## 3 Results
### Quality Parameters  
Typical quality parameters including the free fatty acid content, peroxide values, and extinction coefficient values (K\({}_{232}\), K\({}_{270}\)) of the oils under study are shown in Table 2. Based solely on the low FFA content (less than 0.5% oleic acid), the laboratory-produced AO that was used as the base oil for enrichment experiments could be characterized as \"extra virgin\" oil. Existing reports on the quality characteristics of commercial virgin AOs sold in the USA or Chilean markets showed that FFA content may vary widely, even exceeding 2.50% [5; 36]. Considering the literature peroxide values for laboratory-extracted virgin AOs (1.4 to 12.74 meq O\({}_{2}\)/kg), our base oil was fresh, indicating the high quality of fruits and/or careful handling during processing and storage. The same was evidenced for C-AO, even though it presented much higher FFA and PV values than the lab-extracted one. It is stressed that VAO should contain no more than 1% FFA and 15 meq O\({}_{2}\)/kg according to trade standard specifications [37]. The freshness and high quality of C-VAO and C-AO were also verified after estimation of the K\({}_{232}\) and K\({}_{270}\) values (Table 2), providing information about conjugated dienes and trienes formed upon lipid oxidation, respectively. These values were quite low compared either to the K\({}_{232}\) ones reported by [PERSON] et al. [38] (1.8-2.8) or the K\({}_{270}\) values reported by [PERSON] et al. [39] for just-processed, centrifuge-extracted oils (0.37-0.45). All of the fortified AO samples presented relatively low FFAs (less than 0.5% oleic acid) and PVs (less than 4.0 meqO\({}_{2}\)/kg oil), signifying that they retained freshness. Nevertheless, PVs varied more widely in OL-VAOs (1.6 to 3.9) than in AL-VAOs (2.7 to 2.9) or in OP-VAOs \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample**} & **Free Fatty Acid (FFA)** & **Peroxide Value (PV)** & \multirow{2}{*}{**K\({}_{232}\)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**K\({}_{270}\)**} \\  & **Content (\% Oleic Acid)** & & **(meq O\({}_{2}\)/kg Oil)** & & \\ \hline C-AO & 0.93 \(\pm\) 0.03 a & 5.86 \(\pm\) 0.47 a & 1.72 \(\pm\) 0.02 a & 0.18 \(\pm\) 0.01 a \\ C-VAO & 0.22 \(\pm\) 0.00 b & 1.74 \(\pm\) 0.26 b & 2.23 \(\pm\) 0.00 b & 0.24 \(\pm\) 0.00 b \\ AL5 & 0.30 \(\pm\) 0.03 c & 2.93 \(\pm\) 0.05 c,d & 1.94 \(\pm\) 0.06 c & 0.30 \(\pm\) 0.06 c \\ AL10 & 0.37 \(\pm\) 0.03 d,e & 2.44 \(\pm\) 0.48 c,d & 2.16 \(\pm\) 0.02 d & 0.42 \(\pm\) 0.01 d \\ AL20 & 0.43 \(\pm\) 0.03 e,f & 2.73 \(\pm\) 0.28 c,d & 2.72 \(\pm\) 0.01 e & 0.76 \(\pm\) 0.01 e \\ OL5 & 0.35 \(\pm\) 0.03 c,d & 2.45 \(\pm\) 0.49 c,d & 1.61 \(\pm\) 0.00 f & 0.12 \(\pm\) 0.00 f \\ OL10 & 0.35 \(\pm\) 0.03 c,d & 1.58 \(\pm\) 0.22 b & 1.87 \(\pm\) 0.02 g & 0.19 \(\pm\) 0.00 a \\ OL20 & 0.35 \(\pm\) 0.03 c,d & 3.94 \(\pm\) 0.48 e & 2.08 \(\pm\) 0.03 h & 0.28 \(\pm\) 0.02 b,c \\ OP5 & 0.37 \(\pm\) 0.03 d,e & 2.13 \(\pm\) 0.28 b,d & 1.85 \(\pm\) 0.00 g & 0.24 \(\pm\) 0.00 b \\ OP10 & 0.43 \(\pm\) 0.03 g & 1.64 \(\pm\) 0.28 b & 1.86 \(\pm\) 0.04 g & 0.29 \(\pm\) 0.03 b \\ OP20 & 0.48 \(\pm\) 0.03 f & 2.81 \(\pm\) 0.28 c,d & 2.00 \(\pm\) 0.04 i & 0.35 \(\pm\) 0.04 g \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* C-AO = avocado oil; C-VAO = freshly extracted virgin avocado oil; ALS-AL10-AL20, OLS-OP10-OP20, and OP5-OP10-OP20 represent C-VAO enriched with avocado leaves, olive leaves, and olive pomace, respectively, at 5, 10, and 20% (_w/w_). Results are expressed as mean value \(\pm\) standard deviation (_w_ = 3). Different lowercase letters in the same column indicate significant differences (_p_ < 0.05) within the whole sample population employing [PERSON]’s test.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Quality parameters of the studied control and enriched oils. (1.6 to 2.8), and their K\({}_{232}\) and K\({}_{270}\) values varied within the ranges reported in the literature for fresh VAOs [3; 4]. AL20 was the only exception.