## 3 Results and Discussion
### Evaluation of Sensory Properties  
Table 2 shows the results of the sensory evaluation. The judges determined that the control sample stored for two weeks exhibited the greatest density, and the samples treated at 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C-250 MPa and 250 MPa-60 \({}^{\circ}\)C were the most diluted. The control sample stored for two weeks was significantly different from the other samples, with the exception of the sample treated at 250 MPa-60 \({}^{\circ}\)C and stored for two weeks. The lowest ranking numbers were assigned to the treated versions of the fresh samples, indicating that the sensory evaluators perceived these samples to be the least dense. The fresh control samples were observed to exhibit slightly greater density than the treated samples, indicating that the treatments had resulted in a reduction in sample density. In all cases, the stored samples were assigned a higher ranking number, indicating that the evaluators perceived them to possess more unfavourable properties. The untreated sample received the highest ranking number, and the difference in scores was also significant. It can be concluded that the treatments could stabilise the texture of smoothie products. The 250 MPa-60 \({}^{\circ}\)C treatment appears to be more effective in preserving the texture until the end of the two-week storage period. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Fresh**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**14 th Day**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Control** & **60 \({}^{\circ}\)C-250 MPa** & **250 MPa-60 \({}^{\circ}\)C** & **Control** & **60 \({}^{\circ}\)C-250 MPa** & **250 MPa-60 \({}^{\circ}\)C** \\ \hline Texture & 60 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 47 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 47 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 115 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 67 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 84 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) \\ Smell & 77 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 74 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 89 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 80 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 46 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 54 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) \\ Colour & 71 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 51 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 33 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 87 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 87 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 91 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ Taste & 105 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 91 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 97 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 44 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 40 \({The judges found that the sample treated at 250 MPa-60 \({}^{\circ}\)C had the most pronounced fruity odour and the sample treated at 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C-250 MPa and stored for two weeks had the least fruity odour. The sample treated at 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C-250 MPa and stored for two weeks was significantly different from the control sample stored for two weeks and the sample treated at 250 MPa-60 \({}^{\circ}\)C. The least fruity character was observed in the two stored samples that had undergone a combined treatment. The control sample retained its favourable aroma characteristics despite storage, scoring essentially the same as the fresh samples. In the case of the fresh samples, the heat treatment applied after the pressure treatment appeared to have resulted in a more intense fruity character in the treated sample. The fresh control sample was perceived as the most fruity by the evaluators, while the sample treated at 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C-250 MPa and stored for two weeks was perceived as the least fruity taste. There was a significant difference in taste between the fresh and stored samples for both treated and untreated samples. The evolution of the ranking numbers clearly demonstrates that the storage conditions exert a predominant influence on the perception of taste, as opposed to the presence or the type of preservation process employed. The judges perceived the fruit flavour of the stored samples to be less pronounced than that of the fresh samples, irrespective of the type of combined treatment used. The sample subjected to 250 MPa-60 \({}^{\circ}\)C was perceived as the least brownish, while the pair of samples stored for two weeks with the same treatment was perceived as the most brownish.