Effect of packaging material headspace, oxygen and light transmission,

temperature and storage time on quality characteristics

of extra virgin olive oil
G. Pristouri, A. Badeka, M.G. Kontominas
*
Laboratory of Food Chemistry and Technology, Department of Chemistry, University of Ioannina, Ioannina 45110, Greece
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 5 February 2009
Received in revised form 17 June 2009
Accepted 19 June 2009
Keywords:
Packaging
Light
Oxygen permeability
Headspace volume
Olive oil quality
a b s t r a c t
The effect of packaging parameters (transmission to light and oxygen, headspace volume) and storage
temperature on quality characteristics of extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) was studied as a function of storage
time (012 months). Packaging materials tested included clear glass, clear polyethylene terephthalate
(PET), clear PET + UV blocker, clear PET covered with aluminum foil and clear polypropylene (PP) bottles.
Quality parameters monitored over the 12 month storage period included: acidity, peroxide value (PV),
spectrophotometric indices (K
232
, K
270
) and color. Results showed that the best packaging material for
olive oil packaging was glass followed by PET. PP proved to be unsuitable for such an application. Expo-
sure of olive oil samples to light, high storage temperatures (35 C) and large headspace volumes caused
substantial deterioration in product quality parameters. The most pronounced effect was that of temper-
ature and light while the smallest effect was that of headspace volume and packaging material perme-
ability to oxygen. Olive oil color was not substantially affected by storage conditions with the
exception of storage of olive oil at 35 C exposed to light for 12 months. Shelf life of extra virgin olive
oil was 6 months packaged in clear glass in the dark at temperatures up to 22 C; 3 months in clear
PET in the dark at 22 C and less than 3 months in clear PP in the dark at 22 C. When exposed to light,
shelf life of olive oil was 9 months when packaged in PET + aluminum foil; 3 months in PET + UV blocker
and less than 3 months in clear PET at 22 C. Product shelf life was less than 3 months at 35 C. Finally
oxygen in the headspace of olive oil resulted in deterioration of product quality. The relative contribution
of parameters studied to the retention of olive oil quality was: temperature light > container head-
space > packaging material oxygen permeability.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Olive oil is a major agricultural commodity for the European
Union with ca. 75% of olive oil production coming from EU states;
95% of this amount comes from Spain, Italy and Greece (Moreno-
Rojas, Reniero, Guillon, Klotz, & Giazzi, 2007) with Greece produc-
ing ca. 350,000 tons per year (13.5% of world production) (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive_oil, 2009).
Olive oil quality is dened from commercial, nutritional and
sensory perspectives (Duran, 1990). The nutritional value of olive
oil is due to its high content of monounsaturated oleic acid and
minor constituents such as phenolic compounds, tocopherols and
carotenoids, while its sensory properties (mainly aroma) is the re-
sult of a complex mixture of volatile compounds (Angerosa, 2002;
Tsimidou, Blekas, & Boskou, 2003).
Oxidation constitutes a major factor for quality deterioration of
olive oil. The rate of oxidation depends on a number of factors
including the availability of oxygen, presence of light and temper-
ature. Auto-oxidation, that is oxidation in the absence of light, fol-
lows a free radical mechanism where initially absorption of oxygen
results in the formation of hydroperoxides. These labile com-
pounds further decompose to produce a complex mixture of vola-
tile compounds such as aldehydes, ketones, hydrocarbons,
alcohols, and esters responsible for the deterioration of olive oil a-
vor termed oxidative rancidity (Frankel, 2005; Morales, Rios, &
Aparicio, 1997).
In turn, when vegetable oils are exposed to light, photo-oxida-
tion occurs through the action of natural photosensitizers (i.e.
chlorophyll), which react with triplet oxygen to form the excited
state singlet oxygen. Singlet oxygen then forms a free radical from
unsaturated fatty acids leading to the production of hydroperox-
ides and eventually to carbonyl compounds resulting to the devel-
opment of undesirable off avors in oils (Skibsted, 2000). Thus
protection from direct light is required for commercial edible oils
(Bradley & Min, 1992; Khan & Shahidi, 1999).
Methods used to evaluate olive oil quality include conventional
as well as innovative techniques. Conventional methods include
0956-7135/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2009.06.019
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 2651098342; fax: +30 2651098795.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M.G. Kontominas).
Food Control 21 (2010) 412418
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Food Control
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ f oodcont
acidity determination, peroxide value, absorption coefcients
(K
232
, K
270
), conductivity methods (Rancimat-OSI) and sensory
evaluation. Innovative methods include Nuclear Magnetic Reso-
nance (NMR), Isotope Ratio Mass Spectroscopy (IRMS), Differential
Scanning Calorimetry (DSC), Fourier Transform Infrared Spectros-
copy (FTIR) and Solid-phase MicroextractionGas Chromatogra-
phy/Mass Spectroscopy (SPMEGC/MS) for the determination of
volatiles (Kiritsakis, Kanavouras, & Kiritsakis, 2002; Sacco, Brescia,
Sgaramella, & Sacco, 2005). Predictive modeling using advanced
statistical techniques has been also used to evaluate olive oil sta-
bility (Kanavouras, Hernandez-Mnoz, & Coutelieres, 2006; Zanon-
i, Bertuccioli, Rovelline, Marotta, & Mattei, 2005).
Packaging can directly inuence olive oil quality by protecting
the product from both oxygen and light (Kanavouras, Hernandez-
Mnoz, Coutelieres, & Selke, 2004; Kiritsakis, 1998). Materials
which have been used for olive oil packaging include glass, metals
(tin-coated steel) and more recently plastics and plastics coated
paperboard (Agricultural Cooperative Union of PEZA, 2008; Kiritsa-
kis et al., 2002). Among plastics, PET has captured a large portion of
the olive oil retail market due to its many advantages including
clarity, chemical inertness, low oxygen permeability, and excellent
mechanical properties (Papachristou et al., 2006). Incorporation of
pigments and/or UV blocking agents or oxygen scavengers may im-
prove plastics properties with regard to quality retention of olive
oil. Besides PET, PE in the form of LDPE-coated paperboard/alufoil
laminates, i.e. brick-type cartons and bag-in-box pouches and PP
in the form of gallon or half gallon jugs are being used today for
the packaging of vegetable oils including olive oil (Agricultural
Cooperative Union of PEZA, 2008).
Several studies have been carried out to determine the effect of
package properties on olive oil quality including: glass, PET and
PVC (Coutelieris & Kanavouras, 2005; Del Nobile, Bove, La Notte,
& Sacchi, 2003; Kaya, Tekin, & ner, 1993; Kiritsakis & Dugan,
1984; Mndez & Falqu, 2007; Tawk & Huyghebaert, 1999).
The present study was undertaken with the primary objective
to investigate the effect of all three major packaging properties
namely: oxygen permeability, light transmission rate and head-
space volume, as well as storage temperature on olive oil quality
as a function of storage time under realistic storage conditions. A
second objective was to determine the relative contribution of
each of the above parameters to olive oil quality. Quality parame-
ters monitored over storage time included: acidity, peroxide value,
absorption coefcients (K
232
, K
270
) and color.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
EVOO samples (Liophori brand) were donated by EPIROTIKI
ELAIOURGIA SA (Ioannina, Greece). The particular olive oil was
produced in the Messinia region using Koroneiki variety olives.
2.2. Experimental set up packaging materials
To study the effect of container oxygen permeability, clear poly-
ethylene terephthalate (PET), clear polypropylene (PP) and clear
glass bottles, 500 mL in capacity were lled with olive oil and
sealed with aluminum screw-type caps of negligible permeability
to oxygen. Rectangular bottles were of dimensions (4 cm 6 cm)
base 20.5 cm height (surface area/volume = 434 cm
2
/
492 cm
3
= 0.88). Containers were stored in a controlled tempera-
ture environmental chamber (Memmert, Binder model WTC,
Schwabach, Germany) in the dark at 22 C. To study the effect of
container light transmission clear PET, clear PET + UV blocker and
clear PET covered with aluminum foil of capacity 500 mL were
lled with olive oil and stored at ambient temperature on the lab
shelf exposed intermittently (daynight) 12 h each to daylight.
To study the effect of container headspace volume, clear PET bot-
tles of capacity 1 L were lled to the top (zero headspace) with ol-
ive oil. At 3, 6, 9 months, 200 mL of olive oil were removed creating
200, 400 and 600 mL headspace, respectively. Containers were
kept in a controlled temperature environmental chamber in the
dark at 22 C. Finally, to determine the effect of storage tempera-
ture, three temperatures, namely: 13, 22 and 35 C were chosen
to simulate (a) cellar temperature commercially used to store olive
oil, (b) room temperature and (c) elevated ambient temperature
encountered during the summer, respectively.
2.3. Reagents
For the determination of acidity, ethanol and diethyl ether (pro
analysis grade), potassium iodine, sodium thiosulphate and so-
dium hydroxide were purchased from Merck (Germany). For the
determination of PV, chloroform and acetic acid were also pur-
chased from Merck. Likewise for the determination of absorption
coefcients (K
232
, K
270
) isooctane was purchased from Merck.
2.4. Methods
2.4.1. Determination of acidity, peroxide value and absorption
coefcients
All three parameters were determined according to the Ofcial
EU method 2568/91.
2.4.2. Determination of packaging material thickness
Thickness was measured using a Thomas Scientic electronic
micrometer model Positector 6000 (Swedesboro, NJ, USA).
2.4.3. Color measurement
Olive oil color was measured using a HunterLab, model D25 L
optical sensor (Reston, Virginia, USA).
2.4.4. Determination of oxygen transmission rates
Oxygen transmission rates (OTR) for all bottles were measured
using the Oxtran 2/20 oxygen permeability tester (Mocon Controls,
USA) at a relative humidity (RH) of 60%, temperature of 22 C
(ASTM D-3985) and were expressed as mL/(package day).
2.4.5. Statistical analysis
Data were subjected to analysis of variance using the Excel 97
software program (Microsoft, CA, USA). Where statistical differ-
ences were noted, differences among packages were determined,
using the least signicant difference (LSD) test. Signicance was
dened at P < 0.05.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Effect of packaging material oxygen transmission rate on olive oil
quality
Olive oil quality parameter values for glass, PET and PP are given
in Table 1 as a function of storage time. Results show that for olive
oil stored in glass in the dark at 22 C the acidity and PV were with-
in the set limit of 0.8% and 620 meq O
2
/kg, respectively (EU Regu-
lation 1989/2003). K
232
exceeded the limit of 2.50 after 6 months
and K
270
exceeded the limit of 0.22 after 9 months of storage. Acid-
ity is mainly the result of triglyceride hydrolysis through the action
of lipases present in olives and secondarily the result of microbial
growth on the olive esh. Such microorganisms include bacteria,
yeast, molds, 70% of which exhibit lipolytic action (Suarez-Marti-
G. Pristouri et al. / Food Control 21 (2010) 412418 413
nez, 1975). Peroxide value measures the primary oxidation prod-
ucts of lipids (hydroperoxides) while K
232
measures conjugated
dienes and their oxidation products which absorb at k = 232 nm.
In turn K
270
measures conjugated trienes and secondary products
of oxidation (carbonyl compounds) which absorb at k = 270 nm.
For olive oil stored in PET the acidity values were within the
limit even after 12 months of storage. PV values exceeded the limit
after 9 months, K
232
after 3 months and K
270
after 6 months of stor-
age. For olive oil stored in PP the acidity values exceeded the limit
after 9 months, PV values after 6 months, K
232
after 3 months and
K
270
for a period less than 3 months of storage.
Color was unaffected (P > 0.05) both by packaging material oxy-
gen transmission rate and storage time (data not shown). A rst
conclusion to be drawn is that olive oil will retain its quality char-
acteristics packaged in clear glass if stored in the dark at 22 C for
ca. 6 months. Respective shelf life for PET and PP packaged olive oil
is 3 months and <3 months. Given the OTR of glass (negligible), PET
[0.9 mL/(package day)] and PP [15.6 mL/(package day)] and
excluding the effect of light, the difference in packaging material
OTR is reected in product shelf life. Of course it has to be stressed
that sources of oxygen besides packaging wall permeability are (a)
the amount of oxygen dissolved in the oil and (b) the headspace
which in the present study was less than or equal to 10 mL. Given
that the above two parameters were the same for all containers
used their relative contribution may be neglected. Sacchi et al.
(2008) evaluated quality parameters of EVOO packaged in PET,
PET + oxygen scavenger and glass bottles and found differences
in initially dissolved oxygen (higher in glass which was related to
different bottling lines used for glass and PET bottles). Oxygen con-
centration, however, remained constant (ca. 0.4 ppm) between 3
and 6 months of storage for all packaged samples leading to the
conclusion that the use of oxygen scavenger did not give rise to sig-
nicant differences in quality parameters of EVOO during the
above period of storage. Dissolved oxygen was not measured in
the present study but given the fact that all containers were lled
manually it is logical to expect the same amount of dissolved oxy-
gen in all samples. Quality parameter values (acidity, PV, K
232
, K
270
)
of the present study are in general agreement to those of Sacchi
et al. (2008) for storage up to 6 months, given the differences in
experimental conditions used by these authors.
Present results with regard to glass and PET are in general
agreement with those of Kiritsakis and Dugan (1984), Del Nobile
et al. (2003) and Coutelieris and Kanavouras (2005). They are also
in general agreement with those of Gambacorta et al. (2004) who
evaluated quality parameters of EVOO packaged in glass, PET,
PET + 1% oxygen scavenger (OS), PET + high barrier coating (BC)
and PET + OS + BC and showed that acidity, PV, K
232
and K
270
main-
tained lower values in high barrier containers than in PET in the
dark both at 22 and 37 C. They differ, however, than those in
the present study in that quality parameters tested remained with-
in the set limits up to one year of storage. Such differences may due
the fact that initial values of quality parameters tested in the pres-
ent study were higher than those of the above study.
3.2. Effect of packaging material light transmission on olive oil quality
Olive oil quality parameter values for clear, PET, PET + UV absor-
ber and PET + aluminum foil are given in Table 2 as a function of
storage time. Results show that for olive oil packaged in clear
PET at 22 C and intermittently exposed to daylight the acidity ex-
ceeded the limit of 0.8% after 6 months, PV exceeded the limit of
20 meq O
2
/kg after 9 months; while K
232
and K
270
exceeded the
limit 2.50 and 0.22, respectively, for a period less than 3 months.
For olive oil packaged in PET + UV blocker the acidity and PV did
not exceed the set limits even after 12 months; while K
232
and
K
270
exceeded the limits after 3 months of storage. Finally, for olive T
a
b
l
e
1
C
h
a
n
g
e
o
f
a
c
i
d
i
t
y
,
P
V
,
a
b
s
o
r
p
t
i
o
n
c
o
e
f

c
i
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
c
o
l
o
r
o
f
o
l
i
v
e
o
i
l
s
t
o
r
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
d
a
r
k
a
t
2
2

C
a
s
a
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
a
c
k
a
g
i
n
g
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
,
o
x
y
g
e
n
t
r
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
r
a
t
e
a
n
d
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
t
i
m
e
.
M
o
n
t
h
A
c
i
d
i
t
y
(
%
)
o
l
e
i
c
a
c
i
d
P
V
(
m
e
q
O
2
/
k
g
)
K
2
3
2
K
2
7
0
C
o
l
o
r
G
l
a
s
s
P
E
T
P
P
G
l
a
s
s
P
E
T
P
P
G
l
a
s
s
P
E
T
P
P
G
l
a
s
s
P
E
T
P
P
G
l
a
s
s
P
E
T
P
P
0
0
.
6
3

0
.
0
1
0
.
6
3

0
.
0
1
0
.
6
3

0
.
0
1
1
2
.
9
2

0
.
4
4
1
2
.
9
2

0
.
4
4
1
2
.
9
2

0
.
4
4
2
.
2
5

0
.
0
5
2
.
2
5

0
.
0
5
2
.
2
5

0
.
0
5
0
.
1
4

0
.
0
2
0
.
1
4

0
.
0
2
0
.
1
4

0
.
0
2
L
=
5
3
.
0
4
L
=
5
3
.
0
4
L
=
5
3
.
0
4
a
=

2
.
8
0
a
=

2
.
8
a
=

2
.
8
b
=
3
6
.
0
9
b
=
3
6
.
0
9
b
=
3
6
.
0
9
3
0
.
6
8

0
.
0
1
0
.
6
8

0
.
0
1
0
.
7
0

0
.
0
1
1
3
.
0
7

0
.
4
0
1
4
.
2
4

0
.
5
4
1
5
.
9
3

0
.
5
0
2
.
4
7

0
.
1
6
2
.
5
7

0
.
1
5
2
.
5
8

0
.
2
0
0
.
1
5

0
.
0
3
0
.
1
7

0
.
0
4
0
.
2
5

0
.
0
1
L
=
5
1
.
6
5
L
=
5
2
.
5
5
L
=
5
1
.
8
6
a
=

3
.
1
0
a
=

3
.
1
6
a
=

3
.
1
1
b
=
3
5
.
1
7
b
=
3
5
.
7
8
b
=
3
5
.
3
0
6
0
.
6
8

0
.
0
1
0
.
7
1

0
.
0
1
0
.
7
4

0
.
0
1
1
6
.
5
7

0
.
7
0
1
7
.
9
5

0
.
2
0
1
9
.
0
0

0
.
1
0
2
.
5
4

0
.
1
0
2
.
8
4

0
.
1
0
2
.
8
5

0
.
1
0
0
.
2
1

0
.
0
4
0
.
2
2

0
.
0
2
0
.
2
6

0
.
0
4
L
=
5
2
.
2
1
L
=
5
1
.
4
4
L
=
5
1
.
8
3
a
=

2
.
9
2
a
=

2
.
7
0
a
=

2
.
8
2
b
=
3
5
.
5
4
b
=
3
5
.
0
1
b
=
3
5
.
2
8
9
0
.
7
0

0
.
0
2
0
.
7
9

0
.
0
1
0
.
7
9

0
.
0
1
1
7
.
5
3

0
.
1
0
1
9
.
7
5

0
.
4
0
2
1
.
5
7

0
.
2
0
2
.
7
6

0
.
1
1
2
.
9
0

0
.
1
0
3
.
0
6

0
.
0
1
0
.
2
2

0
.
0
2
0
.
2
3

0
.
0
3
0
.
2
6

0
.
0
2
L
=
5
2
.
4
3
L
=
5
1
.
7
2
L
=
5
2
.
1
4
a
=

3
.
0
9
a
=

2
.
7
2
a
=

2
.
8
2
b
=
3
5
.
6
9
b
=
3
5
.
2
2
b
=
3
5
.
4
9
1
2
0
.
7
5

0
.
0
1
0
.
7
9

0
.
0
1
0
.
8
3

0
.
0
1
1
8
.
8
6

0
.
1
0
2
0
.
6
1

0
.
2
0
2
2
.
5
4

0
.
1
0
2
.
8
2

0
.
1
3
2
.
9
8

0
.
1
3
3
.
2
2

0
.
0
9
0
.
2
8

0
.
0
2
0
.
3
2

0
.
0
2
0
.
3
5

0
.
0
1
L
=
5
1
.
8
9
L
=
5
2
.
8
2
L
=
5
1
.
7
3
a
=

3
.
0
2
a
=

2
.
8
0
a
=

3
.
0
1
b
=
3
5
.
3
0
b
=
3
6
.
0
9
b
=
3
5
.
2
0
A
d
o
p
t
e
d
l
i
m
i
t
s
(
E
U
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
1
9
8
9
/
2
0
0
3
)
6
0
.
8
%
6
2
0
6
2
.
5
0
6
0
.
2
2
414 G. Pristouri et al. / Food Control 21 (2010) 412418
oil packaged in PET + aluminum foil the acidity and PV did not ex-
ceed the limit even after 12 month; K
232
exceeded the limit after
6 months while K
270
exceeded the limit after 9 months of storage.
Color was affected (P < 0.05) in samples of olive oil packaged in
both clear PET and PET + UV bottles after 6 months of storage. A
rst observation to be made is that olive oil exposed intermittently
to light at 22 C will retain its quality characteristics packaged in
clear PET for a period of less than 3 months. Respective shelf lives
of samples packaged in PET + UV blocker and PET + aluminum foil
is 3 and 9 months. It is noteworthy to mention that the UV blocker
used in the PET bottles provided only partial protection to the
product from light while complete protection from light (i.e. using
aluminum foil) provided an adequate retention of olive oil quality
for at least 9 months. The discrepancy between PV and K
232
values
is probably related to the fact that the former measures hydroper-
oxides while the latter measures hydroperoxides plus conjugated
dienes. According to the literature (IOOC, 1996) PV and K
232
corre-
late rather well during the early stages of oxidation, something
that was not shown in this study.
Similar ndings on the effect of light on olive oil quality were
reported by Coutelieris and Kanavouras (2005) and Kanavouras,
Hernandez-Mnoz, and Coutelieres (2004). They are also in agree-
ment with those of Coltro, Padula, Segantini Saron, Borghetti, and
Penteado Buratin (2003) who reported that the addition of 0.08%
of Tinuvin 326
TM
UV absorber is probably enough to provide the
studied PET bottles with the light barrier characteristics necessary
to maintain stability of olive oil for 6 months at 25 C.
3.3. Effect of storage temperature on olive oil quality
Olive oil quality parameter values for PET as a function storage
temperature and time are given in Table 3. Results show that for
olive oil packaged in clear PET, stored in the dark at 13 C the acid-
ity and PV did not exceed the adopted limits of 0.8% and 20 meq
O
2
/kg oil, respectively, even after 12 months of storage; K
232
ex-
ceeded the limit of 2.5 after 6 months while K
270
exceeded the limit
0.22 after 9 months of storage. For olive oil stored at 22 C both the
acidity and PV did not exceed the respective limits even after
12 months of storage; K
232
exceeded the limit after 6 months while
K
270
exceeded the limit after 9 months of storage. Finally for olive
oil stored at 35 C both the acidity and PV exceeded the respective
limits after 9 months while both K
232
and K
270
exceeded the
respective limits for a period less than 3 months of storage. By
plotting the change in PV over time the peroxidation reaction rate
constant (k) was calculated. Then by plotting ln(k) as a function of
1/T the activation energy for peroxidation of EVOO was calculated
to be 8.004 kJ/mol (Fig. 1).
Color was not substantially affected (P > 0.05) by storage tem-
perature given that olive oil was stored in the dark. Thus olive oil
stored in clear PET in the dark will retain its quality characteristics
for a period of 6 months at 13 C and 22 C and for less than
3 months at 35 C.
Similar effect of storage temperature on olive oil quality were
reported by Gambacorta et al. (2004) and Kanavouras and Coute-
lieris (2006) who showed that elevated temperatures caused sub-
stantial deterioration in olive oil quality but less than that caused
by light.
3.4. Effect of container headspace volume on quality of olive oil
Olive oil quality parameter values for clear PET stored in the
dark at 22 C are given in Table 4 as a function of headspace vol-
ume and storage time. The experiment was designed so as to re-
move the rst 200 mL of olive oil after 3 months of storage
(resulting headspace equal to 200 mL), the following 200 mL of
oil after 6 months (resulting headspace equal to 400 mL) and nal- T
a
b
l
e
2
C
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
a
c
i
d
i
t
y
,
P
V
,
a
b
s
o
r
p
t
i
o
n
c
o
e
f

c
i
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
c
o
l
o
r
o
f
o
l
i
v
e
o
i
l
p
a
c
k
a
g
e
d
i
n
P
E
T
b
o
t
t
l
e
s
a
t
2
2

C
a
s
a
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
a
c
k
a
g
i
n
g
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
,
l
i
g
h
t
t
r
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
r
a
t
e
a
n
d
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
t
i
m
e
.
M
o
n
t
h
A
c
i
d
i
t
y
(
%
)
o
l
e
i
c
a
c
i
d
P
V
(
m
e
q
O
2
/
k
g
)
K
2
3
2
K
2
7
0
C
o
l
o
r
C
l
e
a
r
P
E
T
P
E
T
+
U
V
b
l
o
c
k
e
r
P
E
T
+
A
l
u
m
.
f
o
i
l
C
l
e
a
r
P
E
T
P
E
T
+
U
V
b
l
o
c
k
e
r
P
E
T
+
A
l
u
m
.
f
o
i
l
C
l
e
a
r
P
E
T
P
E
T
+
U
V
b
l
o
c
k
e
r
P
E
T
+
A
l
u
m
.
f
o
i
l
C
l
e
a
r
P
E
T
P
E
T
+
U
V
b
l
o
c
k
e
r
P
E
T
+
A
l
u
m
.
f
o
i
l
C
l
e
a
r
P
E
T
P
E
T
+
U
V
b
l
o
c
k
e
r
P
E
T
+
A
l
u
m
.
f
o
i
l
0
0
.
6
3

0
.
0
1
0
.
6
3

0
.
0
1
0
.
6
3

0
.
0
1
1
2
.
9
2

0
.
4
4
1
2
.
9
2

0
.
4
4
1
2
.
9
2

0
.
4
4
2
.
2
5

0
.
0
5
2
.
2
5

0
.
0
5
2
.
2
5

0
.
0
5
0
.
1
4

0
.
0
2
0
.
1
4

0
.
0
2
0
.
1
4

0
.
0
2
L
=
5
3
.
0
4
L
=
5
3
.
0
4
L
=
5
3
.
0
4
a
=

2
.
8
0
a
=

2
.
8
a
=

2
.
8
b
=
3
6
.
0
9
b
=
3
6
.
0
9
0
b
=
3
6
.
0
9
3
0
.
6
9

0
.
0
1
0
.
7
0

0
.
0
2
0
.
6
5

0
.
0
1
1
4
.
7
0

0
.
5
0
1
5
.
4
5

0
.
5
0
1
4
.
0
0

0
.
2
0
2
.
8
2

0
.
1
0
2
.
6
5

0
.
2
0
2
.
6
6

0
.
2
2
0
.
3
1

0
.
0
1
0
.
2
7

0
.
0
5
0
.
1
4

0
.
0
1
L
=
5
4
.
0
1
L
=
5
4
.
6
1
L
=
5
0
.
7
7
a
=

2
.
4
8
a
=

2
.
5
2
a
=

3
.
4
7
b
=
3
6
.
8
6
b
=
3
6
.
4
4
b
=
3
4
.
5
6
6
0
.
7
3

0
.
0
1
0
.
7
3

0
.
0
1
0
.
6
9

0
.
0
1
1
6
.
9
0

0
.
5
2
1
7
.
3
5

0
.
2
0
1
6
.
2
5

0
.
2
0
2
.
8
5

0
.
1
0
2
.
9
3

0
.
1
0
2
.
6
9

0
.
2
0
0
.
3
1

0
.
0
1
0
.
2
9

0
.
1
0
0
.
1
6

0
.
0
5
L
=
5
3
.
8
2
L
=
5
3
.
3
8
L
=
5
1
.
3
6
a
=

2
.
7
3
a
=

2
.
4
6
a
=

3
.
1
2
b
=
3
6
.
6
3
b
=
3
6
.
1
9
b
=
3
4
.
9
5
9
0
.
8
2

0
.
0
1
0
.
7
9

0
.
0
1
0
.
7
3

0
.
0
1
1
7
.
5
3

0
.
1
0
1
9
.
2
0

0
.
2
0
1
7
.
4
7

0
.
1
0
2
.
9
0

0
.
1
0
2
.
8
7

0
.
1
0
2
.
7
1

0
.
2
2
0
.
3
9

0
.
0
1
0
.
3
1

0
.
0
3
0
.
1
9

0
.
0
3
L
=
5
7
.
5
0
L
=
5
7
.
8
0
L
=
5
1
.
9
4
a
=

2
.
6
8
a
=

2
.
8
6
a
=

3
.
1
5
b
=
3
6
.
1
9
b
=
3
6
.
7
2
b
=
3
5
.
3
5
1
2
0
.
8
5

0
.
0
1
0
.
8
0

0
.
0
3
0
.
7
5

0
.
0
2
2
1
.
9
8

0
.
3
1
1
9
.
2
4

0
.
3
0
1
8
.
8
1

0
.
5
9
3
.
1
8

0
.
0
9
2
.
9
0

0
.
0
6
2
.
8
8

0
.
0
1
0
.
3
7

0
.
0
2
0
.
3
7

0
.
0
2
0
.
2
4

0
.
0
1
L
=
6
0
.
9
3
L
=
6
0
.
8
5
L
=
5
3
.
4
5
a
=

2
.
7
6
a
=

2
.
5
8
a
=

4
.
1
6
b
=
4
1
.
5
1
b
=
4
1
.
6
4
b
=
3
6
.
3
4
A
d
o
p
t
e
d
l
i
m
i
t
s
(
E
U
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
1
9
8
9
/
2
0
0
3
)
6
0
.
8
%
6
2
0
6
2
.
5
0
6
0
.
2
2
G. Pristouri et al. / Food Control 21 (2010) 412418 415
ly the following 200 mL of oil after 9 months (resulting headspace
volume equal to 600 mL).
Results show that for olive oil packaged in clear PET held in the
dark at 22 C the acidity exceeded the adopted limit of 0.8% after
9 months (headspace 400 mL); PV exceeded the limit of 20 meq
O
2
/kg oil after 6 months (headspace 200 mL); K
232
exceeded the
limit of 2.5 after 3 months (headspace 0 mL) and K
270
exceeded
the limit of 0.22 after 6 months (headspace 200 mL). Color was
not affected (P > 0.05) by headspace volume and storage time un-
der the present experimental conditions. Thus even with no head-
space auto-oxidation proceeded to such an extent that K
232
reached its upper acceptable limit (2.50) for extra virgin olive oil
after 3 months of storage. This most probably may be attributed
to oxygen permeation through the PET bottle walls and possibly
to the action of oxygen dissolved in the oil (Del Nobile et al.,
2003). What should be stressed is the fact that PV increased expo-
nentially after 9 months of storage when the headspace volume
was P400 mL. This has also been reported by Bauer-Plank and
Steenhorst-Slikkerveer (2000).
Present data on the effect of headspace volume on the quality of
olive oil are in general agreement with those of Del Nobile et al.
(2003) who showed that by reducing either the bottle volumetric
capacity or the oxygen partial pressure in the bottle headspace
the quality decay kinetics of olive oil slowed down. Cecchi, De Mar-
co, Passamonti, and Pucciarelli (2006) evaluated EVOO quality
packaged in PET bottles by lling up to one third of their volume
and exposing the product to daylight for 2 months at 20 C. They
Fig. 1. ln(k) versus 1/T plot for peroxidation o EVOO packaged in PET bottles.
Table 4
Changes in acidity, PV, absorption coefcients and color of olive oil packaged in clear
PET at 22 C in the dark as a function of headspace volume and storage time.
Months/
headspace
(mL)
Acidity
(% oleic acid)
PV
(meq O
2
/kg)
K
232
K
270
Color
0/0 0.63 0.01 12.92 0.44 2.25 0.05 0.14 0.02 L = 53.04
a = 2.80
b = 36.09
3/0 0.70 0.02 15.60 0.20 2.50 0.20 0.20 0.01 L = 52.36
a = 2.97
b = 35.64
6/200 0.72 0.02 18.48 0.22 3.14 0.10 0.22 0.01 L = 52.35
a = 3.16
b = 35.64
9/400 0.77 0.02 32.20 0.20 3.24 0.10 0.27 0.01 L = 52.14
a = 2.92
b = 35.50
12/600 0.85 0.02 37.19 0.50 3.26 0.10 0.33 0.02 L = 53.39
a = 3.61
b = 36.35
T
a
b
l
e
3
C
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
a
c
i
d
i
t
y
,
P
V
,
a
b
s
o
r
p
t
i
o
n
c
o
e
f

c
i
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
c
o
l
o
r
o
f
o
l
i
v
e
o
i
l
s
t
o
r
e
d
i
n
P
E
T
b
o
t
t
l
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
d
a
r
k
a
s
a
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
t
i
m
e
.
M
o
n
t
h
A
c
i
d
i
t
y
(
%
)
o
l
e
i
c
a
c
i
d
P
V
(
m
e
q
O
2
/
k
g
)
K
2
3
2
K
2
7
0
C
o
l
o
r
1
3

C
2
2

C
3
5

C
1
3

C
2
2

C
3
5

C
1
3

C
2
2

C
3
5

C
1
3

C
2
2

C
3
5

C
1
3

C
2
2

C
3
5

C
0
0
.
6
3

0
.
0
1
0
.
6
3

0
.
0
1
0
.
6
3

0
.
0
1
1
2
.
9
2

0
.
4
4
1
2
.
9
2

0
.
4
4
1
2
.
9
2

0
.
4
4
2
.
2
5

0
.
0
5
2
.
2
5

0
.
0
5
2
.
2
5

0
.
0
5
0
.
1
4

0
.
0
2
0
.
1
4

0
.
0
2
0
.
1
4

0
.
0
2
L
=
5
3
.
0
4
L
=
5
3
.
0
4
L
=
5
3
.
0
4
a
=

2
.
8
0
a
=

2
.
8
0
a
=

2
.
8
0
b
=
3
6
.
0
9
b
=
3
6
.
0
9
b
=
3
6
.
0
9
3
0
.
7
0

0
.
0
1
0
.
7
0

0
.
0
2
0
.
7
1

0
.
0
1
1
4
.
3
8

0
.
1
0
1
5
.
6
0

0
.
2
0
1
5
.
9
0

0
.
2
0
2
.
3
0

0
.
1
0
2
.
5
0

0
.
2
0
3
.
0
3

0
.
0
7
0
.
1
9

0
.
1
0
0
.
2
0

0
.
0
1
0
.
2
4

0
.
0
1
L
=
5
1
.
3
2
L
=
5
2
.
4
4
L
=
5
2
.
4
1
a
=

2
.
6
8
a
=

2
.
3
4
a
=

2
.
8
7
b
=
3
4
.
8
2
b
=
3
5
.
6
7
b
=
3
5
.
3
2
6
0
.
7
1

0
.
0
1
0
.
7
2

0
.
0
1
0
.
7
3

0
.
0
2
1
5
.
4
0

0
.
1
4
1
7
.
5
3

0
.
2
2
1
8
.
4
8

0
.
1
0
2
.
5
0

0
.
1
4
3
.
0
0

0
.
2
0
3
.
0
4

0
.
2
0
0
.
2
1

0
.
0
1
0
.
2
2

0
.
0
1
0
.
2
6

0
.
0
5
L
=
5
1
.
1
8
L
=
5
2
.
7
5
L
=
5
1
.
9
8
a
=

2
.
4
0
a
=

2
.
4
6
a
=

2
.
9
5
b
=
3
3
.
4
2
b
=
3
5
.
8
9
b
=
3
5
.
3
8
9
0
.
7
1

0
.
0
1
0
.
7
3

0
.
0
1
0
.
7
8

0
.
0
2
1
6
.
0
0

0
.
4
0
1
8
.
4
3

0
.
4
0
1
9
.
6
6

0
.
3
0
3
.
0
0

0
.
0
2
3
.
0
0

0
.
0
5
3
.
1
6

0
.
0
2
0
.
2
1

0
.
0
1
0
.
2
4

0
.
0
3
0
.
2
8

0
.
0
2
L
=
5
2
.
5
9
L
=
5
1
.
7
9
L
=
5
2
.
4
0
a
=

2
.
7
2
a
=

2
.
8
7
a
=

2
.
7
7
b
=
3
5
.
3
9
b
=
3
5
.
2
1
b
=
3
5
.
6
3
1
2
0
.
7
3

0
.
0
1
0
.
7
7

0
.
0
2
0
.
8
3

0
.
0
1
1
6
.
8
1

0
.
5
0
2
0
.
6
0

0
.
2
0
2
3
.
6
1

0
.
4
0
3
.
0
0

0
.
1
1
3
.
1
0

0
.
0
2
3
.
2
7

0
.
0
1
0
.
2
5

0
.
0
2
0
.
2
5

0
.
0
2
0
.
3
2

0
.
0
3
L
=
5
1
.
7
8
L
=
5
2
.
8
4
L
=
5
3
.
0
4
a
=

2
.
8
8
a
=

2
.
9
5
a
=

2
.
9
0
b
=
3
4
.
8
0
b
=
3
5
.
5
1
b
=
3
6
.
0
8
A
d
o
p
t
e
d
l
i
m
i
t
s
(
E
U
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
1
9
8
9
/
2
0
0
3
)
6
0
.
8
%
6
2
0
6
2
.
5
0
6
0
.
2
2
416 G. Pristouri et al. / Food Control 21 (2010) 412418
reported substantial losses in quality beyond the acceptable level
from both the analytical and sensory points of view.
3.5. Comparison of relative effect of parameter investigated on quality
of olive oil
3.5.1. Acidity
Acidity is used as a criterion for the categorization of olive oil.
Despite this fact acidity is not a good indicator of olive oil quality
since for instance an olive oil with a relatively high acidity may
possess a highly desirable aroma whereas an olive oil with a low
acidity may lack in aroma (Kiritsakis, 1998). The smallest increase
in acidity after 12 months of storage was observed in glass and
clear PET at 13 and 22 C stored in the dark. Alternatively, similarly
low values for acidity were recorded for PET + UV and PET covered
with aluminum foil at 22 C in the presence of light. Increase in
temperature (from 22 to 35 C) in the dark, increase in headspace
(from 0 to 600 mL) in the dark, use of PP containers in the dark
at 22 C, or clear PET under light at 22 C resulted in the highest
acidity values (0.830.85) after 12 months of storage. Results with
regard to high storage temperatures and the presence of headspace
are in agreement with those of Gutirrez and Fernndez (2002).
Plastics (PP and to a lesser degree PET) exhibit a higher tendency
for hydrolysis of triglycerides which can be justied by their higher
oxygen permeability as compared to glass. A high oxygen concen-
tration results in a high rate of hydroperoxide formation and
decomposition leading to the formation of carboxylic acids,
responsible for an increase in acidity (Velasco & Dobarganes,
2002). Of the two plastics PET provided a better protection to olive
oil than PP due to its signicantly lower OTR. These results are in
agreement with those of Tawk and Huyghebaert (1999). Despite
the negligible OTR of glass its permeation to light enhanced
decomposition of triglycerides increasing olive oil acidity as postu-
lated above. This phenomenon was inhibited by storing glass con-
tainers in the dark. A similar effect was reported by Mndez and
Falqu (2007). Olive oil deterioration in the presence of light is en-
hanced by trace constituents such as chlorophyll which are excited
through the absorption of light. Subsequently they transfer this ex-
cess energy to ground state triplet oxygen to form the excited state
singlet oxygen which readily reacts with free fatty acids (Hamilton,
Kalu, Prisk, Padley, & Pierce, 1997).
3.5.2. Peroxide value (PV)
Reactions contributing to an increase in PV are auto-oxidation
and photo-oxidation the former occurring in the absence of light
while the latter occurs in the presence of light. Initial PV value of
olive oil was 12.92 meq O
2
/kg. During the initial stages of storage
in the dark, oxidation proceeds in the product due to the oxygen
dissolved in the oil (Del Nobile et al., 2003). PV values after
12 months of storage were 18.86 for glass, 20.61 for clear PET
and 22.54 meq/kg for PP in the dark at 22 C. Increase in PV values
is solely due to auto-oxidation. Respective PV values in presence of
light at the same temperature were 21.98 (for clear PET), 19.24 (for
PET + UV) and 18.81 meq O
2
/kg (for PET + aluminum foil). Thus for
PET the effect of light is more pronounced than that of OTR. After
12 months of storage PV values for PET in the dark were 16.81,
20.60 and 23.61 meq O
2
/kg at 13, 22 and 35 C, respectively. That
is, the effect of temperature under specic experimental conditions
was more pronounced than that of both light and oxygen. Finally,
large headspace volumes (i.e. 400600 mL) resulted to a drastic in-
crease of PV values after 12 months of storage (i.e. 32.20 and
37.19 meq O
2
/kg, respectively) and indicate that under extremely
high concentrations of oxygen, olive oil quality drastically deterio-
rates. At such high oxygen headspace concentrations the effect of
this parameter becomes the most critical compared to the other
three parameters.
The above results are in general agreement with those of Min
(1998) who reported higher losses in olive oil quality stored under
light as compared to those stored in the dark. Kiritsakis and Dugan
(1984) also reported that PV values were higher for olive oil pack-
aged in plastic containers as compared to those packaged in glass
bottles in the dark. According to Interesse, Ruggiero, and Vitagliano
(1971) photo-oxidation does not occur in olive oil stored in the
dark at relatively low temperatures (i.e. 1320 C). Under such
conditions natural pigments of olive oil (i.e. chlorophyll) act as
antioxidants along with polyphenols protecting the product from
oxidation.
Contemporary trends in olive oil packaging include dark colored
glass bottles and PET bottles which have incorporated oxygen sca-
vangers (Del Nobile et al., 2003).
3.5.3. Absorption coefcients (K
232
, K
270
)
The initial values for K
232
and K
270
were 2.25 and 0.14, respec-
tively. K
232
increased from 2.25 to 3.22 after 12 months of storage
in the dark at 22 C as a result of auto-oxidation caused primarily
by oxygen transmission through the packaging material and sec-
ondarily by oxygen initially dissolved in the oil. K
232
also increased
to 3.18 in the presence of light, to 3.27 at 35 C and to 3.26 in the
presence to excess oxygen in the headspace (headspace volume
600 mL after 12 months of storage). Thus the most pronounced
changes in K
232
were caused by an excess of oxygen and tempera-
ture followed by container OTR and container light transmittance.
K
270
increasedfrom0.14to0.35after 12 months of storage inPPin
the darkat 22 Cas a result of auto-oxidationdue tooxygentransmis-
sion through the package. It also increased to 0.37 in the presence of
light, to 0.32 at 35 C and to 0.33 in the presence of excess oxygen in
the container headspace (HS = 600 mL) after 12 months of storage.
Thus all four parameters: oxygen transmission, light transmission,
temperature and HS volume resulted in similar changes of K
270
. Pres-
ent results with regard to K
270
are somewhat different than those of
Kanavouras and Coutelieris (2006) who reported that light had a
more pronounced effect on deterioration of olive oil quality (produc-
tion of higher amounts of hexanal) than elevated temperatures.
Lastly with regard to olive oil color there were no statistically signif-
icant (P > 0.05) changes observed under specic experimental condi-
tions of storage with the exception of olive oil exposed to light.
Similar results were reported by Morell, Motilva, Tovar, andRomero
(2004) regarding the color parameter b (yellowness) of olive oil.
Changes in olive oil color are related to the decomposition of chloro-
phylls during photo-oxidation (Kiritsakis, 1998).
4. Conclusions
Based on the above data the following conclusions may be
drawn:
(a) Containers with high OTRs such as PP, PE are not suitable for
the packaging of olive oil.
(b) UV lters in PET bottles do not substantially contribute to
the retention of olive oil quality.
(c) Packaging olive oil in low OTR bottles such as PET does not
effectively protect the product beyond 3 months in the pres-
ence of light.
(d) Large HS volumes should be avoided indicating the need for
consumption of olive oil within a given container as soon as
possible.
(e) The most appropriate material for olive oil packaging is glass
followed by PET and preferably a dark colored container to
be stored in the dark at temperatures less than or equal to
22 C. Under such conditions the shelf life of extra virgin
olive oil is 6 months.
G. Pristouri et al. / Food Control 21 (2010) 412418 417
(f) The relative contribution of parameters studied to the reten-
tion of olive oil quality are: temperature light > container
headspace > packaging material oxygen transmission rate.
This sequence changes when HS volume becomes
P400 mL (headspace volume/total volume P4/5 = 0.8).
References
Agricultural Cooperative Union of PEZA, Crete (2008). Personal communication.
Angerosa, F. (2002). Inuence of volatile compounds on virgin olive oil quality
evaluated by analytical approaches and sensory panels. European Journal of Lipid
Science and Technology, 104, 639660.
Bauer-Plank, C., & Steenhorst-Slikkerveer, L. (2000). Analysis of triacylglyceride
hydroperoxides in vegetable oils by nonaqueous reversed-phase high-
performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection. Journal of the
American Oil Chemists Society, 77, 477482.
Bradley, D. G., & Min, D. B. (1992). Singlet oxygen oxidation of foods. Critical Reviews
in Food Science and Nutrition, 31, 211236.
Cecchi, T., De Marco, C., Passamonti, P., & Pucciarelli, F. (2006). Analytical denition
of the quality of extra-virgin olive oil stored in polyethylene terephthalate
bottles. Journal of Food Lipids, 13, 251258.
Coltro, L. B., Padula, M., Segantini Saron, E., Borghetti, J., & Penteado Buratin, A. E.
(2003). Evaluation of a UV absorber added to PET bottles for edible oil
packaging. Packaging Technology and Science, 16, 1520.
Coutelieris, F. A., & Kanavouras, A. (2005). Experimental and theoretical
investigation of packaged olive oil: Development of a quality indicator based
on mathematical predictions. Journal of Food Engineering, 73, 8592.
Del Nobile, M. A., Bove, S., La Notte, E., & Sacchi, R. (2003). Inuence of packaging
geometry and material properties on the oxidation kinetics of bottled virgin
olive oil. Journal of Food Engineering, 57, 189197.
Duran, R. M. (1990). Relationship between composition and ripening of the olive
and the quality of the oil. Acta Horticulturae, 286, 441451.
EU Regulation 1989/2003 (1989/2003). Ofcial Journal of the European Union, L 295,
5777.
Frankel, E. N. (2005). Lipid oxidation (2nd ed.). Bridgewater: Barnes, P.J. & Associates,
The Oily Press.
Gambacorta, G., Del Nobile, M. A., Tamagnone, P., Leonardi, M., Faccia, M., & La
Notte, E. (2004). Shelf-life of extra virgin olive oil stored in packages with
different oxygen barrier properties. Italian Journal of Food Science, 16,
417428.
Gutirrez, F., & Fernndez, J. L. (2002). Determinant parameters and components in
the storage of virgin olive oil. Prediction of storage time beyond which the oil is
no longer of extra quality. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 50(57),
1577.
Hamilton, R. J., Kalu, C., Prisk, E., Padley, F. B., & Pierce, H. (1997). Chemistry of free
radicals in lipids. Food Chemistry, 60, 193199.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive_oil, 2009.
Interesse, F. S., Ruggiero, P., & Vitagliano, M. (1971). Auto-oxidation of olive oil.
Effects of chlorophyll pigments. Indian Agriculture, 9, 318322.
IOOC (1996). International encyclopedia of olive tree (1st ed.). Madrid: International
Olive Oil Council.
Kanavouras, A., & Coutelieris, F. (2006). Shelf-life predictions for packaged olive oil
based on simulations. Food Chemistry, 96, 4855.
Kanavouras, A., Hernandez-Mnoz, P., & Coutelieres, F. (2004). Shelf life predictions
of packaged olive oil using avor compounds as markers. European Food
Research and Technology, 219, 190198.
Kanavouras, A., Hernandez-Mnoz, P., & Coutelieres, F. A. (2006). Packaging of olive
oil: Quality issues and shelf life predictions. Food Reviews International, 22,
381404.
Kanavouras, A., Hernandez-Mnoz, P., Coutelieres, F., & Selke, S. (2004). Oxidation
derived avor compounds as quality indicators for packaged olive oil. Journal of
the American Oil Chemists Society, 81, 251257.
Kaya, A., Tekin, A. R., & ner, M. D. (1993). Oxidative stability of sunower and olive
oils: Comparison between a modied active oxygen method and long term
storage. LWT Food Science and Technology, 26, 464468.
Khan, M. A., & Shahidi, F. (1999). Rapid oxidation of commercial extra virgin olive oil
stored under uorescent light. Journal of Food Lipids, 6(4), 331339.
Kiritsakis, A. K. (1998). Olive oil: From the tree to the table (2nd ed.). Trumbull: Food
and Nutrition Press.
Kiritsakis, A. K., & Dugan, L. R. (1984). Effect of selected storage conditions and
packaging materials on olive oil quality. Journal of the American Oil Chemists
Society, 61, 18681870.
Kiritsakis, A., Kanavouras, A., & Kiritsakis, K. (2002). Chemical analysis, quality
control and packaging issues of olive oil. European Journal of Lipid Science and
Technology, 104, 628638.
Mndez, A. I., & Falqu, E. (2007). Effect of storage time and container type on the
quality of extra virgin olive oil. Food Control, 18, 521529.
Min, D. B. (1998). Lipid oxidation of edible oils. In C. C. Akoh & B. D. Min (Eds.), Food
lipids. Chemistry, nutrition and biotechnology (pp. 283296). New York: Marcel
Dekker.
Morales, M. T., Rios, J. J., & Aparicio, R. (1997). Changes in the volatile composition of
virgin olive oil during oxidation: avors and off-avors. Journal of Agricultural
and Food Chemistry, 45, 26662673.
Morell, J. R., Motilva, M. J., Tovar, M. J., & Romero, M. P. (2004). Changes in
commercial virgin olive oil (cv Arbequina) during storage, with special
emphasis on the phenolic fraction. Food Chemistry, 85, 357364.
Moreno-Rojas, J. M., Reniero, F., Guillon, C., Klotz, L., & Giazzi, G. (2007). Control of
geographic origin of extra-virgin olive oil by liquid injection in an elemental
analyzer coupled to an isotope ratio mass spectrometer. Ispra, Italy: Joint Research
Centre, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection.
Papachristou, C., Badeka, A., Chouliara, E., Kondyli, E., Kourtis, L., & Kontominas, M.
G. (2006). Evaluation of PET as a packaging material for premium quality whole
pasteurized milk in Greece. Part II. Storage under uorescent light. European
Food Research and Technology, 234, 237247.
Sacchi, R., Savarese, M., Del Regno, A., Paduano, A., Terminiello, P., & Ambrosino, M.
L. (2008). Shelf life of vegetables oils bottled in different scavenging
polyethyleneterephthalate (PET) containers. Packaging Technology and Science,
21, 269277.
Sacco, A., Brescia, M. A., Sgaramella, A., & Sacco, D. (2005). Characterization of the
composition and the geographical origin of food products by means of nuclear
magnetic resonance and isotope ratio mass spectroscopy. Recent Research
Developments in Agricultural & Food Chemistry, 6, 119142.
Skibsted, L. H. (2000). Light induced changes in dairy products. Bulletin of the
International Dairy Federation, Doc. No. 345, 49.
Suarez-Martinez, J. M. (1975). Preliminary operations. In J. M. Moreno Martinez
(Ed.), Olive oil technology (pp. 521). Rome: FAO.
Tawk, M. S., & Huyghebaert, A. (1999). Interaction of packaging materials and
vegetable oils: oil stability. Food Chemistry, 64, 451459.
Tsimidou, M., Blekas, G., & Boskou, D. (2003). Olive oil. In B. Caballero, L. Trugo, & P.
Finglas (Eds.), Encyclopedia of food science, food technology and nutrition
(pp. 42524260). London: Academic Press.
Velasco, J., & Dobarganes, C. (2002). Oxidative stability of virgin olive oil. European
Journal of Lipid Science and Technology, 104, 661676.
Zanoni, B., Bertuccioli, M., Rovelline, P., Marotta, P., & Mattei, A. (2005). A
preliminary approach to predictive modeling of extra virgin olive oil stability.
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 85, 14921498.
418 G. Pristouri et al. / Food Control 21 (2010) 412418