## 3 Results and Discussion
### Physicochemical Parameters
#### 3.1.4 Sensory Analysis  
The sensory analysis of the samples was carried out following the methodology established in Regulation (EEC) N\({}^{\circ}\). 2568/91 (currently in force is Regulation (EU) 2022/2104) [24,30]. As indicated in the corresponding chapter of the analytical method, none of the studied oils are regulated by this regulation for organoleptic evaluation. Additionally, the process was simplified by selecting only the intensity of \"fruity\", the presence of \"rancid\", and the possibility of other defects reminiscent of the PET container. Figure 1 shows the obtained results from the medians of each descriptor for each of the studied olive oils. In this case, the intensity of the measured descriptors (on a scale of 0 to 10) is displayed on the \(y\)-axis, while the weeks of exposure (1, 2, and 3) are represented on the \(x\)-axis. The bars indicate the temperatures to which the samples were subjected (control sample, 0 \({}^{\circ}\)C; 40 \({}^{\circ}\)C; and 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C). In A, the intensity of \"fruity\" in O04 and O1 was not significantly affected by the treatments. However, O04 showed a downward trend at temperatures of 40 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C. The median values compared to the control sample were 3.3-3.1 for 40 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 3.3-2.3 for 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C. O1 and did not present an increasing or decreasing trend for 40 \({}^{\circ}\)C but did so for 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C, with median values compared to the control sample of 5.1-4.0 at the end of the 3-week treatment. The \"rancid\" defect appeared from the beginning of the treatments in O04, with an increasing trend after treatment at 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C. The range of median values between the control sample and the most severe treatment (60 \({}^{\circ}\)C/3 weeks) was 0.6-2.4. In O1, this defect only appeared with the most severe treatment (60 \({}^{\circ}\)C/3 weeks) at an intensity of 2.0. In B, the intensity of \"fruity\" in O04 and O1 was not significantly affected by the treatments. However, O04 showed a downward trend at temperatures of 40 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C. The median values compared to the control sample were 3.1-2.8 for 40 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 3.1-2.5 for 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C. O1 did not present an increasing or decreasing trend for 40 \({}^{\circ}\)C but did so for 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C, with median values compared to the control sample of 5.3-3.3 at the end of the 3-week treatment. The \"rancid\" defect appeared from the beginning of the treatments in O04, with an increasing trend after treatment at 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C. The range of median values between the control sample and the most severe treatment (60 \({}^{\circ}\)C/3 weeks) was 0.5-3.2. In O1, this defect only appeared with the most severe treatment (60 \({}^{\circ}\)C/3 weeks) at an intensity of 2.4. The general behavior of the \"fruity\" intensity concerning the appearance of defects like \"rancid\" in all analyzed samples shows the same pattern of loss of sensory quality in favor of the appearance of such defects as the temperature and exposure treatments increase. This fact coincides with other authors, who demonstrate the loss of this quality due to the presence of temperature at any stage of the olive oil production or preservation process [33,45]. The sensory analysis results indicate changes in the \"fruity\" attribute and the \"rancid\" defect in olive oils subjected to thermal treatments. While the focus on these specific descriptors may limit the scope of the analysis, their selection was deliberate, as they are antagonistic attributes, allowing for a more precise assessment of oil degradation. The analysis was conducted by a trained panel and followed standardized methods to minimize biases. These observed changes highlight the impact of thermal conditions and packaging materials on the sensory properties of the oil, providing a detailed insight into how these factors affect product quality.