LWT - Food Science and Technology 68 (2016) 365e372

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

LWT - Food Science and Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lwt

Sensory analysis of natural table olives: Relationship between

appearance of defect and gustatory-kinaesthetic sensation changes
Barbara Lanza*, Filomena Amoruso

Council for Agricultural Research and Economics (CREA), CREA-OLI Olive Growing and Oil Industry Research Centre, Viale Petruzzi 75, I-65013, Citta
Sant’Angelo, (PE), Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the present study, we evaluated sensory characteristics of table olives of the Italian double-aptitude
Received 9 August 2015 olive cultivar (Olea europaea L. cv. Itrana) processed as green (Oliva Bianca di Itri) and black (Oliva di
Received in revised form Gaeta) table olives, according to the Method for the sensory analysis of table olives of International Olive
18 December 2015
Council. The sensory attributes evaluated were: a) negative sensations or defects (abnormal fermenta-
Accepted 24 December 2015
Available online 29 December 2015
tions and other defects as butyric, putrid and zapateria, winey-vinegary, soapy, metallic, cooking effects,
rancid, musty and earthy defects); b) gustatory sensations (salty, bitter, acid) and c) kinaesthetic sen-
sations (hardness, fibrousness, crunchiness). Multivariate statistical analysis has been used to identify
Keywords:
Sensory analysis
similarities and differences between defected and un-defected samples. We carried out the Principal
Table olives Component Analysis on two data sets: the first data-set included all sensory parameters (data-set A),
Texture while the second data-set did not include abnormal fermentation and other defects (data-set B). The
Abnormal fermentations occurrence of negative sensations have a negative impact on gustative and kinaesthetic attributes. The
Defects samples classified as “Extra or Fancy” but with intensity of defect >1.0 are more similar to defected
samples, also not considering the defects as discriminant parameters.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction salt is added to the liquid in quantities not exceeding 8 kg per

The “natural olives”, according to the “Trade Standard Applying
to Table Olives” (IOC., 2004), are “green olives, olives turning colour
or black olives placed directly in brine in which they undergo
complete or partial fermentation, preserved or not by the addition
of acidifying agents”. The most important industrial preparation for
natural black olives takes the name “Greek-style” because it is
traditionally practiced in Greece utilizing Olea europaea L. Con-
servolea cv. (Balatsouras, 1990). Italy as well has a long tradition in
producing “natural olives”. In Lazio region, olives are prepared with
an ancient and traditional method, a modified Greek-style, that
provides an initial step of immersion in potable water (Lanza, Di
Serio, & Iannucci, 2013). The olives (Itrana cv.) destined to pro-
duce the famous Oliva di Gaeta are harvested at the stage of full
maturity in the months of February-March (very late compared to
most table olive cultivars). After 15e30 days of immersion in water,
* Corresponding author. Council for Agricultural Research and Economics (CREA),
CREA-OLI Olive Growing and Oil Industry Research Centre, Viale L. Petruzzi 75, I-
 Sant’Angelo, (PE), Italy.
65013, Citta
E-mail address: barbara.lanza@entecra.it (B. Lanza).
100 kg of fresh olives. After 4e6 months of storage in brine, the
olive flesh shows a typical red-wine colour and acidic taste prob-
ably due to the contribution of heterofermentative bacteria and
yeasts. In recent years another type of product named Oliva bianca
di Itri has evolved. The processing system is basically the same but
the Itrana fruits are collected at the beginning of ripening in the
months of November-December, when they reach their final size
and look green or turning-colour, and are immersed immediately in
water. After 30e45 days, salt is added to the liquid in quantities not
exceeding 8 kg per 100 kg of fresh olives and after 6e8 months, the
product is ready to eat.
The microorganisms that develop in these conditions are prin-
cipally yeasts and lactic acid bacteria (LAB). They transform the
substances (reducing sugars, glucosides, phenolic compounds)
present in the flesh and/or passed from the olive flesh into the brine
into lactic acid, ethanol, acetic acid, 3-methyl butanol, ethyl acetate,
CO2, secondary compounds and non-bitter compounds. The debit-
tering process is due to b-glucosidase and esterase activities of
spontaneous oleuropeinolytic microrganisms and to the diffusion
of phenolics to brine, but this phenomenon is slow and partial
(Corsetti, Perpetuini, Schirone, Tofalo, & Suzzi, 2012; Garrido

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2015.12.053
0023-6438/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
366 B. Lanza, F. Amoruso / LWT - Food Science and Technology 68 (2016) 365e372

Fernandez, Fernandez Diaz, & Adams, 1997). The presence of yeasts
and bacteria on and within the fermented olives was confirmed by
scanning electron microscopy. Yeasts predominate in the stomatal
openings, while bacteria are more numerous in intercellular spaces
in the sub-stomatal cells. Colonies of yeast cells were also present in
the hypoderm and in the first layers of mesocarp. Considerable
numbers of bacteria were present within colonies embedded
through-out the cell wall and inside the cells (Lanza & Marsilio,
2005; Nychas, Panagou, Parker, Waldron, & Tassou, 2002).
The produced lactic acid contributes to the lowering of the pH.
This then favours the growth of homofermentative lactobacilli,
with a predominance of Lactobacillus plantarum, that are aciduric.
In this phase it is possible that abnormal fermentations causing the
production of malodourous compounds responsible of defects
(Lanza, 2013) might occur.
Abnormal fermentation includes all those olfactory sensations
perceived directly or retronasally, reminiscent of the odour of
decomposing organic matter, cheese, butter, rotten eggs, muddy
sediment, sewer, rotten leather, caused by the development of
contaminating microorganisms as butyric and putrid fermenta-
tions. The predominance of yeasts with fermentative metabolism
and heterofermentative bacteria could be responsible for the
winey-vinegary defect, that is an olfactoryegustatory sensation
reminiscent of wine or vinegar, due to the high production of
ethanol, acetic acid, 3-methyl butanol and ethyl acetate, principally.
The development of pectinolytic and cellulolytic yeasts and
moulds is associated with “softening” of the fruit. This is due to the
action of their degrading enzymes that, respectively, act on pectic
substances that form the middle lamella, which leads to cell sep-
aration, and act on cellulose, hemicellulose and polysaccharides,
which damages the cell walls (Arroyo-Lo pez et al., 2012; Golomb
et al., 2013; Vaughn, Stevenson, Dave , & Park, 1972).
Fermentation processes can be controlled through chemical,
chemico-physical and microbiological approaches and, since 2008,
through organoleptic evaluation (COI/OT/MO/Doc.No1. Method for
the sensory analysis of table olives). On 25 November 2011, following
Decision No DEC- 18/99-V/2011, the International Olive Council
adopted a revised version of the method of sensory evaluation (COI/
OT/MONo 1/Rev.2) (IOC., 2011). The attributes to be evaluated for
table olives were: a) negative sensations or defects (abnormal fer-
mentations as butyric, putrid and zapateria, winey-vinegary, soapy,
metallic, cooking effects, rancid, musty and earthy defects); b)

Table 1
Code, processing treatments, median of Defect Predominantly Perceived (DPP), sensory classification of the products and some chemical characteristics (salt concentration,
polyphenol content and pH). AF ¼ abnormal fermentation; W ¼ winey-vinegary defect; n.d. not detected.

Code Processing treatments Median of DPP Classification % Salt Polyphenol content (mg/kg) pH

N-C6 Oliva di Gaeta 1.00 Extra 6.3 2239 3.8

N-SN Oliva di Gaeta 1.00 Extra 6.2 1783 4.3
N-RN Oliva di Gaeta 1.00 Extra 6.2 2660 4.9
N-UNIN Oliva di Gaeta 1.00 Extra 6.9 2015 4.6
N-ROC2N Oliva di Gaeta 1.00 Extra 5.5 1608 4.8
N-I5 Oliva di Gaeta 1.00 Extra 5.6 2838 3.2
N-I6 Oliva di Gaeta 1.00 Extra 6.0 2741 3.7
N-39/14 Oliva di Gaeta 1.00 Extra n.d. n.d. n.d.
N-I8 Oliva di Gaeta 1.00 Extra 6.7 2112 4.8
N-32/14 Oliva di Gaeta 1.00 Extra n.d. n.d. n.d.
N-34/14 Oliva di Gaeta 1.00 Extra n.d. n.d. n.d.
N-IN Oliva di Gaeta 1.00 Extra 5.9 1352 4.6
N-I7 Oliva di Gaeta 1.00 Extra 6.5 2123 4.7
N-I3 Oliva di Gaeta 1.00 Extra 4.1 1712 3.5
N-I2 Oliva di Gaeta 1.00 Extra 5.8 2183 3.9
N-I9 Oliva di Gaeta 1.00 Extra 6.4 2916 4.0
N-LEN* Oliva di Gaeta AF 3.00 Extra 5.4 2508 4.0
N-LN* Oliva di Gaeta AF 3.00 Extra 5.0 3151 3.9
N-LAZ* Oliva di Gaeta AF 2.70 Extra n.d. n.d. n.d.
ND-C12 Oliva di Gaeta AF 3.90 First 3.9 1296 4.1
ND-C2 Oliva di Gaeta W 3.10 First 6.0 2539 3.9
ND-C9 Oliva di Gaeta W 4.25 First 6.2 2661 3.7
ND-28/14 Oliva di Gaeta AF 3.95 First n.d. n.d. n.d.
ND-31/14 Oliva di Gaeta AF 4.25 First n.d. n.d. n.d.
ND-C8 Oliva di Gaeta W 3.90 First 4.2 1910 3.9
V-I11-B6 Oliva bianca 1.00 Extra 5.4 1088 4.2
V-I4 Oliva bianca 1.00 Extra 6.3 2686 3.9
V-38/14 Oliva bianca 1.00 Extra n.d. n.d. n.d.
V-30/14 Oliva bianca 1.00 Extra n.d. n.d. n.d.
V-RB Oliva bianca 1.00 Extra 5.5 1831 5.0
V-UNIB Oliva bianca 1.00 Extra 6.1 2134 4.7
V-C3 Oliva bianca 1.00 Extra 5.1 1121 4.0
V-29/14 Oliva bianca 1.00 Extra n.d. n.d. n.d.
V-I10-B3 Oliva bianca 1.00 Extra 5.6 1080 4.1
V-I1 Oliva bianca 1.00 Extra 7.4 2416 3.7
V-SB Oliva bianca 1.00 Extra 6.4 1350 4.8
V-35/14 Oliva bianca 1.00 Extra n.d. n.d. n.d.
V-36/14 Oliva bianca 1.00 Extra n.d. n.d. n.d.
V-IB Oliva bianca 1.00 Extra 6.0 1450 4.0
V-27/14 Oliva bianca 1.00 Extra n.d. n.d. n.d.
V-48C Oliva bianca 1.00 Extra n.d. n.d. n.d.
V-C10* Oliva bianca W 3.00 Extra 3.4 1366 3.9
V-C7* Oliva bianca AF 2.00 Extra 5.7 1962 3.7
VD-C11 Oliva bianca AF 3.45 First 4.0 1586 4.2
VD-LB Oliva bianca AF 4.00 First 5.3 2181 4.3
 B. Lanza, F. Amoruso / LWT - Food Science and Technology 68 (2016) 365e372 367

Fig. 1. The flowchart of techno-processing to obtain Itrana end-products.
gustatory sensations (salty, bitter, acid) and c) kinaesthetic sensa-
tions (hardness, fibrousness, crunchiness).
The negative attributes or defects are unpleasant sensations
caused by the production of substances responsible for off-odours,
which are not present in the fresh fruit or formed during well-
performed processing treatments and perceived directly or retro-
nasally. For classification purposes, only the median of the defect
predominantly perceived (DPP) was considered. According to the
DPP intensity, the olives were classified into four categories (Extra
or Fancy; First, 1st, Choice or Select; Second, 2nd or Standard; Olives
that should not be sold as table olives).
The gustatory sensations involve distinct areas of tongue: the
region affected by the perception of salty taste is the lateral-
anterior, the region affected by the perception of acid taste is the
posterior and the region affected by the perception of bitter taste is
the basis of tongue. The mammalian taste system is responsible for
sensing and responding to the five basic taste qualities: sweet, sour,
bitter, salty and umami. Each taste is detected by dedicated taste
receptor cells (TRCs) on the tongue and palate epithelium
(Yarmolinsky, Zuker, & Ryba, 2009). Recent studies (Barretto et al.,
2015) have demonstrated the highly specific transfer of taste in-
formation between taste cells and the central nervous system. The
tongue is only one of the tools that the brain utilizes to recognize
the different gustative tastes.
With the term “kinaesthetic sensations” (from the greek
kinhsh ¼ movement and aisqhsh ¼ sense) are indicated the
sensations deriving from the contact of the fruit with the mouth.
We could translate it as “musculoskeletal overall perception, in the
oral cavity, of the mechanical characteristics of the fruit”. The term
is a synonym of “texture” (Szczesniak, 2002). It is also defined as the
set of rheological (related to the flow and deformation of matter)
and structural (geometrical and surface) properties of a product
perceptible to the mechanical receptors, tactile receptors and in
some cases the visual and auditory receptors (Saeleaw &
Schleining, 2011; Taniwaki & Kohyama, 2012).
In the present study, we evaluated sensory characteristics of
table olives of the Italian double-aptitude olive cultivar (Olea
europaea L. cv. Itrana) processed as green (Oliva Bianca di Itri) and
black (Oliva di Gaeta) table olives with the aim to relate the negative
sensations with the gustatory and kinaesthetic attributes and, in
particular, to investigate if the occurrence of the defect has a
negative impact also in the samples classified as “Extra or Fancy”
but with intensity of defect >1.0 but 3.0.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Plant material and processing
To obtain Oliva bianca di Itri and Oliva di Gaeta table olives, fruits
from the cv. Itrana were hand-harvested at the green stage of
ripening at the beginning of November 2013 and at the black stage
in March 2014, respectively. Olives, size-graded (16e18 mm), were
processed with a modified Greek-style by table olive firms from
Latina (Lazio region) district (Itri, Cori, Rocca Massima and Son-
nino). 45 samples (25 processed as Oliva di Gaeta and 20 processed

Table 2
Specific vocabulary for table olive sensory analysis (COI/OT/MO No 1/Rev.2 - November 2011).

Negative attributes:

Abnormal Olfactory sensation perceived directly or retronasally, characteristic of abnormal fermentations. Such fermentation may be:
fermentation  Putrid: sensation reminiscent of the odour of decomposing organic matter
 Butyric: sensation reminiscent of butter or cheese
 Zapateria: sensation caused by the combination of volatile fatty acids reminiscent of rotten leather
Other defects Musty: olfactory-gustatory sensation perceived directly or retronasally, characteristic of olives attacked by mould
Wineyevinegary: olfactoryegustatory sensation reminiscent of wine or vinegar
Rancid: olfactory sensation perceived directly or retronasally, characteristic of olives that have undergone a process of rancidity
Cooking effect: olfactory sensation perceived directly or retronasally, characteristic of olives that have undergone excessive heating in terms of
temperature and/or duration during pasteurisation or sterilisation
Soapy: olfactoryegustatory sensation reminiscent of soap
Metallic: olfactoryegustatory sensation reminiscent of metals
Earthy: olfactory-gustatory sensation reminiscent of soil or dust
Descriptive gustatory attributes:
Salty Basic taste produced by aqueous solutions of substances such as sodium chloride
Bitter Basic taste produced by dilute aqueous solutions of substances such as quinine or caffeine
Acid Basic taste produced by dilute aqueous solutions of most acid substances, such as tartaric acid, citric acid
Kinaesthetic sensations (texture):
Hardness Mechanical textural attribute relating to the force required to attain the deformation of a product or for an object to penetrate it (knife, teeth, …). It is
evaluated by compressing the product between the teeth (solids) or between the tongue and palate (semi-solids).
Fibrousness Geometric textural attribute relating to the perception of the shape and the orientation of particles in a product. Fibrousness refers to the elongated
conformation of the particles, oriented in the same direction. It is evaluated by perceiving the fibres between the tongue and palate when chewing
the olive.
Crunchiness Attribute relating to the noise produced by friction or fracture between two surfaces. It is related to the force required to fracture a product with the
teeth and is determined by compressing the fruit between the molars.
368 B. Lanza, F. Amoruso / LWT - Food Science and Technology 68 (2016) 365e372

Table 3
The confidence intervals of the median at 95% for Oliva di Gaeta.

Samples Confidence intervals Abnormal fermentation Other defects Salty Bitter Acid Hardness Fibrousness Crunchiness

N-C6 C.I.upper 1.0 1.0 6.2 3.6 3.8 4.1 4.0 4.0
C.I.lower 1.0 1.0 4.4 3.1 2.6 2.7 1.6 2.3
N-SN C.I.upper 1.0 1.0 5.7 6.8 5.8 4.6 5.9 5.3
C.I.lower 1.0 1.0 4.7 3.2 2.3 2.7 2.7 4.4
N-RN C.I.upper 1.0 1.0 5.4 5.7 4.3 4.1 5.2 4.8
C.I.lower 1.0 1.0 4.4 2.5 1.7 2.7 2.8 4.0
N-UNIN C.I.upper 1.0 1.0 6.0 6.1 5.5 4.7 5.2 4.7
C.I.lower 1.0 1.0 4.5 3.8 2.9 3.3 3.2 3.7
N-ROC2N C.I.upper 1.0 1.0 5.1 4.8 3.8 4.1 3.5 4.1
C.I.lower 1.0 1.0 3.5 3.3 2.0 2.2 2.5 2.1
N-I5 C.I.upper 1.0 1.0 7.3 6.3 6.9 3.8 5.6 6.5
C.I.lower 1.0 1.0 2.9 3.7 3.1 2.2 2.2 2.9
N-I6 C.I.upper 1.0 1.0 5.7 5.7 6.6 3.6 6.0 4.7
C.I.lower 1.0 1.0 3.7 3.9 2.2 2.8 2.4 1.9
N-39/14 C.I.upper 1.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 4.7 3.6 4.0 4.4
C.I.lower 1.0 1.0 3.6 3.4 3.5 3.1 1.9 2.4
N-I8 C.I.upper 1.0 1.0 6.2 6.0 3.7 5.6 5.0 6.9
C.I.lower 1.0 1.0 4.7 4.8 1.9 4.0 2.9 3.5
N-32/14 C.I.upper 1.7 1.0 5.3 5.0 5.9 3.8 4v2 5.1
C.I.lower 0.3 1.0 3.9 4.2 4.1 2.8 2.6 2.5
N-34/14 C.I.upper 1.7 1.0 6.8 5.6 5.8 3.9 4.9 3.8
C.I.lower 0.3 1.0 4.6 3.6 3.9 2.8 2.6 2.7
N-IN C.I.upper 1.0 1.2 5.0 4.5 3.9 4.3 5.3 5.7
C.I.lower 1.0 0.8 3.2 3.2 2.2 2.2 1.8 3.6
N-I7 C.I.upper 1.0 1.4 5.4 5.0 3.4 4.9 4.3 5.4
C.I.lower 1.0 0.6 3.8 3.0 1.6 3.1 1.9 4.2
N-I3 C.I.upper 1.6 2.8 5.1 4.2 4.8 3.9 4.3 4.6
C.I.lower 0.4 0.8 3.1 3.0 2.4 1.7 1.5 1.8
N-I2 C.I.upper 2.1 1.0 5.8 4.5 3.9 4.3 4.5 5.2
C.I.lower 0.1 1.0 3.2 2.5 2.8 2.7 2.1 2.0
N-I9 C.I.upper 1.0 1.0 5.5 5.4 6.0 4.2 5.8 5.1
C.I.lower 1.0 1.0 3.7 3.4 2.6 3.2 3.2 3.1
N-LEN* C.I.upper 3.6 1.0 6.6 5.7 7.1 4.9 5.4 5.5
C.I.lower 2.4 1.0 5.0 4.3 4.9 2.7 2.4 4.5
N-LN* C.I.upper 3.8 1.0 5.8 6.5 6.1 4.0 5.3 4.7
C.I.lower 2.2 1.0 3.6 6.1 3.9 3.0 3.1 4.3
ND-LAZ* C.I.upper 4.4 1.0 6.9 6.9 6.5 4.6 5.8 5.5
C.I.lower 1.0 1.0 4.8 4.1 5.4 2.4 3.1 3.3
ND-C12 C.I.upper 4.5 1.0 4.5 4.2 6.6 3.1 4.0 3.5
C.I.lower 3.3 1.0 2.9 3.2 4.4 2.3 1.8 2.1
N-C2 C.I.upper 3.1 4.2 5.6 6.3 6.9 5.1 4.4 4.8
C.I.lower 1.1 2.0 4.0 4.4 4.3 2.9 2.0 2.7
ND-28/14 C.I.upper 4.5 2.3 6.2 6.4 6.3 4.6 5.6 5.4
C.I.lower 3.4 0.3 4.7 4.8 5.3 3.3 4.1 3.7
ND-C9 C.I.upper 5.3 5.1 5.5 4.9 7.1 2.5 2.6 2.7
C.I.lower 3.1 3.4 2.8 3.3 3.8 1.7 1.7 1.9
ND-C8 C.I.upper 6.2 4.6 5.2 4.5 7.9 3.6 2.7 2.7
C.I.lower 1.0 3.2 3.4 3.1 4.5 2.0 1.5 1.5
ND-31/14 C.I.upper 5.0 2.1 5.9 5.2 6.4 4.6 4.4 5.2
C.I.lower 3.5 0.1 4.7 4.6 4.8 2.7 2.6 3.3

as Oliva Bianca di Itri) were analyzed. The codes and technological
specifications are reported in Table 1. The salt concentration,
polyphenol content and pH are measured following the method-
ology reported in a previous work (Lanza, Di Serio & Iannucci,
2013). In Fig. 1 is reported the flowchart of the techno-processing.
2.2. Sensory evaluation of the end product
The organoleptic characteristics of the table olives were evalu-
ated by 8e10 panelists of the CREA-OLI Citt a Sant’Angelo Panel,
according to COI/OT/MO No 1/Rev.2. Method for the sensory analysis
of table olives (IOC., 2011). The principles of Quantitative Descriptive
Analysis (QDA) were utilized to define the typical sensory profile of
each end-product (Lawless & Heymann, 2010; Murray, Delahunty,
& Baxter, 2001; Stone, Sidel, Oliver, Woolsey, & Singleton, 1974).
The sensory analysis of table olives takes in account the negative
attributes or defects, the descriptive gustatory attributes and the
kinaesthetic sensations described in Table 2. The sensory panel was
trained by tasting reference standards of 2-mercaptoethanol to
evaluate putrid fermentation, butyric acid to evaluate butyric
fermentation, cyclohexanecarboxilic acid to evaluate zapateria,
sodium chloride to evaluate salty, quinine to evaluate bitter, lactic
acid to evaluate acid, Leerdammer cheese and raw carrot to eval-
uate hardness, Granny Smith apple and pineapple core to evaluate
fibrousness and peach in syrup and celery stalk to evaluate
crunchiness. The table olive profile sheet uses unstructured line
scales of 10 cm length that range from 1.0 (no perception) to 11.0
(extreme). To elaborate sensory data, it was applied the method for
calculating the median, the robust standard deviation (s*), the
robust coefficient of variation percentage (CVr%) and the confi-
dence intervals of the median at 95% (C.I.upper and C.I.lower) con-
tained in Annex 1 (COI/OT/MO/n 1/Rev.2 Annex 1 Method for
calculating the median and the confidence intervals) (IOC., 2011)
taking into account those attributes with a robust coefficient of
variation of 20% or less. For classification purposes, only the median
of the defect predominantly perceived (DPP) was considered.
 B. Lanza, F. Amoruso / LWT - Food Science and Technology 68 (2016) 365e372 369

Table 4
The confidence intervals of the median at 95% for Oliva Bianca di Itri.

Samples Confidence intervals Abnormal fermentation Other defects Salty Bitter Acid Hardness Fibrousness Crunchiness

V-I11_B6 C.I.upper 1.0 1.0 5.4 6.0 5.3 6.3 6.2 6.1
C.I.lower 1.0 1.0 3.8 4.5 2.8 4.7 4.1 4.6
V-I4 C.I.upper 1.0 1.0 7.0 5.8 5.1 6.7 8.0 6.5
C.I.lower 1.0 1.0 5.0 4.1 3.3 5.1 4.3 4.9
V-38/14 C.I.upper 1.0 1.0 6.4 5.8 5.2 6.5 6.4 6.6
C.I.lower 1.0 1.0 5.4 4.2 3.6 4.9 5.6 5.4
V-30/14 C.I.upper 1.0 1.0 5.1 6.4 4.9 5.8 5.8 6.3
C.I.lower 1.0 1.0 4.3 5.0 3.5 5.3 3.9 5.3
V-RB C.I.upper 1.0 1.0 5.9 4.9 5.3 7.5 6.9 7.0
C.I.lower 1.0 1.0 5.5 3.3 2.1 4.9 5.5 5.8
V-UNIB C.I.upper 1.0 1.0 5.1 5.7 5.3 6.5 5.7 7.0
C.I.lower 1.0 1.0 4.2 4.0 3.9 4.2 2.6 5.0
V-C3 C.I.upper 1.0 1.0 5.9 5.6 6.0 5.9 6.1 6.0
C.I.lower 1.0 1.0 4.6 4.0 2.9 5.5 3.2 4.3
V-29/14 C.I.upper 1.0 1.0 5.4 6.3 6.0 6.5 6.5 6.8
C.I.lower 1.0 1.0 4.5 5.1 3.3 5.0 4.6 5.6
V-I10_B3 C.I.upper 1.0 1.0 5.4 6.2 5.3 7.5 7.4 7.8
C.I.lower 1.0 1.0 4.1 4.5 3.9 5.0 3.3 6.0
V-I1 C.I.upper 1.0 1.0 6.6 5.3 5.4 7.3 7.4 7.0
C.I.lower 1.0 1.0 4.8 3.7 3.6 5.2 3.7 5.1
V-SB C.I.upper 1.0 1.0 6.2 7.4 4.2 8.1 8.5 8.0
C.I.lower 1.0 1.0 4.9 4.3 2.4 5.5 3.5 6.1
V-35/14 C.I.upper 1.0 1.0 6.2 5.3 4.4 6.4 5.9 6.6
C.I.lower 1.0 1.0 4.6 3.9 3.8 5.4 3.7 4.4
V-36/14 C.I.upper 1.0 1.0 6.2 5.5 5.4 7.4 6.5 7.0
C.I.lower 1.0 1.0 4.2 3.7 4.4 5.1 5.5 5.4
V-IB C.I.upper 2.8 1.0 6.2 5.5 5.7 6.7 6.5 7.5
C.I.lower 0.8 1.0 4.7 3.6 2.3 4.9 4.0 5.8
V-27/14 C.I.upper 1.0 1.0 6.6 6.1 6.2 6.4 6.2 6.6
C.I.lower 1.0 1.0 5.4 5.0 3.9 5.5 4.7 5.4
V-48C C.I.upper 1.0 1.0 5.8 5.5 5.3 7.1 6.3 7.2
C.I.lower 1.0 1.0 4.5 4.3 4.0 4.4 4.6 4.8
V-C10* C.I.upper 1.0 3.7 4.9 4.2 5.3 5.2 5.7 5.3
C.I.lower 1.0 2.3 3.3 3.1 4.0 4.3 3.3 3.2
V-C7* C.I.upper 3.5 1.0 4.8 4.2 4.4 6.3 6.6 5.3
C.I.lower 0.5 1.0 4.0 3.6 3.2 3.2 4.4 4.1
VD-C11 C.I.upper 4.4 1.0 4.1 5.3 4.6 6.2 5.4 5.5
C.I.lower 2.5 1.0 3,1 4.2 3.8 4.6 4.4 3.7
VD-LB C.I.upper 6.4 1.0 5.3 5.8 4.6 4.7 5.3 5.3
C.I.lower 1.6 1.0 4.1 4.2 3.0 4.1 2.3 4.5

According to the DPP intensity, the olives were classified into four
categories:
 Extra or Fancy: 1.0 < DPP 3.0
 First, 1st, Choice or Select: 3.0 < DPP 4.5
 Second, 2nd or Standard: 4.5 < DPP 7.0
 Olives that should not be sold as table olives: 7.0 < DPP 11.0
2.3. Multivariate analyses
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was carried out by the
software Past PAleontological STatistics (Version 2.12, Øyvind
Hammer, Natural History Museum, University of Oslo). We carried
out the Principal Component Analysis on two data sets: the data-set
A included all sensory parameters (abnormal fermentation, other
defects, salty, bitter, acid, hardness, fibrousness and crunchiness),
while the data-set B did not include abnormal fermentation and
other defects.
3. Results and discussion
The confidence intervals of the median at 95% (C.I.upper and
C.I.lower) were reported in Table 3 (Oliva di Gaeta) and Table 4 (Oliva
Bianca di Itri). Graphical presentations of the data, obtained using
the average values of the confidence intervals had involved the use
of cobweb ring graphs. The different organoleptic parameters had
contributed to define a sensory QDA ring profile of each product
(Fig. 2). The results showed that the two technological processes
generated from sensory point of view two different end-products
(Oliva di Gaeta and Oliva Bianca di Itri). In Oliva di Gaeta, at the
same time of defect insurgence, the acidity of the flesh increased. In
Oliva Bianca di Itri, the defect seemed to influence all parameters.
Fermentation of natural olives takes a long time because diffu-
sion of soluble components through the epidermis, in fruits not
treated with alkali, is slow. A diverse microbiota grows in these
water and brine solutions, although lactic acid bacteria, which are
mainly represented by L. plantarum, and yeasts are the microor-
ganisms that are present throughout all the process. In such
spontaneous fermentations, the natural microflora present on the
fruit skin is often uncontrollable and unpredictable.
In Table 1 was reported the classification of the samples in
relation to the defect predominantly perceived (DPP). Between
Oliva di Gaeta samples, three samples (N-LEN*, N-LN* and N-LAZ*)
show a median value of DPP 3.0 and therefore they were classified
as “Extra or Fancy”, while six samples were classified as “First, 1st,
Choice or Select” (3.0 < DPP  4.5). Between Oliva Bianca di Itri
samples, two samples (VeC10* and VeC7*) show a median value of
DPP 3.0 and therefore they were classified as “Extra or Fancy”,
while two samples were classified as “First, 1st, Choice or Select”
(3.0 < DPP  4.5). There were no samples classified as “Second, 2nd
or Standard”. All the remaining samples not presenting defects
370 B. Lanza, F. Amoruso / LWT - Food Science and Technology 68 (2016) 365e372

Fig. 2. QDA ring profile for: a) Oliva di Gaeta un-defected olives; b) Oliva di Gaeta defected olives; c) Oliva Bianca di Itri un-defected olives; d) Oliva Bianca di Itri defected olives.

were classified as “Extra or Fancy”.
Multivariate statistical analysis had been used to recognize
which information coming from measured sensory parameters,
was relevant to identify similarities and differences between
defected and un-defected samples. In particular, we had investi-
gated if the occurrence of the defect had a negative impact on
gustative and kinaesthetic attributes, also in the samples classified
as “Extra or Fancy” but with intensity of defect>1.0.
We carried out the Principal Component Analysis on two data
sets: the first data-set included all sensory parameters (data-set A),
while the second data-set did not include abnormal fermentation
and other defects (data-set B).
Analyzing the covariance matrix and the loadings of data-set A,
PC1 describes 58.5% of the variance and its loadings indicate that it
contains high contributions (about 0.50) from the kinaesthetic at-
tributes (hardness, fibrousness and crunchiness), while PC2 de-
scribes 19.4% of the variance showing a high loading for the
abnormal fermentation and acid (>0.60) (Table 5). The score plot
generated from comparison of the first two PCs is showed in Fig. 3.
Analyzing the covariance matrix and the loadings of data-set B,
PC1 describes 70.3% of the variance and its loadings indicate that it
contains high contributions (>0.50) from the kinaesthetic attri-
butes (hardness, fibrousness and crunchiness), while PC2 describes
15.7% of the variance showing a very high loading for acid (0.89)
(Table 6). The score plot generated from comparison of the first two
PCs is showed in Fig. 4. The defected and un-defected samples for

Table 5
Loadings of variables of data-set A on the first eight components.

PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5 PC6 PC7 PC8

% variance 58,523 19,363 6,861 6,3875 3,2566 2,4981 1,8433 1,2668

% cumulative variance 58,523 77,886 84,747 91,1345 94,3911 96,8892 98,7325 99,9993
Salty 0,161 0,1008 0,05431 0,4545 0,1931 0,8393 0,06951 0,0887
Bitter 0,1562 0,2875 0,07964 0,4359 0,6898 0,189 0,3836 0,1945
Acid 0,1005 0,6039 0,4354 0,3458 0,2682 0,3004 0,3916 0,0232
Hardness 0,5554 0,1194 0,1686 0,4207 0,005659 0,03749 0,1352 0,6724
Fibrousness 0,4733 0,1645 0,00794 0,01436 0,4897 0,235 0,6091 0,2875
Crunchiness 0,5537 0,1151 0,1165 0,06377 0,3027 0,0924 0,4636 0,5894
Ab. Fermentation 0,2652 0,6793 0,5342 0,3746 0,02753 0,1954 0,05973 0,000738
Other defects 0,1737 0,1627 0,6882 0,4028 0,2876 0,2574 0,2947 0,2676
 B. Lanza, F. Amoruso / LWT - Food Science and Technology 68 (2016) 365e372 371

Fig. 3. PCA score plot of data-set A.

Table 6
Loadings of variables of data-set B on the first six components.

PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5 PC6

% variance 70,29 15,681 5,3665 4,0175 2,7733 1,8711

% cumulative variance 70,29 85,971 91,3375 95,355 98,1283 99,9994
Salty 0,169 0,1968 0,4514 0,7759 0,3158 0,1647
Bitter 0,1803 0,388 0,6356 0,4808 0,2467 0,3478
Acid 0,05747 0,8913 0,3931 0,0131 0,1513 0,157
Hardness 0,5886 0,09504 0,4014 0,1348 0,3416 0,5903
Fibrousness 0,5011 0,06771 0,189 0,3189 0,773 0,09712
Crunchiness 0,5815 0,05154 0,2022 0,216 0,3199 0,6851

Fig. 4. PCA score plot of data-set B.

372 B. Lanza, F. Amoruso / LWT - Food Science and Technology 68 (2016) 365e372
each process were distributed in separate areas. The samples
classified as “Extra or Fancy” but with intensity of defect >1.0 were
more similar to defected samples, also not considering the defects
as discriminant parameters. In particular, the samples marked with
an asterisk (N-LEN*, N-LN*, N-LAZ*, V-C10* and V-C7*) are grouped
with the respective defected samples, despite they are classified as
“Extra or Fancy” (this category agrees the presence of defects up to
3.0 of median value). This phenomenon is evident even when the
data-set don't comprises negative sensations (data-set B). There-
fore, the occurrence of the defect changes the entire profile of the
olive.
4. Conclusion
Sensory Analysis showed that, at the same time of defect
insurgence, principally the acidity of the flesh of Oliva di Gaeta
increased, while in Oliva Bianca di Itri, the defect seemed to influ-
ence all parameters (both gustative and kinaesthetic attributes
decreased).
The Principal Component Analysis showed that the defected and
un-defected samples for each process were distributed in separate
areas and the samples classified as “Extra or Fancy” but with in-
tensity of defect >1.0 were more similar to defected samples, also
not considering the defects as discriminant parameters.
Acknowledgements
The Authors wish to thank G. D'Achille, G. Leonardi and A. Bono

from ASPOL Latina for sampling and panelists of the CREA-OLI Citta
Sant’Angelo Panel for their voluntary contribution.
References
Arroyo-Lopez, F. N., Romero-Gil, V., Bautista-Gallego, J., Rodríguez-Go  mez, F.,
nez-Díaz, R., García-García, P. A., et al. (2012). Yeasts in table olive pro-
Jime
cessing: desirable or spoilage microorganisms? International Journal of Food
Microbiology, 160, 42e49.
Balatsouras, G. (1990). Edible olive cultivars, chemical composition of fruit, har-
vesting, transportation, processing, sorting and packaging, styles of black olives,
deteriorations, quality standards, chemical analyses, nutritional and biological
value of the product. In Proceedings of International Seminar “Olio d’oliva e olive
”, Citta di S. Angelo (Pe), Italy.
da tavola: tecnologia e qualita
Barretto, R. P. J., Gillis-Smith, S., Chandrashekar, J., Yarmolinsky, D. A.,
Schnitzer, M. J., Ryba, N. J. P., et al. (2015). The neural representation of taste
quality at the periphery. Nature, 517, 373e376.
Corsetti, A., Perpetuini, G., Schirone, M., Tofalo, R., & Suzzi, G. (2012). Application of
starter cultures to table olive fermentation: an overview on the experimental
studies. Frontiers in Microbiology, 3, 1e6.
Garrido Fernandez, A., Fernandez Diaz, M. J., & Adams, R. M. (1997). Table Olives:
Production and processing. London, UK: Chapman & Hall.
Golomb, B. L., Morales, V., Jung, A., Yau, B., Boundy-Mills, K. L., & Marco, M. L. (2013).
Effects of pectinolytic yeast on the microbial composition and spoilage of olive
fermentations. Food Microbiology, 33, 97e106.
IOC.. (2004). Trade standard applying to table olives COI/OT/NC No 1 December 2004.
Madrid, Spain: International Olive Oil Council.
IOC.. (2011). Method for the sensory analysis of table olives COI/OT/MO/Doc. No 1/Rev.
2. Madrid, Spain: International Olive Oil Council.
Lanza, B. (2013). Abnormal fermentations in table-olive processing: microbial origin
and sensory evaluation. Frontiers in Microbiology, 4, 1e7.
Lanza, B., Di Serio, M. G., & Iannucci, E. (2013). Effects of maturation and processing
technologies on nutritional and sensory qualities of Itrana table olives. Grasas y
Aceites, 64, 272e284.
Lanza, B., & Marsilio, V. (2005). Microbial colonization of olive fruit tissues during
fermentation. In 7MCM, Portoroz, Slovenia, 26e30 June.
Lawless, H. T., & Heymann, H. (2010). Sensory evaluation of food. Principles and
practices. New York, USA: Springer.
Murray, J. M., Delahunty, C. M., & Baxter, I. A. (2001). Descriptive sensory analysis:
past, present and future. Food Resesearch International, 34, 461e471.
Nychas, G. J. E., Panagou, E. Z., Parker, M. L., Waldron, K. W., & Tassou, C. C. (2002).
Microbial colonization of naturally black olives during fermentation and asso-
ciated biochemical activities in the cover brine. Letters in Applied Microbiology,
34, 173e177.
Saeleaw, M., & Schleining, G. (2011). A review: crispness in dry foods and quality
measurements based on acousticemechanical destructive techniques. Journal of
Food Engineering, 105, 387e399.
Stone, H., Sidel, J., Oliver, S., Woolsey, A., & Singleton, R. C. (1974). Sensory evaluation
by quantitative descriptive analysis. Food Technology, 28, 24e34.
Szczesniak, A. S. (2002). Texture is a sensory property. Food Quality and Preference,
13, 215e225.
Taniwaki, M., & Kohyama, K. (2012). Mechanical and acoustic evaluation of potato
chip crispness using a versatile texture analyzer. Journal of Food Engineering, 112,
268e273.
Vaughn, R. H., Stevenson, K. E., Dave , B. A., & Park, H. C. (1972). Fermenting yeasts
associated with softening and gas-pocket formation in olives. Applied Microbi-
ology, 23, 316e320.
Yarmolinsky, D. A., Zuker, C. S., & Ryba, N. J. (2009). Common sense about taste:
from mammals to insects. Cell, 139, 234e244.