The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What kind of coffee do you drink? An investigation on effects of eight different extraction methods
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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 check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“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]
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.
Citations
Cites
Everitt, B. J., Landau, S., & Leese, M. (1974) · Cited by 9,186
Dietary phenolics: chemistry, bioavailability and effects on health
Crozier, A., Jaganath, I. B., & Clifford, M. N. (2009) · Natural Product Reports · doi:10.1039/b802662a · Cited by 2,062
Coffee and Health: A Review of Recent Human Research
Higdon, J. V., & Frei, B. (2006) · Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · doi:10.1080/10408390500400009 · Cited by 1,090
Farah, A., & Donangelo, C. M. (2006) · Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology · doi:10.1590/s1677-04202006000100003 · Cited by 874
A Concise Guide to Market Research
Sarstedt, M., & Mooi, E. (2014) · Springer texts in business and economics · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-53965-7 · Cited by 448
van Straten, S., de Vrijer, D., & de Beauveser, J. C. (1977) · Cited by 407
Clarke, R., & Vitzthum, O. G. (2001) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 353
The impact of coffee on health
Cano-Marquina, A., Tarín, J. J., & Cano, A. (2013) · Maturitas · doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2013.02.002 · Cited by 351
Coffee in Health and Disease Prevention
FREGA, N. G., PACETTI, D., MOZZON, M., & Balzano, M. (2015) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/c2012-0-06959-1 · Cited by 338
Comparison of nine common coffee extraction methods: Instrumental and sensory analysis
Gloess, A. N., Schönbächler, B., Klopprogge, B., D`Ambrosio, L., Chatelain, K., Bongartz, A., Strittmatter, A., Rast, M., & Yeretzian, C. (2013) · European Food Research and Technology · doi:10.1007/s00217-013-1917-x · Cited by 311
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cordoba, N., Fernandez-Alduenda, M., Moreno, F. L., & Ruiz, Y. (2020) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2019.12.004 · Cited by 271
Caffeine Consumption through Coffee: Content in the Beverage, Metabolism, Health Benefits and Risks
DePaula, J., & Farah, A. (2019) · Beverages · doi:10.3390/beverages5020037 · Cited by 258
Bioavailability and metabolism of chlorogenic acids (acyl‐quinic acids) in humans
Clifford, M. N., Kerimi, A., & Williamson, G. (2020) · Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety · doi:10.1111/1541-4337.12518 · Cited by 201
Consumption of Chlorogenic Acids through Coffee and Health Implications
Farah, A., & Lima, J. D. P. (2019) · Beverages · doi:10.3390/beverages5010011 · Cited by 177
“0 [32] Robusta Portugal 1 Nr 13 100 ◦C 2.”
BackgroundInfluentialAcids in coffee: A review of sensory measurements and meta-analysis of chemical composition
Yeager, S. E., Batali, M. E., Guinard, J., & Ristenpart, W. D. (2021) · Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · doi:10.1080/10408398.2021.1957767 · Cited by 194
Metadata
- Authors
- Angeloni, G., Guerrini, L., Masella, P., Bellumori, M., Daluiso, S., Parenti, A., & Innocenti, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Florence (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Angeloni, Giulia
- ORCID
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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 (medical) › 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
