*4.1.2 German olive oil panel (DOP)*

Looking at the attribute fruitiness, **Figure 6** visualizes the comparison of the medians of all seven extra virgin olive oils analyzed. Like for SOP, as well for DOP the maximum difference between medians for very small, in this case, 0.4 for sample 362. This proves that there is no significant difference between results coming from the *in situ* testing compared to the home testing stations (remote), as well for DOP. Results from mixed-model ANOVA are shown in **Table 9**.

For bitterness, **Figure 5** visualizes the comparison of the median of all extra virgin olive oils analyzed. The maximum difference between medians is 0.2 for samples 104 and 507. There is no significant difference between results coming from *in situ* testing compared to the home testing stations (remote). Results from mixed-model ANOVA are shown in **Table 10**.

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

**Figure 4.**

*Median of pungency (SOP)—in situ versus remote (n = 9).*


#### **Table 7.**

*Mixed-model ANOVA for pungency (SOP)—in situ versus remote (n = 9).*

For pungency, **Figure 7** visualizes the comparison of the median of all extra virgin olive oils analyzed. The maximum difference between medians is 0.3 for samples 104 and 362. There is no significant difference between results coming from the *in situ* testing compared to the home testing stations (remote). Results from mixed-model ANOVA are shown in **Table 11**.

Finally, **Figure 8** focuses on defects and visualizes the comparison of the median of the main defect of the 3 defective olive oils. The maximum difference between medians is 0.2 for samples 055 and 652. There is no significant difference between results coming from the *in situ* testing compared to the home testing stations (remote). Results from mixed-model ANOVA are shown in **Table 12**.

#### **4.2 Agreement between different panels**

Second, mixed-model ANOVA was used to analyze whether there exist differences between the data collected from the two IOC-recognized panels separately. It was found that there are statistically significant differences between the two panels. The largest difference for the mean value is 0.5 on a 10 cm scale. This means, that panels

#### **Figure 5.**

*Median of bitterness (DOP)—in situ versus remote (n = 11).*


#### **Table 8.**

*Mixed-model ANOVA for main defects (SOP)—in situ versus remote (n = 9).*

**Figure 6.** *Median of fruitiness (DOP)—in situ versus remote (n = 11).*

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


#### **Table 9.**

*Mixed-model ANOVA for fruitiness (DOP)—in situ versus remote (n = 11).*


#### **Table 10.**

*Mixed-model ANOVA for bitterness (DOP)—in situ versus remote (n = 11).*

#### **Figure 7.**

*Median of pungency (DOP)—in situ versus remote (n = 11).*


#### **Table 11.**

*Mixed-model ANOVA for pungency (DOP)—in situ versus remote (n = 11).*

show variance, but nevertheless, results are within the expected and accepted variation proposed by the IOC.

For the attribute fruitiness "*in situ*" as well as fruitiness "remote" **Figures** 9 and 10 show that the two panels do differ only slightly (0.2) and the results of the two panels show significant differences (**Table 13**).

**Figure 8.** *Median of main defect (DOP)—in situ versus remote (n = 11).*


#### **Table 12.**

*Mixed-model ANOVA for main defects (DOP)—in situ versus remote (n = 11).*

This is as well the case for the other positive attributes—bitterness and pungency. Regardless that the comparisons of panels show significant differences, it can be stated, that the maximum deviation in the mean value was in all attributes only 0.5.

A similar situation is found for the main defects "*in situ*" and "remote." It is shown in **Figures 11** and **12** that the two panels do differ slightly (1.5) and results from both panels show significant differences (**Table 14**).

Based on the shown data, it can be concluded, that even if the "difference between panels" (DOP/SOP) is significant, the variance in all cases is well below the IOC accepted differences between recognized panels.

### **4.3 Panel performance of single panels**

Third, and based on the document COI/T.28/Doc. No.1/Rev. 52,019, the panel performance for both panels were analyzed according to the following selected criteria: *Z*-Score, Deviation Number as well as Normalized Error and Precision Number for both participating panels, SOP and DOP. Results show that both panels meet the IOC requirements in all criteria mentioned. The following data from SOP are shown exemplarily.

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

**Figure 9.** *Median of fruitiness (SOP versus DOP)—in situ.*

#### **Figure 10.**

*Median of fruitiness (SOP versus DOP)—remote.*


#### **Table 13.**

*Mixed-model ANOVA for fruitiness (SOP versus DOP).*

**Figure 11.** *Median of main defect (SOP versus DOP)—in situ.*

**Figure 12.** *Median of main defect (SOP versus DOP)—remote.*
