Discrimination of roast and ground coffee aroma
Open accessAbstract
Four analytical approaches were used to evaluate the aroma profile at key stages in roast and ground coffee brew preparation (concentration within the roast and ground coffee and respective coffee brew; concentration in the headspace of the roast and ground coffee and respective brew). Each method was evaluated by the analysis of 15 diverse key aroma compounds that were predefined by odour port analysis. Different methods offered complimentary results for the discrimination of products; the concentration in the coffee brew was found to be the least discriminatory and concentration in the headspace above the roast and ground coffee was shown to be most discriminatory. All approaches should be taken into consideration when classifying roast and ground coffee especially for alignment to sensory perception and consumer insight data as all offer markedly different discrimination abilities due to the variation in volatility, hydrophobicity, air-water partition coefficient and other physicochemical parameters of the key aroma compounds present.
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
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?
In Fisk et al.'s study, guaiacol (V20) and maltol (V23) contents detected by LLE-GC-MS were higher in the Kenya brewed coffee sample than in the Colombia brewed coffee sample.
“In their study, guaiacol (V20) and maltol (V23) contents detected by LLE—GC—MS were higher in the Kenya brewed coffee sample than in the Colombia brewed coffee sample.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 28 · Cited by 85
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Risticevic S, Carasek E, Pawliszyn J: Headspace solid-phase microextraction-gas chromatographic-time-of-flight mass spectrometric methodology for geographical origin verification of coffee. Anal Chim Acta 2008, 617:72-84.
- Flament I: Coffee Flavour Chemistry. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons LTD; 2002.
- Fisk ID: Roast and ground coffee descrimination by aroma profiling. In 2nd European GCxGC symposium. Regensburg: Leco; 2011.
- Authors
- Fisk, I. D., Kettle, A., Hofmeister, S., Virdie, A., & Kenny, J. S.
- Affiliations
- University of Nottingham (GB)
- ORCID
- Fisk, Ian Denis
- Venue
- Flavour
- Published
- 2012-08-01
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2044-7248 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2113373225
- Cited by
- 85
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 5.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Flavour (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Nottingham ePrints (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Coffee research and impacts
- Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Analytical Chemistry › Spectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Chemistry and Fat Analysis
- Keywords
- coffee aroma, ground coffee, aroma discrimination, key aroma compounds, coffee brews, sensory perception, air-water partition coefficient, hydrophobicity
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
