## 2 Materials and Methods
### Olive Oil Physicochemical Parameters  
The acidity index (AG) was determined according to the methodology described in ISO 660:2020, applicable to animal and vegetable oils and fats [29]. A 20 g sample was dissolved in a mixed solvent of ethanol and diethyl ether in a 1:1 ratio, and the free fatty acids present were titrated with a potassium hydroxide (0.1 M) solution. The titration was performed in the presence of phenolphthalein as an indicator. The acidity index (AG) was expressed as a percentage of oleic acid. All measurements were performed in triplicate. The obtained results were compared with the limits established by Regulation (EEC) 2568/91 (currently in force is Regulation (EU) 2022/2104) [24; 30]. The peroxide value (PV) was expressed as milliequivalents of active oxygen per kilogram of oil and was determined according to the methodology described in ISO 3960:2007 [31]. A sample of 1.2-2.0 g of oil was dissolved in a mixture of chloroform and acetic acid (2:3 \(v/v\)). Then, 1 mL of saturated KI solution was added, and after agitation and maintaining in darkness for 5 min, 75 mL of deionized water was added. Finally, the sample was titrated with sodium thiosulfate and starch solution as an indicator. All measurements were performed in triplicate. The obtained results were compared with the limits established by Regulation (EEC) 2568/91 (currently in force is Regulation (EU) 2022/2104) [24; 30]. The extinction coefficients K\({}_{232}\) and K\({}_{268}\) were calculated according to the analytical method described by Regulation (EEC) 2568/91 (currently in force is Regulation (EU) 2022/2104) [24; 30], using spectrophotometric testing. A 100 mg sample of oil was dissolved in 25 mL of isooctane, and the extinction of the solution at the specified wavelengths was determined, compared with the pure solvent. Specific extinctions were calculated from the spectrophotometer readings using a quartz cell with a 1 cm optical path. All measurements were performed in triplicate. The sensory analysis was conducted according to document COI/T.20/Doc. N\({}^{\circ}\). 5 of 2007 [32]. The tasting panel consisted of 8 tasters (4 women and 4 men) aged between 25 and 45 years. They carried out the sensory evaluation and linked the flavor stimuli of the oils with a numerical scale (0-10) according to the standards [32]. Following the protocol for conducting the organoleptic test, with the necessary means established and the conditions indicated in the regulations clarified, the selected tasters smelled and tasted the sample in the tasting cup, analyzing perceptions through olfactory, gustatory, and retronasal pathways. On the standardized profile sheet according to the regulation, the tasters recorded and rated the presence and intensity of the aromas and flavors in each sample analyzed. In this analysis, positive perception was dedicated to the intensity of fruitiness, while negative perception was oriented toward identifying defects such as rancidity. However, commercial olive oil (OO) is not subjected to sensory analysis, as this type of evaluation is reserved for virgin olive oils (VOO) that have not undergone refining processes. Nevertheless, this testing procedure was included with the aim of establishing a methodology and observing trends associated with the chosen treatments. Moreover, since the final composition of commercial olive oil (OO) is organoleptically limited by the higher proportion of refined olive oil in the blend, only \"fruity\" intensity was considered a positive \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Group** & **Temperature (\({}^{\circ}\)C)** & **Exposure Time (Weeks)** & **Storage (Months)** \\ \hline T0b * & 0 & 0 & 12 \\ T7 & 40 & 1 & 12 \\ T8 & 40 & 2 & 12 \\ T9 & 40 & 3 & 12 \\ T10 & 60 & 1 & 12 \\ T11 & 60 & 2 & 12 \\ T12 & 60 & 3 & 12 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
* T0a and T0b correspond to the control samples.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: _Cont._attribute, while \"rancid\" and any defects potentially related to PET were considered defects.