## 3 Results and Discussion
### Sensorial Analysis of Formulations
#### 3.4.1 Odor Analysis of Formulations  
The organoleptic properties were evaluated by untrained volunteers. In this preliminary study, the odor of Unl-ME was mainly classified as without odor. However, the odor of LEE-ME was classified as a slightly perceptible and perceptible odor, indicating that LEE confers odor to the ME. LEE-ME odor after volunteers being informed about formulation composition (AI, see Section 2) presented a pattern similar in odor intensity comparatively to LEE-ME before the information (Figure 5A), indicating that the information about the composition of LEE-ME did not change the odor perception of ME. Figure 4: (**A**) Photograph images of ME and macroemulsions: Unl-ME (a), LEE-ME (b), Unl-Macro (c) and LEE-Macro (d); (**B**) Effect of shear rate on apparent viscosity of macroemulsions; (**C**) Effect of oscillation frequency sweep test in the G’ and G” in macroemulsions. The volunteers that identified odor in the ME were questioned about the type of odor (Figure 5B). There was no consensus about the odor of Unl-ME since all classification was observed. The presence of LEE influenced the odor perception when compared with Unl-ME: initially the majority classified the odor as undefined, and after being informed about the LEE-ME composition (LEE-ME (AI)), the majority of volunteers still answered as undefined odor. The odor perception was quite similar before and after information, being classified as a pleasant and fresh/hot, unpleasant or even very unpleasant (Figure 5B). Therefore, the presence of LEE into the ME changed the odor intensity and its perception, but the information about the composition of LEE-ME did not modify the odor perception. The likelihood of buying different personal care products with the odor of each ME was also evaluated in the same 25 untrained volunteers (Table S2 of supplementary material). The likelihood of buying a face and body cream with the odor of LEE-ME was the same or even lower when compared with Unl-ME, respectively. However, after information about the composition of LEE-ME, it was possible to observe an increase in the percentage of answers \"likely\" and \"quite likely\". The same profile was also observed for likelihood of buying a shampoo: the percentage of answers \"would never buy\" was higher for LEE-ME than the respective Unl-ME, but the percentage of answers \"likely\" and \"quite likely\" increased for LEE-ME (AI). Concerning the toothpaste, overall, the likelihood of buying a product with the odor of ME was low, since around 80% of volunteers either answered \"would never buy\" or \"quite likely\". The information about the composition of LEE-ME presented a positive impact in the acceptability of some cosmetic/personal care product, but not in all products, such as toothpaste, where the undefined odor of formulations can be the main limitation. The odor intensity of Unl-Macro and LEE-Macro was mainly classified as slightly perceptible. When informed about the composition of LEE-Macro (LEE-Macro (AI)) the odor intensity slightly changed, being mainly classified either as a slightly perceptible or as perceptible (Figure 5C). Concerning the odor perception, the majority identified the odor as undefined for all macroemulsions and a small number of volunteers identified the odor as unpleasant, pleasant and fresh or even pleasant and hot. Contrary to the ME, the presence of LEE did not influence the odor perception in the LEE-Macro, neither in LEE-Macro (AI) (Figure 5D). Figure 5: Sensorial analysis of odor in ME (**A**,**B**) and macroemulsions (**C**,**D**). The odor intensity (**A**,**C**) and the classification of odor (**B**,**D**) of formulations were evaluated by the 25 untrained volunteers. The likelihood of buying a face cream, a body cream or a shampoo with the odor of the LEE-Macro was higher than Unl-Macro, since LEE-Macro showed higher percentage of answers \"likely\".