrachina AA: Cross-cultural
perception of six commercial olive oils: A study with Spanish and US consumers. Food Sci
Technol Int 2015, 21:454-466.**

This was the most important paper in this review, it compares traditional and non-traditional
consumers from the perspective of the sensory perception. It brings scientific basis to our
conclusion.
 12

Tables:

Table 1 – Main positive (+) and negative (-) sensory attributes of virgin olive oil, the causes of those
attributes, chemistry and sensory descriptors.

Table 1

T
Sensory Causes Chemical Compounds Examples of Sensory References
Attribute Descriptors

IP
Fruity (+) Volatile compounds Alcohols, esters, In most of the cases, [9, 12, 14,
formed during the ketones, aldehydes, linked to other fruits, 19, 21-26]

R
extraction, crushing and and hydrocarbons. vegetables, and nuts.
malaxing steps. Action of Mainly C5-C6 Can be described as

SC
the lipoxygenase pathway compounds from the green or ripe
over C18 unsaturated LOX pathway. fruitiness.
fatty acids.
Bitter (+) Phenolic compounds
naturally present in the
olives.
Combination of tyrosol
(p-HPEA) and
hydroxytyrosol (3,4- U Basic taste compared
to caffeine or quinine.
[12-18]
N
DHPEA) with the
dialdehydic form of
A
elenolic acid (EDA),
resulting in p-HPEA-
M

EDA and 3,4-DHPEA-

EDA
Pungency Phenolic compounds p-HPEA-EDA and 3,4- Tactile sensation [12-18]
ED

(+) naturally present in the DHPEA-EDA referred to a spiciness

olives. sensation that can be
perceived in the whole
mouth cavity,
PT

especially in the
throat.
Fusty / Anaerobic fermentation Five-carbon branched Fermented olive, olive [27, 28]
E

Muddy during olive storage alcohols, 2-ethyl- pizza, cheese crust,

Sediment (-) (before extraction) when butyrates rotten.
CC

piled or badly stored, or

during the oil storage if
the organic matter (small
A

fragments of fruits) is not

completely removed from
the oil.
Musty / Fungi and yeast C8 primary and Mold, moisture, earth, [29]
Humid / development when olives secondary alcohols green nuts.
Earthy and are stored in humid and C8 ketones.
(-) conditions over a long
period. Olives harvested
from soil.
 13

Winey / Aerobic fermentation Ethanol, ethyl acetate, Vinegar, ethanol, nail [27-29]
Vinegary occurred on the top of and acetic acid polish remover, acetic
and Acid / pilled olives or even in the acid.
Sour (-) paste residue left when
the production line is not
properly cleaned.
Rancid (-) Oxidation process mainly Hydroperoxide Rancid oil or butter. [30, 31]
during the storage of oils. fragments

T
R IP
SC
U
N
A
M
ED
E PT
CC
A