**2. Background and objective**

The study at hand focuses on the aspect of different test locations for objective sensory analysis and their possible impact on the quality of resulting data.

Normally tests in sensory analysis take place as central location tests (CLT) in standardized testing rooms, such as sensory laboratories. Most of the regulations and guidelines propose these "*in situ*" (on-site) approaches. Panelists in these cases come to the lab, use the provided infrastructure (test cabins, hard and software for data collection, maybe additional technical equipment, such as heaters) for training and testing and at the same time, all other surrounding conditions (e.g., light, climate (humidity, temperature), else) are defined and controlled automatically. This is normally the rule and easily to be organized when using so-called "internal panels," consisting of panelists that work nearby, in the same institution, company, etc. Panelists can be scheduled quite easily and are able to take part in either regularly planned or as well spontaneously organized synchronic test situations.

But how about panelists in so-called "external panels," who must travel to be able to participate in regular on-site and synchronic trainings and test situations? Such dates can be organized and scheduled only medium or long-term presupposed. Rather flexible and spontaneous testing under such conditions is almost not possible. This consideration shows us—independently from pandemic situations—the need for additional appropriate test settings, that on the one hand can secure high standards of data quality/validity in sensory analysis and are on the other hand flexible as well

*Sensory Evaluation of EVOO: Do Different Test Locations Have a Relevant Impact on Data… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102702*

as time and cost-efficient. Doing sensory trainings and tests with panelists "remote" (off-site), meaning that panelists work at home respectively at defined and standardized "home-testing-stations," cause less costs for traveling (time per panelist, transportation). Data can be collected and exchanged online (web-based) either synchronously or asynchronously and as well panel meetings can take place remotely. Moreover, the latest data even show a better availability of panelists, due to less necessary time effort for traveling and thereby as well a higher motivation for contribution in panel work, compared to more elaborate (*in situ*) settings [6].

The aim of the study at hand is to prove the overall performance of participating sensory panels and the quality of the collected data. The focus lies on the evaluation of the suitability of "*in situ*" test situations (sensory laboratory) versus "remote" test situations (home test stations) for the sensory evaluation of olive oil. Additionally, the criteria of homogeneity between the considered panels as well as homogeneity, consistency, and repeatability of each single panel are particularly interesting in this context.
