## 2 Results and Discussion
### Shelf-Life Study
#### 2.3.2 Evolution of Sensory and Nutritional Characteristics over Time  
**Sensory parameters**: Table 10 shows the evolution of key sensory characteristics during storage. Both EVOOs remained free from sensory defects throughout the storage period (Table 10). Tastings were conducted using freshly opened bottles stored under identical conditions. Regarding the fruity attribute, panelists found rip rather than green fruitiness in both oils in 2023, likely due to the excessive heat at harvest. The absence of defects confirms the quality of processing. In EVOO 1, the fruity note started at a score of 4 and remained stable, with a slight increase for both bottle sizes. In EVOO 2, the initial score was about 3.8, and then, it increased to 5.9 and 6.5 in the 250 mL and 500 mL bottles, respectively, followed by a decreasing trend in both bottles. Bitterness remained more pronounced during the whole storage period than at the beginning. Pungency increased from t0 to t1, and slightly decreased thereafter. This increase observed after the first weeks of storage was possibly due to sensory stabilization typical in fresh oils. This was also supported by the detailed positive VOCs data, harmony, complexity, and persistence. Overall preference differences between bottle sizes were minimal. Regarding specific descriptors, the oils were characterized by almond, artic  
Figure 4: Evolution of volatile compounds. (**A**) Total LOX VOCs, (**B**) (_E_)-2-hexenal, (**C**) hexanal, (**D**) rancid VOCs, (**E**) 2 + 3 methyl butanal, (**F**) microbial VOCsin the two oils stored in the two bottles over storage. t0, time 0; t1, 2 months; t2, 5 months; t3, 12 months; 250 mL and 500 mL are the bottles’ sizes. In each graph, different letters over the bars indicate significant differences at \(p<0.05\).  
The nutritional value of the EVOOs was assessed using the NVS parameter, which converts chemical data into a score from 1 to 100 easily interpretable by consumers [10]. Figure 5 shows high initial NVS, scoring 87.0 for EVOO 2 and 88.5 for EVOO 1. EVOO1 also exhibited a steady decline over time, with better preservation in the 500 mL bottle. EVOO 2 showed a slower, less marked decline, again with the 500 mL bottle better preserving nutritional value.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Fusty/Muddy** & **Winey/** & **Rancid** & **Fruityness** & **Bitterness** & **Pungency** \\  & **Sediment** & **Winey/** & **Rancid** & **Fruityness** & **Bitterness** & **Pungency** \\ \hline B t0 & n.f. & n.f. & n.f. & 4.0 & 3.9 & 4.7 \\ \hline B t1 250 & n.f. & n.f. & n.f. & 4.0 & 5.4 & 6.2 \\ B t2 250 & n.f. & n.f. & n.f. & 3.2 & 6.2 & 4.5 \\ B t3 250 & n.f. & n.f. & n.f. & 4.8 & 6.0 & 5.4 \\ \hline B t0 & n.f. & n.f. & n.f. & 4.0 & 3.9 & 4.7 \\ \hline B t1 500 & n.f. & n.f. & n.f. & 4.5 & 6.2 & 5.9 \\ B t2 500 & n.f. & n.f. & n.f. & 4.3 & 5.8 & 5.4 \\ B t3 500 & n.f. & n.f. & n.f. & 4.5 & 6.3 & 4.6 \\ \hline P t0 & n.f. & n.f. & n.f. & 3.8 & 2.9 & 5.3 \\ \hline P t1 250 & n.f. & n.f. & n.f. & 5.9 & 5.5 & 7.0 \\ P t2 250 & n.f. & n.f. & n.f. & 5.7 & 5.6 & 6.1 \\ P t3 250 & n.f. & n.f. & n.f. & 4.3 & 4.3 & 3.8 \\ \hline P t0 & n.f. & n.f. & n.f. & 3.8 & 2.9 & 5.3 \\ \hline P t1 500 & n.f. & n.f. & n.f. & 6.5 & 7.4 & 7.4 \\ P t2 500 & n.f. & n.f. & n.f. & 5.0 & 6.4 & 5.5 \\ P t3 500 & n.f. & n.f. & n.f. & 4.8 & 6.1 & 5.8 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 10: Intensity of the main positive and negative sensory attributes in the EVOO samples during storage. n.f., not found.  
Figure 5: Evolution of the Nutritional Value Score (NVS) in the two oils stored in the two bottles over storage. t0, time 0; t1, 2 months; t2, 5 months; t3, 12 months; 250 mL and 500 mL are the bottles’ sizes.