Cited by 164Coffee research and impactsFermentation and Sensory AnalysisFood Chemistry and Fat Analysis

What kind of coffee do you drink? An investigation on effects of eight different extraction methods

Open access
Angeloni, Giulia, Guerrini, Lorenzo, Masella, Piernicola, Bellumori, Maria, Daluiso, Selvaggia, Parenti, Alessandro, Innocenti, Marzia·2019·Food Research International

Abstract

The chemical composition of brewed coffee depends on numerous factors: the beans, post-harvest processing and, finally, the extraction method. In recent decades, numerous coffee-based beverages, obtained using different extraction techniques have entered the market. This study characterizes and compares eight extraction coffee methods from a chemical-physical point of view, starting from the same raw material. Specifically, three types of Espresso, Moka, French Press, and 3 filter coffee that for the first time are reported in the scientific literature Cold Brew, V60, and Aeropress are compared. Physical measurements included the quantification of total dissolved solids, density, pH, conductivity, and viscosity. Chemical analyses identified 15 chlorogenic acids (CGAs): six caffeoylquinic acids, one p-Coumaroylquinic acid, one Feruloylquinic Acid, four Caffeoylquinic lactones, and three Dicaffeoylquinic acids. Maximum caffeine and CGA concentrations were found in Espresso coffees, while Moka and filtered coffees were three to six times less concentrated. The classic Espresso method was most efficient for caffeine and CGA recovery, with a yield almost double that of other methods. Per-cup caffeine and CGAs were higher in Cold Brew than Espresso coffees, as a function of the volume of beverage, which ranged from 30 mL (for espresso) to 120 mL (for filtered coffees). In light of these results, it is not possible to establish how many cups of coffee can be consumed per day without exceeding the recommended doses, since according to the applied brewing method, the content of the bioactive substances varies considerably.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.foodres.2018.10.022

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The definition by Fuller and Rao (2017) is well accepted and used by various researchers.

    “the definition by Fuller and Rao (2017) is well accepted and used by various researchers [7,8,9,10].”

    From Optimization of Cold Brew Coffee Using Central Composite Design and Its Properties Compared with Hot Brew Coffee (2023) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Introduction discusses coffee extraction methods, and §2.6 describes the paper’s cold-brew procedure, but neither addresses whether Fuller and Rao’s (2017) definition is accepted or used by other researchers. Searches for “Fuller and Rao,” their definition, and a cold-brew definition found no passage establishing that claim. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Angeloni, G., Guerrini, L., Masella, P., Bellumori, M., Daluiso, S., Parenti, A., & Innocenti, M.
Affiliations
University of Florence (IT)
Corresponding author
Angeloni, Giulia
Venue
Food Research International
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-02
Volume
116
Pages
1327-1335
ISSN
0963-9969 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2895818450
Cited by
164
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 12
FWCI
8.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Food Research International (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Florence Research (University of Florence) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Coffee research and impacts
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Fermentation and Sensory Analysis
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Chemistry and Fat Analysis
Keywords
espresso, Moka, French press, cold brew, chlorogenic acid, caffeine content, coffee beverages, bioactive compounds, total dissolved solids, viscosity, caffeine consumption
MeSH terms
Caffeine, Chlorogenic Acid, Coffee, Food Handling, Hot Temperature, Hydrogen-Ion Concentration, Plant Extracts, Pressure, Quinic Acid, Viscosity, Coffea, Phytochemicals

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review