## 2 Results and Discussion
### Characterization of Fresh VOOs
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**VOO1**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**VOO2**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**VOO3**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**VOO4**} \\ \cline{2-11}  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Hoilplaces**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Arbequina**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Fleual**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Aubequina**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Odor Threshold**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Arons Sensory Descriptor**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**CODE**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Months of**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**} \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Storage**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**0**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**27**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**0**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**27**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**0**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**27**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**} \\ \hline
**37** & Arctic acid & 16.3\({}^{\pm}\)0.1 & 15.6\({}^{\pm}\)0.2 & 5.16\({}^{\pm}\)0.3 & 6.36\({}^{\pm}\)0.2 & 29.4\({}^{\pm}\)0.3 & 37.8\({}^{\pm}\)0.3 & 0.63\({}^{\pm}\)0.9 & 0.50 & Sour, vinegery \\
**38** & Propunger acid & 0.14\({}^{\pm}\)0.2 & 0.24\({}^{\pm}\)0.18\({}^{\pm}\)0.19\({}^{\pm}\)0.1 & 0.13\({}^{\pm}\)0.2 & 0.2\({}^{\pm}\)0.1 & 0.10 & 0.13 & 0.72 & Pungert, sour \\
**39** & Brunetac acid & 0.47\({}^{\pm}\)0.2 & 0.23\({}^{\pm}\)0.13\({}^{\pm}\)0.06\({}^{\pm}\)0.2 & 0.25 & 0.24 & 0.25 & 0.15 & 0.65 & Randd, cheese \\
**40** & 2-methylpropunger & 0.08\({}^{\pm}\)0.04\({}^{\pm}\)0.07 & 0.05\({}^{\pm}\)0.1 & 0.10\({}^{\pm}\)0.06\({}^{\pm}\)0.06 & 0.04\({}^{\pm}\)0.4 & - & Bunte, cheese, rancid \\
**41** & (EJ-dependent & 0.13\({}^{\pm}\)0.07\({}^{\pm}\)0.12\({}^{\pm}\)0.2 & 0.04\({}^{\pm}\)0.2 & 27.5\({}^{\pm}\)0.3 & 3.25\({}^{\pm}\)0.34\({}^{\pm}\)0.3 & 0.61 & Pairs, fishy, fatty \\
**42** & Peramic acid & 0.24 & 0.25 & 0.13\({}^{\pm}\)0.24\({}^{\pm}\)0.2 & 0.29 & 0.15 & 0.11\({}^{\pm}\)0.20\({}^{\pm}\)0.2 & 0.60 & Unpleasant, pongster \\
**43** & Heenanoic acid & 1.50\({}^{\pm}\)0.1 & 17.8\({}^{\pm}\)0.57 & 1.22\({}^{\pm}\)0.2 & 2.51 & 0.57\({}^{\pm}\)0.63\({}^{\pm}\)0.1 & 1.23\({}^{\pm}\)0.2 & 0.70 & Pungert, rancid \\
**44** & Heenanoic acid & 1.2\({}^{\pm}\)0.2 & 29.9\({}^{\pm}\)0.39\({}^{\pm}\)0.3 & 15.2\({}^{\pm}\)0.2 & 4.96\({}^{\pm}\)0.43 & 11.6\({}^{\pm}\)0.43 & 11.5\({}^{\pm}\)0.40 & 4.00\({}^{\pm}\)0.10 & Randd, Lity \\
**45** & Octanoic acid & 1.07\({}^{\pm}\)0.2 & 2.62\({}^{\pm}\)1.77\({}^{\pm}\)0.5 & 1.57\({}^{\pm}\)0.47 & 1.33\({}^{\pm}\)0.18 & 2.14\({}^{\pm}\)0.30 & Only, fatty \\
**46** & Noramic acid & 0.02\({}^{\pm}\)0.08\({}^{\pm}\)0.02\({}^{\pm}\)0.05\({}^{\pm}\)0.12\({}^{\pm}\)0.02\({}^{\pm}\)0.02\({}^{\pm}\)0.02\({}^{\pm}\)0.05\({}^{\pm}\)0.5 & - & Fat, must, sweet, sour \\ Total volatiles & 55.00 & 49.54 & 43.94 & 50.47 & 63.29 & 57.91 & 42.65 & 49.36 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Significant difference (\(p>0.05\)) in the concentration of the compound at the beginning and end of the storage \({}^{\rm b}\) the concentration of the compound exceeds its odor threshold (Odor Activity Value, OAV \(>\)1).
* Compounds derived from the llowyergase (LOO) pathway.
* Not detected.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: _Cont._On the other hand, the analysis of the fresh samples pointed out that the compounds responsible for rancid defect [31], such as heptanal, octanal, (_E_)-2-heptanal, nonanal and (_E_)-2-decenal were found at low concentrations before the storage. The Hoijblanca oil (VOO1-0m) was characterized by the lowest concentration of octanal (0.07 mg/kg for VOO1-0m vs. 0.42 mg/kg, 1.01 mg/kg and 0.55 mg/kg for VOO2-0m, VOO3-0m and VOO4-0m, respectively). The total amount of carboxylic acids also pointed out a higher degradation of VOO2-0m (12.02 mg/kg) and VOO3-0m (15.75 mg/kg) oils compared to VOO1-0m (6.41 mg/kg) and VOO4-0m (3.97 mg/kg).