Next Article in Journal
Innovative Fermented Beverages Made with Red Rice, Barley, and Buckwheat
Next Article in Special Issue
Oral Sensitivity to Flowability and Food Neophobia Drive Food Preferences and Choice
Previous Article in Journal
Biofilm-Forming Ability of Microbacterium lacticum and Staphylococcus capitis Considering Physicochemical and Topographical Surface Properties
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Preliminary Insights in Sensory Profile of Sweet Cherries

1
Centre for the Research and Technology of Agro-Environmental and Biological Sciences (CITAB), University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro (UTAD), Quinta de Prados, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal
2
Chemistry Research Centre (CQ-VR), Department of Biology and Environment, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro (UTAD), Quinta de Prados, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal
3
Cermouros-Cerejas de São Martinho de Mouros, Lda., Quinta da Ribeira, Bulhos, 4660-210 Resende, Portugal
4
Department of Agronomy, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro (UTAD), Quinta de Prados, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2021, 10(3), 612; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10030612
Submission received: 30 January 2021 / Revised: 9 March 2021 / Accepted: 10 March 2021 / Published: 13 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Texture Sensitivity and Consumer Food Preference and Behaviour)

Abstract

:
Sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) is a fruit appreciated by consumers for its well-known physical and sensory characteristics and its health benefits. Being an extremely perishable fruit, it is important to know the unique attributes of the cultivars to develop cultivation or postharvest strategies that can enhance their quality. This study aimed to understand the influence of physicochemical characteristics of two sweet cherry cultivars, Burlat and Van, on the food quality perception. Several parameters (weight, dimensions, soluble solids content (SSC), pH, titratable acidity (TA), colour, and texture) were measured and correlated with sensory data. Results showed that cv. Van presented heavier and firmer fruits with high sugar content. In turn, cv. Burlat showed higher pH, lower TA, and presented redder and brightest fruits. The principal component analysis revealed an evident separation between cultivars. Van cherries stood out for their sensory parameters and were classified as more acidic, bitter, and astringent, and presented a firmer texture. Contrarily, Burlat cherries were distinguished as being more flavourful, succulent, sweeter, and more uniform in terms of visual and colour parameters. The results of the sensory analysis suggested that perceived quality does not always depend on and/or recognize the quality parameters inherent to the physicochemical characteristics of each cultivar.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Sweet cherry production around the world has been growing in the last years. The worldwide estimation of sweet cherry production, in 2018, was 2,563,134 t in a harvested area of 441,953 ha. Asia represented the largest producer with 44.6% of world production, followed by Europe with 33.7%, and the Americas with 19.8% [1].
Sweet cherry is one of the most popular and appreciated early Spring/Summer fruits; thus, it is extremely important to obtain high-quality fruits that meet the consumer’s expectations [2,3,4]. Because it is a very perishable fruit that is consumed essentially in a fresh state, it is sometimes difficult to maintain these demanding levels [3,4,5]. To achieve excellent products, it is essential to know in advance the characteristics inherent to each cultivar, as well as how these characteristics are perceived by the consumer. Thus, strategies that can enhance the quality should be developed, such as the appropriate selection of the combination cultivar x rootstock, choosing the optimum harvest date, and the application of pre-and post-harvest compounds, namely bio stimulants and bio fungicides, among others [3,4,5,6,7].
According to FAO/WHO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy/World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland) [8], food quality covers all the characteristics that influence the appreciation of a product by the consumer. This includes negative characteristics (dirt, deterioration, discoloration, abnormal odours, etc.) and positive attributes (colour, texture, flavour, origin, and type of food processing, etc.).
The term quality has been defined in different ways, over time. However, there seems to be a consensus that quality can be distinguished in objective (physical attributes introduced to the product) and subjective (quality perceived by consumers) [9]. This last one can be divided into two approaches: a holistic method in which quality encompasses all desirable properties that are perceived in the product and, an excellence approach that suggests that parts may not constitute the whole. This suggests that products may have properties appreciated and valued by consumers, but that they are not always seen as a quality factor [9]. Thus, it is important to know the preferences of consumers, that is, their perceived quality. The appreciation of food products is connected with the senses, mainly with texture, aroma, and flavour [10]. The process that establishes consumer acceptability for a product is called a sensory evaluation test [11]. The sensory evaluation uses humans to measure sensory perceptions and understand their acceptance of food and taste. The information from the sensory evaluation is useful in marketing decisions because it allows us to identify, quantify, and idealise the main drivers for the acceptance of a product. Nowadays, any sensory program recognizes this information as an elementary resource [10].
As the cherry fruit is particularly sensitive and perishable, its quality is affected and tends to decrease along each step of the supply chain. Therefore, high care levels must be taken besides good decisions and good practices, that should begin at the orchard, to achieve premium quality fruit for distribution in the fresh market [3,5,6,12,13,14], thereby satisfying the consumer. Physical damages should be avoided because, in addition to being considered defects, they accelerate water loss, influencing its deterioration, contamination, and, consequently, the shelf life [4,5,15].
Based on consumer acceptance, the quality of sweet cherries is defined by several attributes, such as visual appearance (size, bright red colour, and green peduncle colour), sweetness, firmness, and flavour [16,17,18]. Colour is defined as the main indicator of the fresh cherries quality, by several authors [17,19,20,21]. Additionally, Girard and Kopp [22] consider firmness as an important textural attribute often used to assess fruit quality. The requirements of international markets on cherry quality, especially the fruit dimension, have increased notably [23] being a decisive parameter of fruit value [24]. From the consumer’s point of view, an ‘ideal’ cherry should be large, dark, and sweet, with a shiny appearance being the attributes that influence the purchase decision [25,26]. A good balance between sugars (sweetness) and fruit acids (sourness), combined with the absence of defects such as cracks, stings of birds/insects, rot, among others, are also important quality criteria [3,11,27] and function as critical factors in consumer acceptance [20]. Also important is the chemical composition of sweet cherries which has a great influence on the sensory quality of the fruits [28]. These fruits are a source of bioactive compounds, such as, natural polyphenolic compounds, that enhance health benefits (health promoters), revealing an anti-cancer, anti-inflammatory, and antioxidant power, among others [3,29,30,31,32]. Therefore, it is important to evaluate their impact on consumer acceptance, trying to achieve the optimal combination of taste and health-promoting compounds [33].
To better understand how the perception of the sensory quality of sweet cherry can be influenced by the characteristics of each cultivar, chemical, textural, and sensory parameters were measured/evaluated, and correlated.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Design, Fruit, and Sampling

The trial took place in a commercial orchard that was 10 years old, located on a hillside in the region of Alufinha, Resende (Viseu District), Portugal (41°12′ N, 7°93′ W, altitude 149 m). The trees have a spacing of 3.0 m between lines and 2.5 m from each other on the line, trained in a vertical system. Weather data were recorded by a weather station located in São João da Fontoura, near the experimental site (Figure 1). The year 2019 was extremely hot and dry. The mean temperature ranged from 7.8 °C (January) to 22.3 °C (July) and rainfall values for the area were relatively low throughout the year with a peak of precipitation in the last 3 months (maximum in November with 616.4 mm).
For this trial, ten trees of each cultivar in the study, namely, cv. Burlat (an early cultivar) and cv. Van (a late cultivar), both grafted on ‘Colt’ rootstock, were selected. In these trees, about 1 kg of fruits was randomly chosen and carefully harvested, at the stage of commercial maturity (cv. Burlat on 8 May and cv. Van on 27 May 2019), and then transported to the laboratory, under refrigerated conditions. On the same day, after arriving at the laboratory, the respective routine analyses (weight, dimensions, soluble solids content (SSC), pH, titratable acidity (TA), colour, and texture), and sensory tests were immediately carried out.

2.2. Determination of Physicochemical Parameters of Sweet Cherry

2.2.1. Weight and Dimensions

In a sample of 30 fruits, without defects, of each cultivar, the weight of each fruit was determined, using an electronic balance (PCD2200-2, Kern, Balingen, Germany, with an accuracy of 0.01 g). Additionally, measurements of their size (larger diameter, smaller diameter, and height) were carried out, using a digital caliper (Mitutoyo absolute digimatic, with 0.01 mm of precision).

2.2.2. Chromatic Characteristics

Fruit colour was measured at both sides of these same 30 fruits with a colorimeter (CR-300, Minolta, Osaka, Japan) following the CIE (Commission International de l’Eclairage, Vienna, Austria) system of 1976, using the psychometric space (CIELAB). This system consistently correlates colour values with visual perception. Colours can be expressed in terms of hue (h°), lightness (L*), and saturation (chromatic coordinates a* and b*). L* can be read from 0 (opaque or black) to 100 (transparent or white), coordinate a* from red to green (+a indicates red and -a indicates green), co-ordinate b* from yellow to blue (+b indicates yellow and -b indicates blue). It can also be described using cylindrical coordinates being lightness (L*), hue (h°), and chroma (C*), related to the Munsell coordinates [34,35]. The hue = arctg (b*/a*), expressed the colour nuance [24], and values, presented in degrees, vary between 0° to 90° (red to yellow), 180° to 270° (green to bluish-green) [36]. The chroma (C*) of cherry fruits was expressed according to the formula: C* = (a*2 + b*2)1/2 [37,38,39]. Results were presented as the average of sixty values obtained for 30 fruits from each cultivar with the indication of standard deviation (SD).

2.2.3. Epidermis Rupture Force and Flesh Firmness

The texture of the cherries was measured using a Texture Analyser (TA.XT.plus–Stable Micro Systems, Godalming, UK). For that, a load cell of 50 N and a cylindrical probe with 2.0 mm diameter, were used and the maximum force required to compress 5 mm of pulp at a speed of 1 mm s−1 was recorded.
The captured and analysed data (force, distance, and time) indicated the sample texture in terms of flesh firmness of pulp—FF (N mm−1) and the epidermis rupture force—ERF (N). Results were expressed as an average of thirty fruits with the indication of SD.

2.2.4. Soluble Solids Content, pH, and Titratable Acidity

The same 30 fruits of each cultivar used for fruit biometry, colour, and texture were divided into three groups of ten and the pulp was separated from the pit and the peduncle. With an electric extractor (ZN350C70, Tefal Elea, Hong Kong, China) all the juice from the pulp of those ten fruits were extracted. Total soluble solids content—SSC (°Brix) was measured using a digital refractometer (PR-101, Atago, Japan), followed by pH measurement with a pH meter (3310 Jenway, UK). Immediately thereafter, 10 mL of juice was diluted in 10 mL of distilled water and automatic titration (using an automatic titrator—Schott Easy Titroline) of the solution with sodium hydroxide (NaOH, 0.1 mol L−1) until reaching pH 8.2, obtaining the titratable acidity (TA) (in g of citric acid by 100 g of fresh weight). Results were reported as the average of three replicates with the indication of SD.

2.3. Sweet Cherries Sensory Profile Evaluation

The sweet cherries sensory profile was evaluated by a trained panel of 12 judges, ranging from 35 to 50 years of age, belonging to the Department of Biology and Environment, School of Life and Environment Sciences, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro (DeBA/ECVA-UTAD), with high expertise in the evaluation of fruits and fruits-derived products and that had already participated in several scientific works [40,41,42,43,44]. Nevertheless, before the cherries-sample tasting sessions, a training session was performed for the familiarization of the panellists with the selected tasting sheet and cherries sensory attributes (Table 1), using standard commercial cherries available in the market at that time.
The sensory tests took place in a laboratory equipped for sensory analysis according to ISO 6658 [45]. Panellists evaluated a list of twelve cherry attributes (Table 1) adapted from Chauvin et al. [46]. The attributes were classified according to the intensity scale provided and scored from 1 (lowest intensity) to 5 (highest intensity) points [47,48]. Before the session started, the randomly coded samples were washed with distilled water and placed at room temperature for 2 h to obtain a temperature of about 18 °C. After, the samples were presented to the tasters, on a white Pyrex plate, two cherry fruits per cultivar, for each one. Between each tasting, as a flavour cutter, tasters were asked to drink a sip of water or bite on a low-salt cracker. In order not to affect the tasting performance, the tasters were non-smokers, did not wear any type of perfume, and one hour before the start of the tasting session they did not eat or drink anything.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using Software SPSS V.25 (SPSS-IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Statistical differences were evaluated by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by Tukey’s post hoc test (p < 0.05), establishing the cultivar effect. Sensory data were analysed by one-way ANOVA followed by the post hoc Duncan’s multiple range test (p < 0.05).
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was performed using the Pearson correlation matrix after normalizing the data matrix for each attribute, using the XLSTAT software. PCA is a mathematical procedure that allows converting a set of observations of possibly correlated variables into a set of linearly uncorrelated variable values (principal components).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Determination of Physicochemical Properties of Sweet Cherry

Evaluating the physicochemical properties of both sweet cherry cultivars (Table 2), it was possible to verify that the fruits of cv. Van presented higher fresh weight (9.30 vs. 8.10 g) and size (27.89 vs. 26.49 mm) than cv. Burlat. Identical results were found by Faniadis et al. [49]. Consumers from European countries revealed a preference for fruits between 11 and 12 g [25], whereas consumers in the USA value sweetness over the fruit size [50]. In terms of anatomical parameters, Kappel et al. [25], found that Canadian consumers considered the 29 mm size as the ideal diameter for sweet cherries. In the present study, Van and Burlat cherries presented a diameter of 27–28 mm; thus, they were in the optimal range of values found as optimal for consumer’s purchase.
Considering that SSC varied between 11 and 25 °Brix in sweet cherry [31,51], in our study, fruits of cv. Van could be considered of the greatest sweetness (20.80 vs. 16.37 °Brix). On the other hand, the fruits of cv. Burlat had a higher pH value (3.94 vs. 3.70), and therefore, lower titratable acidity than cv. Van (5.60 vs. 8.30% citric acid), as displayed in Figure 2.
The chromatic parameters of fruits, L*, a*, b*, chroma, and hue angle were shown in Figure 3. Overall, Burlat cherries had higher values than Van cherries in all parameters, but significant differences (p < 0.05) were only found in coordinate a* and chroma. In particular, Burlat had redder and brighter fruits (a* = 27.97; L* = 33.03) than cv. Van that showed significantly lower values (a* = 24.84; L* = 32.25). Identical results were found by Faniadis et al. [49]. This result was following other studies, which refer that chroma and hue angle of partially ripe cherries were always higher than in the ripe ones [38,52].
Usenik et al. [53] reported that the fruits of late cultivars were generally firmer than those of early cultivars, which was also observed in the present work, where cv. Van presented firmer fruits than cv. Burlat, offering higher resistance to rupture of the epidermis (Figure 4).

3.2. Sweet Cherries Sensory Profile Evaluation

The sensory analysis (Figure 5) performed by a trained panel of tasters showed a low number of significant differences between cultivars. In twelve attributes, the tasters highlighted significant differences in only three: cherry flavour, acidic taste, and sweet taste. According to the panel, the cv. Van was more acidic while cv. Burlat was sweeter and with a more intense cherry flavour. Other characteristics identified in routine analyses, such as firmness, colour, weight, and dimensions went unnoticed to tasters.
To understand how the evaluated parameters correlated with each other, a chemometric analysis was performed combining the chemical, textural, fruit weight, and dimensions, all together, with sensory data (Figure 6). The PCA based on the Pearson correlation matrix standardized the data. In this analysis, the two main components (PC1 and PC2) represented 100% of the total variance, with factor 1 (F1) reflecting the highest variability (98.90%). In the spatial projection of Figure 6, it was possible to visualize the distribution of the samples evaluated and the associated parameters. In this projection, the two cultivars were spatially separated. Van cherries were in the upper left PCA quadrant. The sensory and textural parameters that seemed to contribute to this separation were acid (sour) and bitter taste, astringency, and firmness (sensory parameters); epidermis rupture force, and flesh firmness (textural parameters). Regarding texture, as already mentioned, cv. Van stood out for presenting firmer fruits, which offered greater resistance to the rupture of the epidermis, corroborating the firmness perceived by the tasters. Thus, there was a positive correlation between instrumental parameters (FF and ERF) and the sensory attribute firmness. However, there was a negative correlation with the epidermis softness sensory attribute since the tasters attributed this characteristic to cv. Burlat. On the other hand, Burlat cherries were located in the upper right PCA quadrant, and were characterized by the sensory parameters: cherry flavour, succulence, sweet taste, colour intensity, peduncle colour, epidermis softness, and colour uniformity; and by the colour coordinates L* and b*. The colour coordinate a*, the chemical parameters pH, SSC, and TA, and the fruit weight and dimensions were in the lower right PCA quadrant, which means that they were correlated with each other, but they do not particularly differentiate the two varieties.
Odour intensity was an attribute that did not appear in the PCA once it did not present any variability. Thus, it was a characteristic of minor importance in terms of sensory quality, for both cultivars. Panellists referred that the cherry’s odour was not perceived until the first bite, so, it was not an attribute that may influence consumer’s purchase decisions, which could probably be related to the classification of the sweet cherry as a non-climacteric fruit.
Consequently, it was interesting to verify that the bitter and acid taste attributes of Van cherries were not correlated with the titratable acidity (TA), which was not in accordance to Da Conceição et al. [54] that correlated the acidic perception of citric, malic and tartaric acids (titratable acidity) with the full sensory perceived acidity. However, this PCA projection corroborated the sensory data, once the panellists perceived the Burlat cherries as being significantly sweeter despite their higher chemical acidity, expressed in the TA and pH values. Titratable acidity is an approximation of the total acidity of a solution since it does not measure all acids, it measures the bound and free hydrogen ions in the solution. Several studies have reported that, for a given pH, the increase in the sour taste intensity was directly related to the increase in TA [55,56]. Shallenberger [57] proposed that sour taste intensity was strictly related to the potential hydrogen ion concentration, but Pangborn [58], found no relation between pH, titratable acidity, and relative sour taste intensity of several organic acids. Acids can produce a sour taste but are also capable of inducing non-sour taste characteristics, such as bitterness, saltiness, and astringency [59,60]. As mentioned by Da Conceição et al. [54], the relationship between the intensity of sour and hydrogen ions, and the physiology of sour or acid taste perception is not that simple and was controversial.
Although the absence of statistical differences in sensory data, the sensory attribute firmness was correlated with the textural parameters flesh firmness and epidermis rupture. The same was found by other authors in fruits of small size, as grapes [61].
It was in the Van cultivar that the highest values of sugars (SSC) were found; however, this sweetness was not perceived by the tasters that classified the Burlat cherries as “sweeter”. The sweetness was one of the main drivers of the consumer´s preference. Given the complexity of sweetness evaluation, SSC was commonly used as an estimation of this parameter. Nevertheless, it has been demonstrated that SSC and sweet taste were poorly correlated [62].
In terms of a hedonic perspective, Burlat cherries presented attributes more related to the pleasantness of eating cherries like cherry flavour, succulence, sweet taste, colour intensity, and uniformity [63]. Moreover, the generality of the fully ripe cherry fruit had a bright shiny pale to deep red or even purple colour. Owing to their intense red colour, consumers related cherries with healthy beneficial and antioxidant properties [64]. On the other hand, Zheng et al. [50] also stated that consumers had diverse preferences for quality traits of sweet cherries. On average, consumers are willing to pay the highest prices for cherries that bigger, firmer, sweeter, and flavourish [50]. Of course, it must be considered that, usually, consumers cannot judge the cherries’ taste until after purchases are made.

4. Conclusions

Nowadays, ensuring a high production without affecting fruit quality is a big challenge for producers. Therefore, the producer must know the intrinsic quality characteristics of each cultivar, as well as the consumer’s quality preferences. Based on this knowledge, the producer will be able to develop cultivation strategies that can enhance the product, introducing measures to improve quality attributes that meet consumer expectations.
This study contributed to explaining how cherries’ sensory profile can be linked to fruit characteristics and estimated perceived quality. With this work, it was possible to conclude that cv. Van, being a late maturation cultivar, stood out for the presentation of bigger fruits, firmer and with a high content of soluble sugars, characteristics highly valued by the consumers. Sensorially it stood out for being perceived as more acidic and bitter than cv. Burlat, nevertheless, presented an agreeable firmness in the mouth, a sensory parameter also corroborated by textural analysis. In turn, cv. Burlat presented characteristics normally typical of earlier cultivars, e.g., higher pH value and lower TA, with a bright red colour and with a more intense perceived sweetness, despite their higher chemical acidity, expressed in the TA and pH values. However, as Burlat fruits were among the first to appear on the market, they reached higher prices, with consequently greater profitability for the producer.
In this sense, the physicochemical characteristics of the cherries of both cultivars proved that the quality of the fruit highly depends on the cultivar and suggests that the quality perceived by the consumer does not always meet the quality parameters inherent to the fruit. Therefore, we can infer that consumers may enjoy more the perceived sweetness and cherry flavour of cv. Burlat over the firmness and acidity of cv. Van, considering these attributes as essentials to the subjective quality of the fruit.
Moreover, the perception of visual attributes will lead the consumer to choose Burlat cherries more often Van cherries, especially if is not possible to taste the fruit before buying it.
In general, the used methods can be useful predictors of sensory evaluation.
In future studies, it would be interesting to increase the number of cultivars under study, as well as to extend the sensory tests to the common consumer. The calculation of the profitability of the cultivars should be carried out, since the differences in productivity and harvest time of these two cultivars are also important for the market and, consequently for the producer. Taking into account that the physicochemical characteristics of the fruits can be deeply influenced by the environment, it will be important to continue the study for at least another year.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed significantly to the activities developed. Conceptualization: V.S., S.P., and B.G.; Data curation: V.S. and S.P.; Formal analysis: V.S., S.P., A.V., C.R., and B.G.; Funding acquisition: B.G.; Investigation: V.S. and S.P.; Methodology: V.S., S.P., and B.G.; Project Administration: B.G.; Software: V.S., S.P., A.V., and C.R.; Supervision: B.G.; Validation: V.S., S.P., A.V., E.B., F.G., C.R., A.P.S., and B.G.; Writing—original draft: V.S.; Writing—review & editing: V.S., S.P., A.V., E.B., F.G., C.R., A.P.S., and B.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by National Funds by FCT—Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, [grant number UIDB/04033/2020]—CITAB; [grant number UIDB/00616/2020 and UIDP/00616/2020]—CQ-VR, and [grant number PTDC/AGR-PRO/7028/2014]—“Cherry cracking & mitigation strategies: towards their understanding using a functional metabolic approach”, co-financed by FEDER through the Programa Operacional Fatores de Competitividade—COMPETE. The authors also acknowledge the “Fundo Europeu Agrícola de Desenvolvimento Rural (FEADER)” and by “Estado Português” in the context of “Ação 1.1 «Grupos Operacionais»”, integrated in “Medida 1. «Inovação» do PDR 2020—Programa de Desenvolvimento Rural do Continente”—Grupo Operacional para a valorização da produção da Cereja de Resende e posicionamento da subfileira nos mercados (iniciativa n. ° 362).

Acknowledgments

We thank the José de Almeida from the Cermouros company for his availability; Silvia Afonso and Ivo Oliveira for their support in the field and to the Tasting Panel of ECVA/DeBA (UTAD) that participated in the sensory trials.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. FAOSTAT. Agricultural Production. Crops Primary—Cherries. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC (accessed on 12 February 2020).
  2. Pereira, S.; Silva, V.; Bacelar, E.; Guedes, F.; Silva, A.P.; Ribeiro, C.; Gonçalves, B. Cracking in sweet cherry cultivars Early Bigi and Lapins: Correlation with quality attributes. Plants 2020, 9, 1557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Correia, S.; Schouten, R.; Silva, A.P.; Gonçalves, B. Factors affecting quality and health promoting compounds during growth and postharvest life of sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.). Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 2166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Gonçalves, B. Ecofisologia da Cerejeira (Prunus avium L.), Composição Fenólica e Actividade Antioxidante dos Frutos. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro (UTAD), Vila Real, Portugal, 29 November 2006. [Google Scholar]
  5. Chockchaisawasdee, S.; Golding, J.B.; Vuong, Q.V.; Papoutsis, K.; Stathopoulos, C.E. Sweet cherry: Composition, postharvest preservation, processing and trends for its future use. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 55, 72–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Romano, G.S.; Cittadini, E.D.; Pugh, B.; Schouten, R. Sweet cherry quality in the horticultural production chain. Stewart Postharvest Rev. 2006, 6, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Giménez, M.J.; Valverde, J.M.; Valero, D.; Díaz-Mula, H.M.; Zapata, P.J.; Serrano, M.; Moral, J.; Castillo, S. Methyl salicylate treatments of sweet cherry trees improve fruit quality at harvest and during storage. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 197, 665–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; World Health Organization. Rome, 2003. Assuring Food Safety and Quality: Guidelines for Strengthening National Food Control Systems. FAO Food and Nutrition, Paper 76. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/y8705e/y8705e03.htm#TopOfPage (accessed on 20 January 2021).
  9. Grunert, K.G. Food quality and safety: Consumer perception and demand. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2005, 32, 369–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Stone, H.; Sidel, J.L. (Eds.) Introduction to Sensory Evaluation. In Sensory Evaluation Practices (Food Science and Technology), 3rd ed.; Elsevier Academic Press: London, UK, 2004; pp. 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Stone, H.; Bleibaum, R.; Thomas, H. (Eds.) Introduction to Sensory Evaluation. In Sensory Evaluation Practices (Food Science and Technology), 4th ed.; Elsevier Academic Press: London, UK, 2012; pp. 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Looney, N.; Jackson, D. Stone Fruits. In Temperate and Subtropical Fruit Production, 2nd ed.; Jackson, D., Looney, N., Morley-Bunker, M., Eds.; CAB eBooks: Wallingford, UK, 2010; pp. 161–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sredojević, Z.; Milić, D.; Jeločnik, M. Investment in sweet and sour cherry production and new processing programs in terms of Serbian agriculture competitiveness. Pet. Gas Univ. Ploiesti Bull. 2011, 63, 37–49. [Google Scholar]
  14. Turner, J.; Seavert, C.; Colonna, A.; Long, L.E. Consumer sensory evaluation of sweet cherry cultivars in Oregon, USA. Acta Hortic. 2008, 795, 781–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kader, A.A. Quality Parameters of Fresh-Cut Fruit and Vegetable Products. In Fresh-Cut Fruits and Vegetables: Science, Technology, and Market; Lamikanra, O., Ed.; CRC Press LLC: London, UK, 2002; pp. 21–30. Available online: https://sceqa.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/frutas-y-vegetales-ciencia-y-tecnologia.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2020).
  16. Dever, M.C.; Mac Donald, R.A.; Cliff, M.A.; Lane, W.D. Sensory evaluation of sweet cherry cultivars. HortScience 1996, 31, 150–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Esti, M.; Cinquanta, L.; Sinesio, F.; Moneta, E.; Di Matteo, M. Physiochemical and sensory fruit characteristics of two sweet cherry cultivars after cool storage. Food Chem. 2002, 76, 399–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Crisosto, C.H.; Crisosto, G.M.; Neri, F. Understanding tree fruit quality based on consumer acceptance. Acta Hortic. 2006, 712, 183–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wang, H.; Cao, G.; Prior, R.L. Oxygen radical absorbing capacity of anthocyanins. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1997, 45, 304–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Crisosto, C.H.; Crisosto, G.M.; Metheney, P. Consumer acceptance of ‘Brooks’ and ‘Bing’ cherries is mainly dependent on fruit SSC and visual skin colour. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2003, 28, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pérez-Sánchez, R.; Gómez-Sánchez, M.A.; Morales-Corts, M.R. Description and quality evaluation of sweet cherries cultured in Spain. J. Food Qual. 2010, 33, 490–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Girard, B.; Kopp, T.G. Physicochemical characteristics of selected sweet cherry cultivars. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1998, 46, 471–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Basanta, M.F.; Plá, M.F.E.; Raffo, M.D.; Stortz, C.A.; Rojas, A.M. Cherry fibers isolated from harvest residues as valuable dietary fiber and functional food ingredients. J. Food Eng. 2014, 126, 149–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhang, C.; Whiting, M. Improving ‘Bing’ sweet cherry fruit quality with plant growth regulators. Sci. Hortic. 2011, 127, 341–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kappel, F.; Fisher-Fleming, B.; Hogue, E. Fruit characteristics and sensory attributes of an ideal sweet cherry. Hort Sci. 1996, 31, 443–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Wermund, U.; Fearne, A.; Hornibrook, S.A. Consumer purchasing behaviour with respect to cherries in the United Kingdom. In Proceedings of the ISHS Acta Horticulturae 667 IV International Cherry Symposium, Washington Country, OR, USA, 24–29 June 2001; pp. 539–544. [Google Scholar]
  27. Edin, M.; Lichou, J.; Saunier, R. Cerise, les Varieties et Leur Conduite; Ctifl: Paris, France, 1997; pp. 1–238. [Google Scholar]
  28. Fazzari, M.; Fukumoto, L.; Mazza, G.; Livrea, M.A.; Tesoriere, L.; Marco, L.D. In vitro bioavailability of phenolic compounds from five cultivars of frozen sweet cherries (Prunus avium L.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 3561–3568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Faienza, M.F.; Corbo, F.; Carocci, A.; Catalano, A.; Clodoveo, M.L.; Grano, M.; Wang, D.Q.-H.; D’Amato, G.; Muraglia, M.; Franchini, C.; et al. Novel insights in health-promoting properties of sweet cherries. J. Funct. Foods 2020, 69, 103945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gonçalves, A.C.; Bento, C.; Silva, B.; Simões, M.; Silva, L.R. Nutrients, bioactive compounds and bioactivity: The health benefits of Sweet Cherries (Prunus avium L.). Curr. Nutr. Food Sci. 2019, 15, 208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Serrano, M.; Guillen, F.; Martínez-Romero, D.; Castillo, S.; Valero, D. Chemical constituents and antioxidant activity of sweet cherry at different ripening stages. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005, 53, 2741–2745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gonçalves, B.; Landbo, A.K.; Knudsen, D.; Silva, A.P.; Moutinho-Pereira, J.; Rosa, E. Effect of ripeness and postharvest storage on the phenolic profiles of cherries (Prunus avium L.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2004, 52, 523–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Corbo, M.R.; Bevilacqua, A.; Petruzzi, L.; Casanova, F.P.; Sinigaglia, M. Functional beverages: The emerging side of functional foods commercial trends, research, and health implications. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food 2014, 13, 1192–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Voss, D.H. Relating colourimeter measurement of plant colour to the royal horticultural society colour chart. HortScience 1992, 27, 1256–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hutchings, J.B. Food Colour and Appearance; Blackie Academic & Professional: London, UK, 1994; pp. 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. McGuire, R.G. Reporting of objective colour measurements. HortScience 1992, 27, 1254–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Bernalte, M.J.; Hernández, M.T.; Vidal-Aragón, M.C.; Sabio, E. Physical, chemical, flavor and sensory characteristics of two sweet cherry varieties grown in ‘Valle del Jerte’ (Spain). J. Food Qual. 1999, 22, 403–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gonçalves, B.; Silva, A.P.; Moutinho-Pereira, J.; Bacelar, E.; Rosa, E.; Meyer, A.S. Effect of ripeness and postharvest storage on the evolution of colour and anthocyanins in cherries (Prunus avium L.). Food Chem. 2007, 103, 976–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Giménez, M.J.; Serrano, M.; Valverde, J.M.; Martínez-Romero, D.; Castillo, S.; Valero, D.; Guillén, F. Preharvest salicylic acid and acetylsalicylic acid treatments preserve quality and enhance antioxidant systems during postharvest storage of sweet cherry cultivars. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2016, 97, 1220–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Vilela, A.; Matos, S.; Abraão, A.S.; Lemos, A.M.; Nunes, F.M. Sucrose replacement by sweeteners in strawberry, raspberry, and cherry jams: Effect on the textural characteristics and sensorial profile—A chemometric approach. J. Food Process 2015, 2015, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Vilela, A.; Sobreira, C.; Abraão, A.S.; Lemos, A.M.; Nunes, F.M. Texture quality of candied fruits as influenced by osmotic dehydration agents. J. Texture Stud. 2016, 47, 239–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Pinto, T.; Vilela, A.; Pinto, A.; Nunes, F.M.; Cosme, F.; Anjos, R. Influence of cultivar and of conventional and organic agricultural practices on phenolic and sensory profile of blackberries (Rubus fruticosus). J. Sci. Food Agric. 2018, 98, 4616–4624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Oliveira, I.; Meyer, A.S.; Afonso, S.; Sequeira, A.; Vilela, A.; Goufo, P.; Trindade, H.; Gonçalves, B. Effects of different processing treatments on almond (Prunus dulcis) bioactive compounds, antioxidant activities, fatty acids, and sensorial characteristics. Plants 2020, 9, 1627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cabo, S.; Aires, A.; Carvalho, R.; Vilela, A.; Pascual-Seva, N.; Silva, A.P.; Gonçalves, B. Kaolin, Ascophyllum nodosum and salicylic acid mitigate effects of summer stress improving hazelnut quality. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2021, 101, 459–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. ISO 6658. Sensory Analysis-Methodology—General Guidance, 3rd ed.; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 1–26. [Google Scholar]
  46. Chauvin, M.A.; Whiting, M.; Ross, C.F. The influence of harvest time on sensory properties and consumer acceptance of sweet cherries. Horttechnology 2009, 19, 748–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. ISO 4121. Sensory Analysis-Guidelines for the Use of Quantitative Response Scales, 2nd ed.; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2003; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  48. Vilela, A.; Gonçalves, B.; Ribeiro, C.; Fonseca, A.T.; Correia, S.; Fernandes, H.; Ferreira, S.; Bacelar, E.; Silva, A.P. Study of textural, chemical, color and sensory properties of organic blueberries harvested in two distinct years: A chemometric approach. J. Texture Stud. 2016, 47, 199–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Faniadis, D.; Drogoudi, P.D.; Vasilakakis, M. Effects of cultivar, orchard elevation, and storage on fruit quality characters of sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.). Sci. Hortic. 2010, 125, 301–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zheng, X.; Yue, C.; Gallardo, K.; McCracken, V.; Luby, J.; McFerson, J. What attributes are consumers looking for in sweet cherries? Evidence from choice experiments. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 2016, 45, 124–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Sirbu, S.; Niculaua, M.; Chiriţa, O. Physicochemical and antioxidant properties of new sweet cherry cultivars from Iaşi, Romania. Agron. Res. 2012, 10, 341–350. [Google Scholar]
  52. Ballistreri, G.; Continella, A.; Gentile, A.; Amenta, M.; Fabroni, S.; Rapisarda, P. Fruit quality and bioactive compounds relevant to human health of sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) cultivars grown in Italy. Food Chem. 2013, 140, 630–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Usenik, V.; Kastelec, D.; Štampar, F. Physicochemical changes of sweet cherry fruits related to application of gibberellic acid. Food Chem. 2005, 90, 663–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Da Conceição Neta, E.R.; Johanningsmeier, S.D.; McFeeters, R.F. The chemistry and physiology of sour taste—A review. J. Food Sci. 2007, 72, R33–R38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Norris, M.B.; Noble, A.C.; Pangborn, R.M. Human saliva and taste responses to acids varying in anions, titratable acidity, and pH. Physiol. Behav. 1984, 32, 237–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lugaz, O.; Pillias, A.M.; Boireau-Ducept, N.; Faurion, A. Time-intensity evaluation of acid taste in subjects with saliva high flow and low flow rates for acids of various chemical properties. Chem. Senses 2005, 30, 89–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Shallenberger, R.S. The AH, B glycophore and general taste chemistry. Food Chem. 1996, 56, 209–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Pangborn, R.M. Relative taste intensities of selected sugars and organic acids. J. Food Sci. 1963, 28, 726–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Rubico, S.M.; McDaniel, M.R. Sensory evaluation of acids by free-choice profiling. Chem. Senses 1992, 17, 273–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Siebert, K.J. Modeling the flavor thresholds of organic acids in beer as a function of their molecular properties. Food Qual. Pref. 1999, 10, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Giacosa, S.; Torchio, F.; Segade, S.R.; Giust, M.; Tomasi, D.; Gerbi, V.; Rolle, L. Selection of a mechanical property for flesh firmness of table grapes in accordance with an OIV ampelographic descriptor. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2014, 65, 206–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Aprea, E.; Charles, M.; Endrizzi, I.; Laura Corollaro, M.; Betta, E.; Biasioli, F.; Gasperi, F. Sweet taste in apple: The role of sorbitol, individual sugars, organic acids and volatile compounds. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 44950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Vavoura, M.V.; Badeka, A.V.; Kontakos, S.; Kontominas, M.G. Characterization of four popular sweet cherry cultivars grown in Greece by volatile compound and physicochemical data analysis and sensory evaluation. Molecules 2015, 20, 1922–1940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Serradilla, M.J.; Martin, A.; Ruiz-Moyano, S.; Hernandez, A.; Lopez-Corrales, M.; de Guia Cordoba, M. Physicochemical and sensorial characterisation of four sweet cherry cultivars grown in Jerte Valley (Spain). Food Chem. 2012, 133, 1551–1559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Weather conditions: precipitation (mm) and mean temperature (°C), in the study year (2019).
Figure 1. Weather conditions: precipitation (mm) and mean temperature (°C), in the study year (2019).
Foods 10 00612 g001
Figure 2. Sweetness and acidity of the two sweet cherry cultivars (Van and Burlat): (A) pH; (B) Titratable acidity (TA); (C) Total soluble solids content (SSC) of the two sweet cherry cultivars. The presented values resulted from the mean ± SD (n = 3). Statistically significant differences between cultivars, for each parameter, were represented by different letters (ANOVA-Tukey’s test, p < 0.05).
Figure 2. Sweetness and acidity of the two sweet cherry cultivars (Van and Burlat): (A) pH; (B) Titratable acidity (TA); (C) Total soluble solids content (SSC) of the two sweet cherry cultivars. The presented values resulted from the mean ± SD (n = 3). Statistically significant differences between cultivars, for each parameter, were represented by different letters (ANOVA-Tukey’s test, p < 0.05).
Foods 10 00612 g002
Figure 3. Chromatic parameters of the two sweet cherries cultivars (Van and Burlat): (A) Lightness (L*); (B) Chromatic coordinate a*; (C) Chromatic coordinate b*; (D) Chroma (C*) and (E) Hue angle (°). The presented values resulted from the mean ± SD (n = 60). Statistically significant differences between cultivars, for each parameter, were represented by different letters (ANOVA-Tukey’s test, p < 0.05).
Figure 3. Chromatic parameters of the two sweet cherries cultivars (Van and Burlat): (A) Lightness (L*); (B) Chromatic coordinate a*; (C) Chromatic coordinate b*; (D) Chroma (C*) and (E) Hue angle (°). The presented values resulted from the mean ± SD (n = 60). Statistically significant differences between cultivars, for each parameter, were represented by different letters (ANOVA-Tukey’s test, p < 0.05).
Foods 10 00612 g003
Figure 4. Texture of the two sweet cherry cultivars (Van and Burlat): (A) Epidermis rupture force—ERF (N) and (B) Flesh firmness—FF (N mm−1). The presented values resulted from the mean ± SD (n = 30). Statistically significant differences between cultivars, for each parameter, were represented by different letters (ANOVA-Tukey’s test, p < 0.05).
Figure 4. Texture of the two sweet cherry cultivars (Van and Burlat): (A) Epidermis rupture force—ERF (N) and (B) Flesh firmness—FF (N mm−1). The presented values resulted from the mean ± SD (n = 30). Statistically significant differences between cultivars, for each parameter, were represented by different letters (ANOVA-Tukey’s test, p < 0.05).
Foods 10 00612 g004
Figure 5. Spider plot of the sensory profile of the two sweet cherry cultivars (Van and Burlat). (*) represented significant differences between cultivars, according to Duncan’s test, p < 0.05. The absence of superscript indicated no significant differences.
Figure 5. Spider plot of the sensory profile of the two sweet cherry cultivars (Van and Burlat). (*) represented significant differences between cultivars, according to Duncan’s test, p < 0.05. The absence of superscript indicated no significant differences.
Foods 10 00612 g005
Figure 6. Principal component analysis (Pearson correlation) with factor 1 (F1) and factor 2 (F2) was obtained by analysis of sensory and analytical data of the two sweet cherry cultivars (Van and Burlat).
Figure 6. Principal component analysis (Pearson correlation) with factor 1 (F1) and factor 2 (F2) was obtained by analysis of sensory and analytical data of the two sweet cherry cultivars (Van and Burlat).
Foods 10 00612 g006
Table 1. Vocabulary adapted from Chauvin et al. [46], and reference standards used for descriptive sensory analysis of cherries.
Table 1. Vocabulary adapted from Chauvin et al. [46], and reference standards used for descriptive sensory analysis of cherries.
AttributeDescription and a Reference Scale
Epidermis softnessRough-1/Very smooth-5
Colour intensityLight (almost white)-1/Dark red-5
Colour uniformityNot uniform-1/Uniform-5
Peduncle colourBrown-1/Green-5
Odour intensitySlightly intense-1/Very intense-5
Sweet tasteSlightly sweet-1/Very sweet-5
Acidic tasteLow acid-1/High acid-5
Bitter tasteSlightly bitter-1/Very bitter-5
AstringencyScarcely astringent-1/Very astringent-5
Cherry flavourNot much flavour-1/Excellent flavour-5
FirmnessForce needed to crack the cherry Little-1/A lot-5
SucculenceJuice extracted from the cherry after chewing Little-1/A lot-5
Table 2. Fruit weight (g) and dimensions (mm) of the two sweet cherry cultivars (Van and Burlat).
Table 2. Fruit weight (g) and dimensions (mm) of the two sweet cherry cultivars (Van and Burlat).
CultivarsWeightLarger DiameterSmaller DiameterHeight
(g)(mm)(mm)(mm)
Burlat8.10 ± 0.59 b26.49 ± 0.86 b21.06 ± 0.74 b23.13 ± 1.01 b
Van9.30 ± 0.72 a27.89 ± 0.91 a22.94 ± 0.68 a23.82 ± 0.87 a
The presented values resulted from the mean ± SD (n = 30). Statistically significant differences between cultivars, for each parameter, were represented by different letters (ANOVA-Tukey’s test, p < 0.05).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Silva, V.; Pereira, S.; Vilela, A.; Bacelar, E.; Guedes, F.; Ribeiro, C.; Silva, A.P.; Gonçalves, B. Preliminary Insights in Sensory Profile of Sweet Cherries. Foods 2021, 10, 612. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10030612

AMA Style

Silva V, Pereira S, Vilela A, Bacelar E, Guedes F, Ribeiro C, Silva AP, Gonçalves B. Preliminary Insights in Sensory Profile of Sweet Cherries. Foods. 2021; 10(3):612. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10030612

Chicago/Turabian Style

Silva, Vânia, Sandra Pereira, Alice Vilela, Eunice Bacelar, Francisco Guedes, Carlos Ribeiro, Ana Paula Silva, and Berta Gonçalves. 2021. "Preliminary Insights in Sensory Profile of Sweet Cherries" Foods 10, no. 3: 612. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10030612

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop