SENSORY EVALUATION OF CHERRY AND SOUR CHERRY FRUITS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31359/2413.7642.2026.1.22Keywords:
taste of fruit raw materials, sweet cherry and cherry fruits, score, ripening time, overall taste perceptionAbstract
The competitiveness of fruit products is determined by their external and sensory properties, among which the key ones are weight, diameter, colour, hardness, texture, taste, and aroma. For fresh fruits such as sweet cherries and cherries, sensory appeal is a key indicator of consumer value and commercial quality for both raw materials and processed products. The following sensory characteristics influence the tasting card for the professional assessment of cherry quality: external fruit appearance, consistency, and taste. The sensory profile of the fruit is influenced by its size, shape, colour, pulp consistency and juiciness, the nature of its skin and individual flavour nuances. To determine the sensory evaluation of sweet cherry fruits, model varieties of three ripening periods were selected: 1st (early) – ‘Sweet Early’, ‘Merchant’, ‘Biharro Burlat’, ‘Rubinova Rannia’, ‘Valerii Chkalov’, ‘Kazka’, ‘Zabuta’; 2nd (medium) – ‘Kordia’, ‘Octavia’, ‘Vynka’, ‘Pervystok’, ‘Temp’, ‘Liubymytsia Turovtseva’, ‘Talisman’, ‘Dilema’, ‘Melitopolska Chorna’; ‘Orion’, ‘Chervneva Rannia’, ‘Dachnytsia’, ‘Prostir’; 3rd (late) – ‘Karina’, ‘Regina’, ‘Mirazh’, ‘Krupnoplidna’, ‘Udivitielna’, ‘Zodiak’, ‘Surpryz’, ‘Kolhoznytsia’, ‘Kosmichna’, ‘Prazdnichna’, ‘Anons’, ‘Tempion’, ‘Meotyda’. For the experiment, fruits of 10 model cherry varieties were taken: ‘Vstriecha’, ‘Ozhydanije’, ‘Shalunia’, ‘Siyanets Turovtsovoi’, ‘Griot Melitopolskyi’, ‘Solidarnist’, ‘Ihrushka’, ‘Melitopolska Purpurna’, ‘Modnitsa’, and ‘Ekspromt’. Sensory evaluation of sweet cherry and cherry fruits was conducted during consumer ripeness. The highest sensory rating (9,0) was given to the cherry varieties ‘Kazka’, ‘Vynka’, and ‘Krupnoplidna’. In terms of taste, the maximum score (9,0) was given to the varieties ‘Kazka’ and ‘Merchant’ for their harmonious sweet-and-sour taste and distinct aroma. The best consistency (8,9) was demonstrated by the Vinka variety with its tender, juicy flesh and thin, dense skin. Experts noted the harmonious, sweet, and sour taste of the ‘Krupnoplidna’ variety. The fruits of the ‘Modnitsa’ and ‘Griot Melitopolskyi’ varieties received the highest score (8,7) based on the average sensory parameters. The fruits of these varieties had a delicate texture, the juiciest pulp, and thin skin. Experts singled out the ‘Modnitsa’ and ‘Griot Melitopolskyi’ varieties for their taste qualities. The taste qualities of the fruits of these varieties were rated at 8,9 points. The analysis will help predict the directions of raw material use – for cooling and transportation, for consumption in fresh form, or for food production – and is a tool for optimising post-harvest technological processes in the food industry.
References
1. Галат Л. М. Світовий ринок ягід: сучасні тенденції та перспективи для України. Ефективна економіка. 2021. № 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32702/2307-2105-2021.2.76
2. Ahmad M. S., Siddiqui M. W. Commercial Quality of Fruits: Part I. Mohammad Shamsher Ahmad, Mohammed Wasim Siddiqui. Postharvest Quality Assurance of Fruits. USA : Springer, 2015. P. 61–89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21197-8_5
3. Cliff M. A., Stanich K., Toivonen P. M. A. Evaluation of the sensory, physicochemical, and visual characteristics of a sweet cherry cultivar treated in a commercial orchard with a cherry cuticle supplement when a rainfall event does not occur. HortTechnology. 2017. Vol. 27, iss. 3. P. 416–423. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH03621-16
4. Defining key parameters and predictive markers of ‘Early Bigi’ cherry consumer satisfaction by means of differential storage scenarios / López L., Larrigaudière C., Bordonaba J. G., Echeverría G. Postharvest Biology and Technology. 2023. Vol. 195(8). Article 112117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2022.112117
5. Fruit sensory test of new sweet cherry cultivars / Amidei R., Castellari L., Missere D. et al. Acta Horticulturae. 2017. Number 1161, Vol. 1: VII International Cherry Symposium (June 23, 2013). P. 593–598. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2017.1161.94
6. Heinonen I. M., Meyer A. S., Frankel E. N. Antioxidant activity of berry phenolics on human low-density lipoprotein and liposome oxidation. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 1998. Vol. 46. P. 4107–4112. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf980181c
7. Höfer M., Giovannini D. Phenotypic characterization and evaluation of European cherry collections: a survey to determine the most commonly used descriptors. Journal Horticulture Science Research. 2017. Vol. 1(1). P. 7–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36959/745/392
8. Ivanova I., Serdyuk M., Tymoshchuk T., Kravchuk M., Lomeiko O., Bakalova A., Klymenko T., Drobitko A., Arabadzhy-Tipenko L., Pyurko O., Zahorko N. New Approaches to Assessing the Quality of Cherry Fruit. Future of Food: Journal on Food, Agriculture and Society. 2025. Vol. 13, No. 1. P. 44–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15315497.
9. Ivanova I., Serdyuk M., Tymoshchuk T., Malkina V., Shkinder-Barmina A., Drobitko A., Zahorko N., Mulienok Y., Shepel A., Savchuk Y. Prediction of cherry fruit technological characteristics by RIDGE-regression method. Future of Food: Journal on Food, Agriculture & Society. 2024. Vol. 12, No. 1. P. 39–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17170/kobra-202407218427.
10. Khadivi A., Mohammadi M., Asgari K. Morphological and pomological characterizations of sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.), sour cherry (Prunus cerasus L.) and duke cherry (Prunus × gondouinii Rehd.) to choose the promising selections. Scientia horticulturae. 2019. Vol. 257. Article 108719. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2019.108719
11. Malchev S., Vasileva K. Bulgarian local cherry genetic resources towards sustainable agriculture. Sustainability. 2023. Vol. 15. Article 174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010174
12. Nishi N. Food system for sustainable healthy diets: global and local efforts. Journal of nutritional science and vitaminology. 2022. Vol. 68. P. 98–100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3177/jnsv.68.S98.
13. Pre- and postharvest technologies to extend the shelf life of Prunus cerasus / Mihaly K., Kovacs C., Takacs F., Sandor E. Acta agrarian debreceniensis. 2019. Vol. 1. P. 85–89.
14. Preferences in sweet cherry fruits among consumers in Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina / Paunović G., Hajder Đ., Korićanac A., Pašalić B. Horticultural Science (Prague). 2022. Vol. 49, iss. 4. P. 189–196. DOI: 10.17221/8/2022-HORTSCI
15. Rigorous monitoring is necessary to guide food system transformation in the countdown to the 2030 global goals / Fanzo J., Haddad L., Schneider K. R. et al. Food Policy. 2021. Vol. 104. Article 102163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-43
16. Sensory evaluation of sweet cherry cultivars / Dever M. C., MacDonald R. A., Cliff M. A., Lane W. D. HortScience. 1996. Vol. 31(1). P. 150–153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.31.1.150
17. Sensory, Nutritive and Functional Properties of Sweet Cherry as Affected by Cultivar and Ripening Stage / Díaz-Mula H., Castillo S., Martínez-Romero D. et al. Food Science and Technology International. 2010. Vol.15(6). P. 535–543. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1082013209351868
REFERENCES
1. Halat, L.M. (2021). The global berry market: current trends and prospects for Ukraine. An Effective Economy, 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32702/2307-2105-2021.2.76
2. Ahmad, M.S., Siddiqui, M.W. (2015). Commercial Quality of Fruits: Part I. Mohammad Shamsher Ahmad, Mohammed Wasim Siddiqui. Postharvest Quality Assurance of Fruits. USA: Springer, 61–89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21197-8_5
3. Cliff ,M.A., Stanich, K., Toivonen, P.M.A. (2017). Evaluation of the sensory, physicochemical, and visual characteristics of a sweet cherry cultivar treated in a commercial orchard with a cherry cuticle supplement when a rainfall event does not occur. HortTechnology, 27, 3, 416–423. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH03621-16
4. López, L., Larrigaudière, C., Bordonaba, J. G. & Echeverría, G. (2023). Defining key parameters and predictive markers of ‘Early Bigi’ cherry consumer satisfaction by means of differential storage scenarios. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 195(8), Article 112117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2022.112117
5. Amidei, R., Castellari, L. & Missere, D. (2017). Fruit sensory test of new sweet cherry cultivars: VII International Cherry Symposium (June 23, 2013). Acta Horticulturae. 1161(1), 593–598. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2017.1161.94
6. Heinonen, I.M., Meyer, A.S. & Frankel, E.N. (1998). Antioxidant activity of berry phenolics on human low-density lipoprotein and liposome oxidation. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 46, 4107–4112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf980181c
7. Höfer, M., Giovannini, D. (2017). Phenotypic characterization and evaluation of European cherry collections: a survey to determine the most commonly used descriptors. Journal Horticulture Science Research, 1(1). 7–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36959/745/392
8. Ivanova, I., Serdyuk, M., Tymoshchuk, T. & Zahorko, N. (2025). New Approaches to Assessing the Quality of Cherry Fruit. Future of Food: Journal on Food, Agriculture and Society, 13(1), 44–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15315497.
9. Ivanova, I., Serdyuk, M., Tymoshchuk, T. & Savchuk, Y. (2024). Prediction of cherry fruit technological characteristics by RIDGE-regression method. Future of Food: Journal on Food, Agriculture & Society, 12(1), 39–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17170/kobra-202407218427.
10. Khadivi, A., Mohammadi, M., Asgari, K. (2019). Morphological and pomological characterizations of sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.), sour cherry (Prunus cerasus L.) and duke cherry (Prunus × gondouinii Rehd.) to choose the promising selections. Scientia horticulturae, 257, Article 108719. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2019.108719
11. Malchev, S., Vasileva, K. (2023). Bulgarian local cherry genetic resources towards sustainable agriculture. Sustainability, 15. Article 174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010174
12. Nishi, N. (2022). Food system for sustainable healthy diets: global and local efforts. Journal of Nutritional Science and Vitaminology, 68, 98–100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3177/jnsv.68.S98.
13. Mihaly, K., Kovacs, C., Takacs, F. & Sandor, E. (2019). Pre- and postharvest technologies to extend the shelf life of Prunus cerasus. Acta agrarian debreceniensis, 1, 85–89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.34101/actaagrar/1/2376
14. Paunović, G., Hajder, Đ., Korićanac, A. & Pašalić B. (2022). Preferences in sweet cherry fruits among consumers in Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Horticultural Science (Prague), 49, 4, 189–196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17221/8/2022-HORTSCI
15. Fanzo, J., Haddad, L., Schneider, K.R. (2021). Rigorous monitoring is necessary to guide food system transformation in the countdown to the 2030 global goals. Food Policy, 104. Article 102163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-43
16. Dever, M.C., MacDonald, R.A., Cliff, M.A. & Lane, W.D. (1996). Sensory evaluation of sweet cherry cultivars. HortScience, 31(1), 150–153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.31.1.150
17. Díaz-Mula, H., Castillo, S. & Martínez-Romero, D. (2010). Sensory, Nutritive and Functional Properties of Sweet Cherry as Affected by Cultivar and Ripening Stage. Food Science and Technology International, 15(6), 535–543. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1082013209351868
