Research Article

Received: 19 January 2016 Revised: 24 June 2016 Accepted article published: 6 July 2016 Published online in Wiley Online Library: 1 August 2016

(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI 10.1002/jsfa.7883

Influence of olive ripening degree and crusher

typology on chemical and sensory
characteristics of Correggiolo virgin olive oil
Lucia Morrone,a Sabrina Pupillo,b Luisa Neri,a Giampaolo Bertazza,a
Massimiliano Maglia and Annalisa Rotondia*

Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this study, two types of crusher, hammer and blade, were used to produce olive oils from cv. Correggiolo
olives at four stages of ripeness, to analyse the effect of these two factors on oil quality indices (free acidity, peroxide value,
UV absorption), on phenolic compounds content and sensory profiles. Differences in chemical and sensory data were analysed
by two-way ANOVA.

RESULTS: Ripeness exerted a stronger influence than the crushing equipment on quality indices, phenolic content and
sensory evaluation; moreover the statistical significance of interaction between the factors considered suggests that they are
intertwined. Differences in the texture of olive pastes obtained by squashing and crushing were clearly evident at the first stage
of ripeness via observation with a scanning electron microscope. The stronger mechanical action of the hammer crusher also
produced smaller pit fragments compared to the blade crusher, as shown by particle size analysis of the kernels fragments.

CONCLUSION: Knowledge about the interaction between ripening and crushing will allow olive oil producers to pursue a product
of the quality most suitable for a particular type of consumer. For example, bitterness and pungency, characters recently
connected with health effects because sensory markers of extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) polyphenols, do not have a great sensory
appeal for most consumers; however, there is a niche of gourmet estimators interested in these peculiar flavours and ready
to pay a premium price for them. The producer will be able to customise the EVOO by modulating its chemical and sensory
characteristics, especially the phenolic fraction, thus addressing the needs of consumers with different tastes.
© 2016 Society of Chemical Industry

Supporting information may be found in the online version of this article.

Keywords: extra virgin olive oil; ripeness; typologies of crushers; storage; SEM

INTRODUCTION and the production of oils characterised by a lower level of bitter-

Extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) is obtained from olives only by
mechanical or other physical means. It is one of the few vegetable
oils that can be consumed without refining, and has an important
economic relevance. EVOO consumption in the world is increasing
thanks to its nutritional value1 and its peculiar aroma, both due to
minor components such as phenolic and volatiles compounds.2,3
These classes of compounds originate during the extraction pro-
cess pointing out how extraction is crucial for the EVOO quality.4,5
The olive processing consists of several technological steps such
as crushing, kneading, malaxing, filtration and packaging, with
each step able to affect the final quality of the product. Crushing
and malaxation are the most important steps and influence both
yield and quality of the oil extracted.6 In fact, during these steps the
biogeneration and transformation of phenolic compounds starts
and is carried out by the enzymes 𝛽-glucosidase and esterase, and
oxidative enzymes such as polyphenol oxidase, peroxidase and
lipooxygenase.7
The stone mill was the first crusher used to obtain olive oil;
this typology of crusher is still used nowadays but it has some
ness and thus less interesting from an health point of view even
if appreciated by consumers. In order to overcome the disadvan-
tages of the stone mill, different types of crusher have been devel-
oped, such as the hammer crusher, blade crusher and toothed disc
crusher. All these typologies can be part of a continuous process,
while the energy released in the crushing chamber is different for
each crusher, resulting in a different increase of the olive paste
temperature.8
Several studies in last few years compared different typologies
of olive crushers; some of them9 – 11 studied the changes in EVOO
∗ Correspondence to: A Rotondi, Institute of Biometeorology – National
Research Council, Via Gobetti 101, 40129 Bologna, Italy.
E-mail: a.rotondi@ibimet.cnr.it
a Institute of Biometeorology, National Research Council, Via Gobetti 101, 40129
Bologna, Italy
b Department of Food Science, University of Parma, Parco Area delle Scienze,
1443

disadvantages such as the low working capacity, the yield rate 59/a, 43124, Parma, Italy

J Sci Food Agric 2017; 97: 1443–1450 www.soci.org © 2016 Society of Chemical Industry
 www.soci.org
produced by the use of the stone mill crusher and hammer crusher;
others6,8 compared the hammer crusher to the disc crusher; Prez-
iuso et al.12 compared the blade crusher to the stone mill while
other authors13,14 focused on the effects of the hammer crusher
with respect to the blade crusher. However, to our knowledge no
study has been focused so far on the interactions between the
two variables crushing and olive ripeness. The different degree
of ripeness affects significantly the chemical characteristics of
EVOO,15 – 17 and the impact of the fruit ripening stage on the oil
chemical composition is greater than the impact ascribable to the
fruit variety itself.18 In addition, the chemical changes occurring in
oils during storage are influenced by the initial chemical compo-
sition of the oil19 and by the oxidative process involving phenols
that occurs normally in the oils and could be accelerated by the
processing steps.20
The aim of this work was to compare olive oils produced using
two crushing systems at four different stage of olive ripeness in
order to better understand the mutual influence of those two fac-
tors on the chemical and sensory properties of EVOO. Furthermore,
the chemical and sensory analyses were repeated 6 months after
crushing to check the evolution of EVOO chemical and sensory
characteristics during storage.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Plant material
The research was carried out on olive plants of the cultivar Cor-
reggiolo cultivated in an experimental field in the Emilia Romagna
Region, Italy. The olive drupes were manually harvested from eight
20-year-old trees at four different stages of ripeness, starting on 18
October 2013 and ending on 12 December 2013. Considering that
the optimal ripening index for the Correggiolo cultivar is included
in the range 2–2.5 of the Jaén index,21 as stated by Rotondi and
Magli,22 the harvesting dates were designed in order to obtain an
early, two medium and one late stage of ripeness.
Olive processing and storage of the oils
For drupes crushing, a low scale mill (Olio Mio Baby 50; Toscana
Enologica Mori, Firenze, Italy) with the possibility to be equipped
with both a hammer and a blade crusher, and characterised
by an horizontal kneader and two phase decanters, was used.
Both hammer and blade crushers have three crushing members,
the grid that contained the crushing chamber had holes with a
diameter of 5 mm and the angular velocity for both the crushers
was set at 2800 rpm.
The temperature (24 ∘ C) and time of malaxation (20 min), the
speed of the decanter (4200 rpm) and the flux of water in the
separator (0.8 L h−1 ) were standardised in order to minimise the
variability due to the extraction procedures. Oils samples were
filtered through cotton filters, poured in dark glass bottles and
stored in a temperature controlled cupboard set at 15 ± 1 ∘ C.
Scanning electron microscopy
A sample of olive paste (20 mL) was taken at the exit of the
crusher chamber for each of the eight batches; olive paste sam-
ples were fixed in glutaraldehyde in 0.1 mmol L−1 phosphate buffer
(pH 7.2), completely dehydrated through submersions in a series
of increasing concentration of ethanol solutions, and finally dehy-
drated in carbon dioxide using a CPD processor (CPD 030; Balz-
ers, Schalksmühlen, Germany). All dried specimens were mounted
1444
on stubs using double-sided sticky tape and coated with gold in
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa © 2016 Society of Chemical Industry
L Morrone et al.
an Edwards S150B sputter coater (Sussex, UK), and the processed
samples were observed with a field emission scanning microscope
(LEO 1530; Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany) operated at an accelera-
tion voltage of 5 kV. A total of 80 observations were carried out for
each crushing system.
Pit particles size analysis
A volume of 80 mL of olive paste for each sample was collected
after crushing for particle size analysis of kernels fragments that
was performed by the computerised image analysis system Leica
Application Suite (Leica, Hamburg, Germany). Parameters of area,
length and width for each kernel fragment were recorded for
each extraction batch. Seven hundred fragments of kernels were
subjected to image analysis for every kind of crushing system.
Analytical indices
Free acidity, peroxide value, and UV-spectrophotometric indices
(K 232 , K 270 ,) were evaluated according to the official methods
described in Regulation EEC 2568/9123 and following amend-
ments of the Commission of the European Union. All parameters
were calculated in triplicate for each sample.
Analysis of the phenolic fraction
The phenolic fraction was extracted in triplicate according to Pirisi
et al.24 with some modifications: 8 g of oil sample were added
to 4 mL of n-hexane and 8 mL of a methanol/water (60:40, v:v)
solution; after vigorous shaking, the hydro-alcoholic phase was
collected and the extraction was repeated twice. The combined
extracts were evaporated to dryness, suspended in 1 mL of a
methanol/water (50:50, v:v) solution and filtered through a 0.2 μm
RC (Whatman Inc., Clifton, NJ, USA); the samples were then sub-
jected to spectroscopic determination of total phenols, analysis of
free radical scavenging activity and chromatographic analysis by
HPLC-DAD.
The total phenol content of the hydro-alcoholic extracts was
determined by the Folin–Ciocalteu spectrophotometric method
at 750 nm (Jasco Spectrophometer V-500; Jasco, Tokyo, Japan), and
the results were expressed as mg gallic acid kg−1 oil.25
The HPLC analyses of phenolic fraction was carried out using a
HPLC system equipped with pump LC-10 AD VP (Shimadzu, Kyoto,
Japan), a degasser Gastorr 154 (Flom, Tokyo, Japan), a low pres-
sure gradient unit FCV-10Alvp (Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan), column
oven CTO-10A (Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan), a rheodyne injector with
a 20 𝜇L loop and diode-array UV–visible detector (DAD) UV 6000
(ThermoQuest, San Josè, CA, USA). Analytes were separated on a
Kinetex 5 μ C18 150 × 4.6 mm (Phenomenex, Torrance, CA, USA)
column and revealed at wavelengths of 280 nm and 330 nm. The
mobile phase flow rate was 1 mL min−1 and the gradient elu-
tion used was in accordance with Rotondi et al.17 The quantifica-
tion of the oleuropein and ligstroside derivatives was performed
using oleouropein glucoside calibration curve; hydroxytyrosol was
quantified using tyrosol calibration curve while tyrosol, luteolin
and apigenin were quantified using the calibration curves of their
relative analytical standard.
Sensory analysis
Sensory analysis was performed by the panel of Agency for Agro-
food Section Services of Marche region (ASSAM), a fully-trained
analytical taste panel recognised by the International Olive Oil
Council (IOC) of Madrid, Spain, and by the Italian Ministry for Agri-
culture, Food, and Forestry Policy. Since the main objective of
J Sci Food Agric 2017; 97: 1443–1450
Hammer vs. blade crusher at four olive ripeness stages www.soci.org

the sensory UE method 2568/91 and following revision (EC Reg.

796/02) is to give a commercial classification of the oils, a panel
test was established for the present study using a standard profile
sheet (IOC/T20)26 modified by IBIMET-CNR,27 which allows a more
complete description of the organoleptic properties of the sam-
pled oils to be obtained, including secondary positive flavours.

Statistical analysis
Data were processed using SAS software 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc.,
Cary, NC, USA). The significant differences in pit particle size as well
as in the ripening stages between the two types of crushers under
study were tested by the analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed
by a Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test. Chemical
and sensory data were analysed using statistical procedure based
on the analysis of variance by a complete factorial design in
order to examine treatment interdependencies (crusher system
and ripeness).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Scanning electron microscopy and pit particle size analysis
The scanning electron microscopy (SEM) observations of the olive
paste samples obtained from fruits at the first stage of ripeness and
processed with the blade crusher revealed a good preservation
of the cellular structures, indeed the cellular lumes are easily
recognisable (Fig. 1a). Contrarily, in the olive paste processed
with the hammer crusher it was not possible to recognise a
structural organisation of tissues, since the cells are squashed and
collapsed (Fig. 1b). These noteworthy differences in olive paste
processed with the two crushing systems were detectable only
at the first stage of ripeness, while no differences were found in
samples collected at the following stages, probably due to the
action of the pectolytic enzymes that start to degrade the middle
lamella, causing a loss of consistency of the olive fruit during
the ripening process. In contrast with our findings Veillet et al.,11
comparing via SEM olive paste samples milled using stone mill
and hammer crusher, observed a very good conservation of the
cellular structures in samples processed by a hammer crusher
compared to samples crushed by stone mill, where a destruction
of the intercellular structures for the flattening action of the stone
mill was observed. The structural differences we observed may be
imputable to the more violent action of the hammer compared to
the blades.
The results of the granulometric analysis of kernel fragments
derived from the two different crushing systems are shown in
Fig. 2. Since no significant differences were found in area, length
and width of kernel fragments collected at the four stages of
ripeness the samples were all considered replicas so the resulting
differences are imputable only to the type of crusher used. The
hammer crusher exerted a more violent action causing the pit
to rupture in smaller fragments than in the case of the blade
crusher, at all ripening stages. In fact the mean value of pit area
obtained with the use of hammer crusher was 0.12 cm2 compared
to the mean pit area of 0.28 cm2 observed in samples milled by
the blade crusher. The length and width of pit fragments produced
by the hammer crusher were also statistically smaller than the
ones of fragments obtained by the blade crusher. These results
are in agreement with those obtained by Caponio and colleagues6
who related the violence of the crusher, measured by the energy
developed during the step of pressing, to the size of the kernel
Figure 1. SEM micrograph of olive paste treated with blade crusher (A) and
hammer crusher (B) at the first stage of ripeness.
Chemical characteristics of the oils
The analytical indices of extra virgin olive oils produced in this
study are listed in Table 1. Very similar values both of free acidity
and peroxide number were recorded for the two types of crusher,
as reported in other works.13,14 An increasing trend in free acid-
ity was observed as the olive ripening proceeded, even if the val-
ues stayed within the legal limits of 0.8% oleic acid, while no clear
trend was found for the peroxide value (POV), in agreement with
other studies.17 POV is an indicator of the primary oxidation with
a legal limit for EVOO of 20 mEq O2 kg−1 of oil. An ANOVA pro-
cedure by complete factorial design was carried out in order to
evaluate the interdependencies of the factors (1) crusher typology
and (2) ripening index on the EVOO chemical parameters. Table 1
shows that all parameters, except K 232 and K 270 , are affected almost
exclusively by ripeness. K 232 and K 270 are indexes primarily used to
detect frauds, with the legal limits for EVOO of 2.5 for K 232 and 0.2
for K 270 . K 232 is also used as an indicator of olive oil primary oxida-
tion during maturation28 and its variability, expressed as percent-
age of the total sum of the squares, is 61% due to ripeness and 35%
due to the type of crusher used, while K 270 , indicative of secondary
oxidation, is influenced mostly (85%) by the type of crusher. No
interaction between the two factors have been underlined, thus
the changes of those spectrophotometric constants during mat-
uration are independent from the type of crusher. The values of
the analytical indices recorded after 6 months of oils storage (T 6 )
were on the whole higher than the values recorded before stor-
age (Table 1). In particular, the variability of free acidity parame-
ter for extraction system raised from 0.98% in oils analysed before
storage (T 0 ) to 27.56% in oils analysed after 6 months of storage
1445

fragments. (T 6 ) (Table 1). This increase in the incidence of the crushing factor,

J Sci Food Agric 2017; 97: 1443–1450 © 2016 Society of Chemical Industry wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa
 www.soci.org
Figure 2. Box plots of area (cm2 ), length (cm) and width (cm) of the pit fragments obtained by milling olive fruits with the use of two types of crusher,
blade and hammer. The line within the box marks indicates the median, and the symbol ⧫ indicates the mean; the box plot outliers are designated by •.
albeit lower than the incidence of maturation factor, is due to the
greater increase in free acidity values during oil storage (from T 0
to T 6 ) observed in oils obtained by hammer crusher compared to
free acidity in oil produced with blade crusher. Moreover the gap
between the values of free acidity grows as the ripening proceeds
(from 3% at RI to 34% at RIV). The fatty acid fraction was affected
almost exclusively by the ripeness factor (Table S1, in the support-
ing material).
The total phenolic content measured at T 0 shows a clear decreas-
ing trend during maturation (Table 1), as reported in literature;15,17
in fact, by analysis of variance, in the case of total phenolic content,
the degree of ripening accounted for 86.8% of variation; the fac-
tor of crushing and the interaction between factors accounted for
only 9% and 4% respectively (Table 1). Nevertheless, it is interest-
ing to underline the increasing difference in the phenolic content
between the two types of crusher; at the first two dates of collec-
tion (RI and RII) the oils produced with the hammer crusher is 8%
and 6% respectively richer in phenols than the oils produced with
the blade crusher, the oil produced with the hammer crusher at the
third date (RIII) is 20% richer and finally at the last date of ripening
(RIV) is 57% richer than the oil produced with the blade crusher.
These results show the existence of an interaction between the
ripening degree factor and the crushing factor, as also results from
the complete factorial analysis (Table 1). Di Giovacchino et al.29
suggested that the higher content in phenolic substances of oils
obtained from ‘violent’ crushers is due to complete rupture of the
pulp, moreover Preziuso et al.12 suggested a role of the pieces of
stone in a quick attainment of the equilibrium of the concentra-
tions of the phenolic substances in the aqueous and in the oily
phase; our results are in agreement with those reported by these
authors.
After 6 months of storage the total phenols content increased
due to the lysis of complex phenols leading to the release of
low molecular weight phenols, in agreement to Boselli and
colleagues.30 The increase in the phenol content after storage in
the oil produced with the blade crusher was remarkably higher,
especially at the first stage of ripening when an increase of 22% in
total phenols content was recorded in the oil produced with the
blade crusher, compared to an increase of 3% in the oil produced
1446
with the hammer crusher. The variance for total phenolic content
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa © 2016 Society of Chemical Industry
L Morrone et al.
increased during storage due to the interaction between the two
ANOVA factors, meaning that during storage the weight of the
interaction between type of crusher and olive ripening degree
became stronger (Table 1).
The results from the HPLC analysis of phenolic compounds of
the Correggiolo oils produced at four different stages of ripen-
ing with two different types of crusher are listed in Table 2. At
T 0 the hydroxytyrosol content is higher in the oils produced with
the hammers crusher at all the dates but at the fourth stage
of ripeness (RIV) the difference is very marked, almost 3.5 times
higher, making the trend of the hydroxytyrosol content a parabolic
curve. This particular trend suggested an increase of the hydrolytic
events at the expense of secoiridoids emphasised by ripeness
in the oil milled with the hammer crusher; indeed, even if the
maturation parameter was responsible for the greatest percent-
age of variability, it is interesting to underline that the interaction
between the factors ripeness and crusher typology was highly sig-
nificant (P < 0.001) (Table 2). The analysis at T 6 confirmed overall
the trend recorded at T 0 but for both crusher typologies there was
an increase in the hydroxytyrosol content (Table 2) due to the lysis
of the oleuropein derivatives, since hydroxytyrosol is the phenol
characterised by the highest antioxidant activity in olive oil.31 At
T 0 the content in tyrosol was characterised by the same trend of
the content in hydroxytyrosol. At the firsts two dates (RI and RII)
the tyrosol content was very similar between the hammer and the
blade crusher, while from the third date (RIII) the gap between
the two crushers increased up to 54% (Table 2). During oil storage
the tyrosol content remained essentially constant, in accordance
with Lozano-Sánchez et al.32 The oils produced using the hammer
crusher was always richer in secoiridoid compounds than the ones
produced with the blade crusher and, as for the phenol alcohols,
as the maturation proceeds, the difference in secoiridoids con-
tent became greater, demonstrating the interaction between the
crushing and ripening index factors; this interaction explained the
12.69% of the variability by ANOVA procedure (P > 0.01) (Table 2).
The presence of secoiridoids in olive oil is due to the activity of
several enzymes such as esterases and glucosidases activating dur-
ing the tissues physical damage, thus the enzymatic activity is
crucial for the olive oil quality3 and probably influenced by the
crushing parameters. Moreover other studies,33,34 found that the
J Sci Food Agric 2017; 97: 1443–1450
 Table 1. Analytical characteristics of Correggiolo oils and treatment interdependences of factorial design

J Sci Food Agric 2017; 97: 1443–1450

T0 T6
Parameter Free aciditya POV b K 232 K 270 TPc Free aciditya POVb K 232 K 270 TPc

RI
Blade 0.27 ± 0.01b 7.54 ± 0.15c 2.14 ± 0.07a, b 0.20 ± 0.01c 689.8 ± 11.0b 0.34 ± 0.03b, c 10.46 ± 0.79c,d 2.43 ± 0.21a 0.29 ± 0.09a 845.1 ± 32.3a
Hammer 0.28 ± 0.01a, b 8.47 ± 0.22b 2.26 ± 0.03a 0.27 ± 0.01a 746.1 ± 0.01a 0.35 ± 0.02a, b 11.43 ± 0.18b,c,d 2.32 ± 0.05a – c 0.28 ± 0.04a 770.1 ± 82.9a
RII
Hammer vs. blade crusher at four olive ripeness stages

Blade 0.22 ± 0.01c 9.98 ± 0.32a 2.00 ± 0.03c,d,e 0.17 ± 0.01c,d 395.8 ± 0.01f 0.26 ± 0.02c 15.71 ± 0.49a 2.32 ± 0.09a – c 0.23 ± 0.03a 422.5 ± 4.0c,d
Hammer 0.22 ± 0.01c 10.20 ± 0.41a 2.11 ± 0.05b, c 0.23 ± 0.01b 418.6 ± 0.01e,f 0.31 ± 0.01b, c 12.89 ± 0.75b 2.25 ± 0.11a – c 0.23 ± 0.05a 428.1 ± 28.1b,c,d
RIII
Blade 0.22 ± 0.01c 6.46 ± 0.26d 1.89 ± 0.04e 0.16 ± 0.01d 426.1 ± 0.01e 0.27 ± 0.03b, c 9.64 ± 0.62d 2.00 ± 0.04c 0.19 ± 0.01a 444.1 ± 19.1b,c,d
Hammer 0.23 ± 0.01c 7.22 ± 0.41c,d 2.09 ± 0.07b, c 0.24 ± 0.01a, b 501.03 ± 0.01c 0.31 ± 0.01b, c 9.54 ± 0.53d 2.37 ± 0.21a, b 0.30 ± 0.06a 526.7 ± 51.7b, c
RIV
Blade 0.30 ± 0.01a 8.47 ± 0.22b 1.93 ± 0.04d,e 0.18 ± 0.02c,d 306.5 ± 0.02g 0.32 ± 0.02b, c 11.82 ± 0.70b, c 2.07 ± 0.03b, c 0.19 ± 0.01a 365.3 ± 11.9d
Hammer 0.30 ± 0.01a 7.47 ± 0.25c 2.04 ± 0.02b,c,d 0.25 ± 0.01a, b 481.9 ± 0.01d 0.43 ± 0.06a 10.61 ± 1.30c,d 2.00 ± 0.02c 0.19 ± 0.01a 535.2 ± 21.8b
Ripeness 97.91%*** 89.89%*** 61.58%*** 13.40%*** 86.82%*** 58.99%*** 82.04%*** 62.71%*** 61.86%* 90.26%***
Crusher system 0.98%NS 0.82%NS 35.64%*** 85.72%*** 9.09%*** 27.56%*** 4.32%* 0.83%NS 6.18%NS 1.97%**

© 2016 Society of Chemical Industry

Ripeness × crusher system 1.11%NS 9.29%*** 2.78%NS 0.88%NS 4.09%*** 13.45%* 13.64%** 36.46%* 31.96%NS 7.77%***

RI, RII, RIII and RIV, stage of ripeness; T0 and T6 , different storage time; POV, peroxide values; TP, total phenols.
The values reported are means of three independent determinations ± standard deviation.
a g oleic acid in 100 g of oil;
www.soci.org

b mEq O kg−1 of oil;

2
c mg of gallic acid kg−1 .
Different letters in the same row indicate significant difference at 5%; factorial variability is expressed as percentage of the total sum of the squares; *, **, *** and NS significant F-values; the
* P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01 or *** P < 0.001 levels, NS, not significant.

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa
1447
 1448

Table 2. Phenolic profiles of Correggiolo oils and treatment interdependences of factorial design
∑ ∑ ∑
Storage time Parameter OHTY1 TY DOA2 Luteolin Apigenin Phenol alcohols Secoiridoids Flavones

T0 RI
Blade 5.86 ± 0.30b 11.10 ± 0.32a 296.96 ± 48.63b 5.85 ± 0.37a 4.54 ± 0.42b 16.96 ± 0.55b 482.86 ± 56.05a,b 14.63 ± 0.99a
Hammer 7.89 ± 0.26a 11.80 ± 0.24a 301.10 ± 25.52a,b 5.59 ± 0.58a 5.12 ± 0.78a,b 19.69 ± 0.34a 531.11 ± 25.74a 14.01 ± 1.66a

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa
RII
Blade 2.35 ± 0.83c 4.25 ± 0.93c 149.43 ± 6.77d,e 6.70 ± 0.70a 9.33 ± 2.22a,b 6.60 ± 1.74c 273.43 ± 12.36d,e 22.65 ± 4.1a
Hammer 2.63 ± 0.47c 4.32 ± 0.68c 174.17 ± 29.83c,d 7.73 ± 2.55a 10.31 ± 4.57a 6.95 ± 1.14c 293.65 ± 53.73c,d,e 23.80 ± 9.51a
RIII
Blade 1.05 ± 0.18d 2.76 ± 0.15d 216.85 ± 17.28c,d 7.92 ± 0.67a 6.24 ± 0.84a,b 3.81 ± 0.33d 361.58 ± 23.18c,d 20.80 ± 2.2a
Hammer 2.74 ± 0.21c 5.23 ± 0.14c 374.93 ± 15.95a 7.40 ± 0.76a 5.33 ± 0.52a,b 7.98 ± 0.32c 537.14± 21.12 a 18.21 ± 1.86a
RIV
Blade 1.51 ± 0.04c,d 5.44 ± 0.67c 85.38 ± 24.47e 4.63 ± 0.38a 5.13 ± 0.19a,b 4.63 ± 4.03c 211.72 ± 26.29e 9.24 ± 8.00a
Hammer 6.78 ± 0.46a,b 8.41 ± 0.53b 227.14 ± 19.55b,c 7.94 ± 1.61a 6.37±1.53a,b 15.19 ± 0.98b 387.26 ± 32.88b,c 18.93 ± 3.37a
Ripeness 67.71%*** 91.28%*** 61.49%*** 44.69%NS 94.74%** 73.84%*** 64.94%*** 69.47%*
Crusher system 19.55%*** 5.19%*** 21.92%*** 12.17%NS 1.01%NS 15.17%*** 22.37%*** 4.30%NS
Ripeness × crusher system 12.74%*** 3.53%*** 16.59%*** 43.14%NS 4.25%NS 10.99%*** 12.69%** 26.23%NS
T6 RI
Blade 7.59 ± 0.51b 10.17 ± 0.42a 181.80 ± 10.70b 6.54 ± 0.43b 0.75 ± 0.08b 17.75 ± 0.32a 279.05 ± 15.53a,b 8.26 ± 0.14b
Hammer 9.39 ± 1.84a,b 10.27 ± 1.69a 129.18 ± 21.82c,d,e 5.82 ± 0.26b 0.81 ± 0.13a,b 19.66 ± 3.53a 240.72 ± 23.99a,b,c 7.74 ± 0.46b
www.soci.org

RII
Blade 3.51 ± 0.08c,d 3.34 ± 0.07b,c 105.17 ± 3.15e 6.88 ± 0.56a,b 0.74 ± 0.07b 6.85 ± 0.12b 123.63 ± 83.81d 7.66 ± 2.28b
Hammer 4.55 ± 0.24c 4.41 ± 0.38b,c 107.67 ± 6.79d,e 5.66 ± 1.54b 0.85 ± 0.41a,b 8.96 ± 0.61b 131.96 ± 70.02c,d 7.66 ± 1.14b
RIII

© 2016 Society of Chemical Industry

Blade 2.51 ± 0.38d 2.82 ± 0.31c 140.98 ± 15.36c,d 6.9 ± 0.28a,b 0.81 ± 0.11a,b 5.33 ± 0.68b 209.61 ± 16.82b,c,d 9.31 ± 0.53a,b
Hammer 3.49 ± 0.28c,d 4.13 ± 0.26b,c 254.61 ± 17.38a 8.18 ± 1.08a,b 1.06 ± 0.28a,b 7.62 ± 0.52b 336.88 ± 23.38a 11.16 ± 1.72a,b
RIV
Blade 2.55 ± 0.22c,d 5.20 ± 0.14b 40.41 ± 1.97f 6.41 ± 1.00b 1.22 ± 0.20a,b 7.76 ± 0.35b 105.76 ± 1.62d 9.37 ± 1.47a,b
Hammer 10.34 ± 0.35a 9.42 ± 0.45a 152.49 ± 4.70b,c 9.27 ± 1.30a 1.46 ± 0.41a 19.75 ± 0.80a 251.11 ± 5.41a,b 12.37 ± 2.04a
Ripeness 52.34%*** 85.26%*** 42.68%* 47.65%*** 85.78%** 73.78%*** 59.45%*** 70.76%**
Crusher system 24.8%*** 7.99%*** 5.87%NS 14.95%*** 11.44%NS 10.02%*** 15.36%** 10.79%NS
Ripeness × crusher system 22.86%*** 6.76%*** 51.45%** 37.4%*** 2.78%NS 16.2%*** 25.2%** 18.45%NS

RI, RII, RIII and RIV, stage of ripeness, T 0 and T 6 , different storage time, OHTY, hydroxytyrosol, TY, tyrosol, DOA, decarboxymethyl oleuropein aglycon.
The values reported are means of three independent determinations ± standard deviation.
1 Expressed as mg kg−1 oil of tyrosol, 2 expressed as mg kg−1 oil of oleuropein, the others compounds are expressed as mg kg−1 of relative standard.
Different letters in the same row indicate significant difference at 5%, factorial variability is expressed as percentage of the total sum of the squares, *, **,*** and NS significant F-values, the
* P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01 or *** P < 0.001 levels, NS, not significant.

J Sci Food Agric 2017; 97: 1443–1450

L Morrone et al.
Hammer vs. blade crusher at four olive ripeness stages www.soci.org

Figure 3. Sensory profiles of the oils at four stage of ripeness (RI, RII, RIII and RIV) after production (T 0 ) and after 6 months of storage (T 6 ). Hammer crusher
– – ; blade crusher - - -; OFO, olive fruity (olfactory); OO, other olfactory scents; OF, olive fruity; B, bitterness; P, pungency; G, grass scent; OS, other scents.

enzymatic activity was highest at the start of black stage olive

Table 3. Treatment interdependences of factorial design
maturation, to then subsequently decrease. After 6 months of oil
storage an overall decrease in secoiridoids content was observed Storage Crusher Ripeness ×
at all the ripening stages. The differences in the secoiridoids con- time Characteristic Ripeness system crusher system
tent observed in the oils produced using the two different crushing
systems followed the T 0 trend (Table 2). It is important to under- T0 Bitterness 80.70%*** 2.10%NS 17.20%NS
line the decrease of the incidence of the ripeness factor observed Pungency 70.68%*** 1.80%NS 27.60%*
in storage oils (T 6 ), moreover the interaction between ripeness Olive fruity 48.80%NS 0.60%NS 50.60%*
and crushing system increased, explaining 25.20% of the variabil- T6 Bitterness 71.80%** 9.00%NS 19.20%NS
ity (Table 2). The analyses of the flavonic fraction did not show Pungency 48.60%NS 4.90%NS 46.50%NS
any significant difference in luteolin neither due to ripeness nor to Olive fruity 46.80%NS 1.10%NS 52.20%NS
crushing system, while a slightly decreasing trend was recorded Variability expressed as percentage of the total sum of the squares for
for apigenin which was highest at RII. The luteolin content was sensory attributes perceived in oils.
not affected by storage, in agreement with other authors,30,32 con- *, **, *** and NS significant F-values; the
* P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01 or *** P < 0.001 levels, NS, not significant.
versely a reduction in the apigenin content was recorded after 6
months of storage, while the same authors reported the stability
of the two flavones during storage.
CONCLUSION
Sensory characteristics of the oils The results obtained in this study indicate the greater influence of
The sensory profiles of the Correggiolo oils were characterised ripeness than the type of crusher used on quality indices, phenolic
by average levels of olive fruity, bitterness and pungency (Fig. 3); content and sensory attributes. However, the significance of the
these sensory profiles were in agreement with the profile reported synergic interaction between ripeness and crushing factors on
in the database of the Italian monovarietal olive oils (http://www the chemical and sensory characteristics of virgin olive oils has
.olimonovarietali.it), describing Correggiolo oil as an oil with an been demonstrated. A different evolution of the characteristics of
average level of olive fruity, bitterness and pungency, and with the oils milled using different crushers was not recorded by the
notes of fresh almond, artichoke and grass. At T 0 the effect of analyses carried out six months after production. Nevertheless,
ripeness on the characters bitterness and pungency was statisti- the rise in the variability percentage ascribable to type of crusher
cally significant; in detail their trends decreased as ripening pro- and its interaction with ripeness lead us to conclude that the
gressed (Table 3 and Fig. 3), in agreement with other reports.16,17,35 influence of the crushing equipment comes to light slowly as the
The olive fruity intensities did not differ among the four ripen- storage proceeds.
ing stages, possibly because oils of Correggiolo cv. need to be In this study it was possible to observe, at a microscopic scale,
milled from over-ripe fruits to have a lower olive fruity intensity22 the different mechanical action of the two crushing systems:
(Table 3). No influence of the crusher typologies on sensory the squashing action of the hammer crusher and the tissues
attributes was observed at both T 0 and T 6 . However, statistical tearing of the blade crusher. These differences were clearer
analysis revealed an interaction between the two factors ripen- at the first harvesting date, with fruits still at an early matura-
ing and type of crusher on the pungency and olive fruity charac- tion phase. Moreover, the different mechanical action of the
ters, and the crushing effect is less influential than the fruit stage two types of crusher produces differences in size pit fragments
of ripeness. At T 6 the factors interaction is no longer significant; translating into different oil yields and transfer of phenolic
this underlines the stability of olive fruity and pungency attributes substances.
during storage and their independency from the studied factors. It is an important achievement to have the choice to produce oils
On the contrary, the development of the bitterness attribute dur- characterised by different levels of antioxidants considering the
ing storage is statistically significantly different, discriminating oils different conditions of raw material (olive with different ripeness
from different ripeness stages, while bitterness is independent index) in relation to different types of crushers. In fact, producing
1449

from the crushing equipment. oils with different nutritional properties and tastes can satisfy the

J Sci Food Agric 2017; 97: 1443–1450 © 2016 Society of Chemical Industry wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa
 www.soci.org
demand of traditional consumers, interested in sweet character,
and the emerging demand of a niche of consumers interested in
17
products with a high beneficial health impact on degenerative
diseases and different types of cancer, thus rich in total phenols
and characterised by high bitterness and pungency intensities.36,37
18
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by IPA Adriatic Cross-border Cooperation 19
project ‘AOGPRPSL – The Adriatic Olive Grove: risk prevention, sus-
tainability, learning’ funded by the European Union. The authors
20
thank Matteo Mari and Mafalda Govoni for their technical assis-
tance, Franco Corticelli for the SEM observations and Stefano Cerni
and the Province of Rimini. 21
22
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Supporting information may be found in the online version of this
article. 23
REFERENCES 24
1 Pérez-Jiménez F, Ruano J, Perez-Martinez P, Lopez-Segura F and
Lopez-Miranda J, The influence of olive oil on human health: Not
a question of fat alone. Mol Nutr Food Res 51:1199–208 (2007).
2 Angerosa F, Influence of volatile compounds on virgin olive oil quality 25
evaluated by analytical approaches and sensor panels. Eur J Lipid Sci
Technol 104:639–660 (2002).
3 Aparicio R and Luna G, Characterisation of monovarietal virgin olive
oils. Eur J Lipid Sci Technol 104:614–627 (2002). 26
4 Romero-Segura C, Sanz C and Perez AG, Purification and characteriza-
tion of an olive fruit beta-glucosidase involved in the biosynthesis
of virgin olive oil phenolics. J Agric Food Chem 57:7983–7988 (2009). 27
5 Servili M, Selvaggini R, Taticchi A, Esposto S and Montedoro G, Volatile
compounds and phenolic composition of virgin olive oil: optimiza-
tion of temperature and time of exposure of olive pastes to air con-
tact during the mechanical. J Agric Food Chem 51:7980–7988 (2003). 28
6 Caponio F, Gomes T, Summo C and Pasqualone A, Influence of the type
of olive-crusher used on the quality of extra virgin olive oils. Eur J
Lipid Sci Technol 105:201–206 (2003).
7 Fregapane G and Salvador M, Production of superior quality extra 29
virgin olive oil modulating the content and profile of its minor
components. Food Res Int 54:1907–1914 (2013).
8 Caponio F and Catalano P, Hammer crushers vs disk crushers: The 30
influence of working temperature on the quality and preservation
of virgin olive oil. Food Res Int 213:219–224 (2001).
9 Caponio F, Alloggio V and Gomes T, Phenolic compounds of virgin 31
olive oil: Influence of paste preparation techniques. Food Chem
64:203–209 (1999).
10 Catalano P and Caponio F, Machines for olive paste preparation
producing quality virgin olive oil. Fett/Lipid 98:408–412 (1996). 32
11 Veillet S, Tomao V, Bornard I, Ruiz K and Chemat F, Chemical changes
in virgin olive oils as a function of crushing systems: Stone mill and
hammer crusher. Cr Acad Sci II C 12:895–904 (2009).
12 Preziuso SM, Di Serio MG, Biasone A, Vito R, Mucciarella MR and Di
Giovacchino L, Influence of olive crushing methods on the yields 33
and oil characteristics. Eur J Lipid Sci Technol 112:1345–1355 (2010).
13 Inarejos-García AM, Fregapane G and Salvador MD, Effect of crushing 34
on olive paste and virgin olive oil minor components. Eur Food Res
Technol 232:441–451 (2011).
14 Servili M, Piacquadio P, De Stefano G, Taticchi A and Sciancalepore V, 35
Influence of a new crushing technique on the composition of the
volatile compounds and related sensory quality of virgin olive oil,
research paper. Eur J Lipid Sci Technol 104:483–489 (2002). 36
15 Beltrán G, Aguilera MP, Del Rio C, Sanchez S and Martinez L, Influence
of fruit ripening process on the natural antioxidant content of
Hojiblanca virgin olive oils. Food Chem 89:207–215 (2005). 37
16 Jiménez B, Sánchez-Ortiz A, Lorenzo ML and Rivas A, Influence of
fruit ripening on agronomic parameters, quality indices, sensory
1450
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa © 2016 Society of Chemical Industry
L Morrone et al.
attributes and phenolic compounds of Picudo olive oils. Food Res
Int 54:1860–1867 (2013).
Rotondi A, Bendini A, Cerretani L, Mari M, Lercker G and Gallina Toschi
T, Effect of olive ripening degree on the oxidative stability and
organoleptic properties of cv. Nostrana di Brisighella extra virgin
olive oil. J Agric Food Chem 54:3649–3654 (2004).
Sánchez Casas J, De Miguel Gordillo C, Osorio Bueno E, Expósito JM,
Gallardo González L and Martínez Cano M, Calidad sensorial de
aceites de oliva virgen procedentes de variedades de aceitunas
producidas en Extremadura. Grasas Aceites 57:313–318 (2006).
Bendini A, Cerretani L, Salvador MD, Fregapane G and Lercker G,
Stability of the sensory quality of virgin olive oil during storage: an
overview. Ital J Food Sci 21:389–406 (2009).
Fiori F, Di Lecce G, Boselli E, Pieralisi G and Frega NG, Effects of olive
paste fast preheating on the quality of extra virgin olive oil during
storage. Food Sci Technol-Leb 58:511–518 (2014).
Uceda M and Hermoso M, La calidad del aceite de oliva, in El Cultivo
Del Olivo, ed. by Barranco D, Fernandez-Escobar R and Rallo L. Mundi
Prensa, Madrid, pp. 589–614 (2001).
Rotondi A and Magli M, Ripening of olives var. Correggiolo: Modifica-
tion of oxidative stability of oils during fruit ripening and oil storage.
J Food Agric Environ 2:193–199 (2004).
European Commission, Regulation EEC 2568/91 on the characteristics
of olive oil and olive pomace and their analytical methods. Off J Eur
Commission L248:6–36 (1991).
Pirisi FM, Cabras P, Falqui Cao C, Migliorini M and Mugelli M, Phenolic
compounds in virgin olive oil. 2. Reappraisal of the extraction,
HPLC separation, and quantification procedures. J Agric Food Chem
48:1191–1196 (2000).
Cerretani L, Bendini A, Biguzzi B, Lercker G and Gallina-Toschi T, Eval-
uation of the oxidative stability of extra-virgin olive oils, obtained
by different technological plants, with respect to some qualitative
parameters. Ind Aliment-Italy 42:706–711 (2003).
International Olive Oil Council (IOC), Sensory analysis of olive oil.
Organoleptic assessment of virgin olive oil. COI/T.20/Doc. n 13/Rev.
1 and COI/T.20/Doc. N 15/Rev. 1 (1996).
Cerretani L, Salvador MD, Bendini A and Fregapane G, Relationship
between sensory evaluation performed by Italian and Spanish
official panels and volatile and phenolic profiles of virgin olive oils.
Chemosens Percept 1:258–267 (2008).
Bengana M, Bakhouche A, Lozano-Sánchez J, Amir Y, Youyou A,
Segura-Carretero A, et al., Influence of olive ripeness on chemical
properties and phenolic composition of Chemlal extra-virgin olive
oil. Food Res Int 54:1868–1875 (2013).
Di Giovacchino L, Sestili S and Di Vincenzo D, Influence of olive pro-
cessing on virgin olive oil quality. Eur J Lipid Sci Technol 104:587–601
(2002).
Boselli E, Di Lecce G, Strabbioli R, Pieralisi G and Frega NG, Are virgin
olive oils obtained below 27 ∘ C better than those produced at
higher temperatures? LWT – Food Sci Technol 42:748–757 (2009).
Carrasco-Pancorbo A, Cerretani L, Bendini A, Segura-Carretero A, Del
Carlo M, Gallina Toschi T, et al., Evaluation of the antioxidant capac-
ity of individual phenolic compounds in virgin olive oil. J Agric Food
Chem 53:8918–8925, (2005).
Lozano-Sánchez J, Bendini A, Quirantes-Piné R, Cerretani L,
Segura-Carretero A and Fernández-Gutiérrez A, Monitoring the
bioactive compounds status of extra-virgin olive oil and stor-
age by-products over the shelf life. Food Control 30:606–615
(2013).
Amiot MJ, Annie F and Macheix JJ, Accumulation of oleuropein deriva-
tives maturation. Phytochemistry 28:67–69 (1989).
Jemai H, Bouaziz M and Sayadi S, Phenolic composition, sugar contents
and antioxidant activity of Tunisian sweet olive cultivar with regard
to fruit ripening. J Agric Food Chem 57:2961–2968 (2009).
Salvador M, Aranda F and Fregapane G, Influence of fruit ripening on
“Cornicabra” virgin olive oil quality A study of four successive crop
seasons. Food Chem 73:45–53 (2001).
Vitaglione P, Savarese M, Paduano A, Scalfi L, Fogliano V and Sacchi R,
Healthy virgin olive oil: A matter of bitterness. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr
55:1808–1818 (2015).
Predieri S, Medoro C, Magli M, Gatti E and Rotondi A, Virgin olive
oil sensory properties: Comparing trained panel evaluation and
consumer preferences. Food Res Int 54:2091–2094 (2013).
J Sci Food Agric 2017; 97: 1443–1450