Food and Bioproducts Processing 1 2 5 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 14–21

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food and Bioproducts Processing

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fbp

A critical techno-economic analysis of coffee

processing utilizing a modern fermentation
system: Implications for specialty coffee
production

Antonio Irineudo Magalhães Júnior a , Dão Pedro de Carvalho Neto a ,

Gilberto Vinícius de Melo Pereira a,∗ , Alexander da Silva Vale a ,
Jesus David Coral Medina b , Júlio César de Carvalho a ,
Carlos Ricardo Soccol a
a Federal University of Paraná, Department of Bioprocess Engineering and Biotechnology, P.O. Box 1911, 81531-990
Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
b Universidad Cooperativa de Colombia, Sede Pasto, ESLINGA Research Group, 520002 Pasto, Nariño, Colombia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Fermentation is an important step in coffee processing which promotes the removal of
Received 28 July 2020 mucilage adhering to the fruits. This process has a direct impact on the coffee quality,
Received in revised form 22 and the use of bioreactors and starter cultures has been suggested for process control. In
September 2020 this study, a techno-economic analysis was performed to assess the investment costs and
Accepted 19 October 2020 economic performance of the inclusion of a stirred tank bioreactor (STB) model and starter
Available online 25 October 2020 cultures into a coffee processing plant. The total capital investment and production costs for
a 45-ton capacity coffee farm operating with 2 STB were US$ 1 million and 0.74 $/kg higher,
Keywords: respectively, than the conventional processing using open tanks. The main factors for rising
Coffee production cost costs included the implementation of bioreactors (73% of the equipment costs) and starter
Post-harvest process cultures (88% of the production costs). However, the modern fermentation system (STB with
Starter culture the use of starter cultures) enables the production of specialty coffee beverages with scores
Specialty coffee prices among 85.5 and 91.5, which can be sold at 15.50 and 40.92 $/kg, respectively—more than
Bioreactor sixteen times the estimated price for commodity coffee. Thus, the techno-economic analysis
showed a viable and extremely favorable scenario, providing the economic support for the
modernization of coffee fermentation and to value co-creation in the specialty coffee chain.
© 2020 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Coffee is one of the most popular beverages across the globe, with the
consumption steadily increasing at a medium annual rate of 3.50%
(International Coffee Organization (ICO, 2019). Changes in consumer
tastes and preference for artisanal coffee beans, focusing on quality
over instant coffee, have shaped the coffee market and raised the spe-
cialty coffee niche over the years (Haile and Kang, 2019; van der Merwe
and Maree, 2016). Specialty coffee is defined, by the Specialty Coffee
Association of America (SCAA), as green coffee beans free of primary
defects (stones, sticks, black, and sour beans) showing uniformity of
size and drying, and a beverage with unique and distinct sensorial
attributes (Poltronieri and Rossi, 2016). In addition, some certified spe-
cialty coffee labels, such as Starbucks® Coffee, Farmer Equity (C.A.F.E.)
Practices, Nespresso AAA Sustainable Quality, and SCAA, typically include
the quality of the final product with regard to sensorial and physi-
cal properties (Hernandez-Aguilera et al., 2018). Thus, coffee producers
must adopt proper postharvest handling to achieve the desired speci-
fications and meet the high-quality standard requirement imposed by
the current international market.

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: gilbertovinicius@gmail.com (G.V. de Melo Pereira).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbp.2020.10.010
0960-3085/© 2020 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 Food and Bioproducts Processing 1 2 5 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 14–21
Coffee fruit processing involves four main steps, that are harvesting,
processing, drying, and beneficiation. The asynchronous development
of coffee fruits causes the presence of different stages of maturation
during harvest, i.e., the simultaneous presence of immature, cherry
(ripe), and overripe fruits (De Castro and Marraccini, 2006). For the
production of specialty coffees, selective harvesting of ripe fruits are
performed either by selective handpicking or sorting (Bee et al., 2005;
Wintgens, 2004; de Mesquita et al., 2016). Then, the outer layers of the
fruits (skin, pulp, and mucilaginous layer) are removed by dry or wet
post-harvest processing method, reducing the water content to 12%
(Elhalis et al., 2020). In the dry process, whole fruits are allocated in
cement terraces for sun-drying, or mechanical dryers, until they reach
the desired water content (Silva et al., 2000, 2008). In the wet process-
ing, coffee fruits are mechanically pulped and placed in water tanks
to promote a biological removal of the remaining mucilage adhered to
the beans (microbial fermentation generally during 24–48 h) and, sub-
sequently, they are dried on cement terraces or in mechanical dryers
(Pereira et al., 2017). The last step, known as beneficiation, consists of
removing the parchment and standardizing seed size. In the dry pro-
cess, because the drying is done with the whole fruit, removal of the
skin is previously required.
Coffee beans and beverage possess a rich and complex chemical
composition, with more than 1000 compounds, volatile and non-
volatile, which play a significant role in the distinctive taste of the
coffee beverage. The presence and concentration of these compounds
are influenced by different factors, including coffee tree genotype,
geographical location, climate, post-harvest processing, and roasting
process (Lee et al., 2015; Martins et al., 2020; Sunarharum et al., 2014).
The fermentation process has a major impact on coffee volatile com-
position (Pereira et al., 2019) associated with yeast and lactic acid
bacteria metabolism (Carvalho Neto et al., 2017; Evangelista et al.,
2014a,b; Pereira et al., 2016; Silva et al., 2013). This mechanism is
related to microbial production of end-metabolites, including esters,
organic acids, aldehydes, and higher alcohols, which diffuses into the
beans and confers unique sensorial attributes (Pereira et al., 2019).
Thus, recent works has improved quality and produced specialty cof-
fees through fermentation control, using starter cultures or bioreactors
(Evangelista et al., 2014a,b; Lee et al., 2016, 2017; Pereira et al., 2016).
Carvalho Neto et al. (2018, 2020) showed that the use of stirred tank
bioreactor and starter cultures significantly increase coffee quality up
to 91.5 points on the SCAA scale, generating specialty beans of up to
$49.75 dollar per pound of coffee (Donnet et al., 2007, 2008). However,
before coffee producers adopt this conceptual technological method, a
study of the economic feasibility under field conditions is required. In
this study, a technical and economic analysis was carried out to assess
the investment costs and economic performance of a coffee processing
plant using a stirred tank bioreactor model and starter cultures. Sen-
sitivity analyzes were used to determine the variance of the estimated
costs in different simulated configurations.
2. Methods
2.1. Process description
The flowchart reported in Fig. 1 illustrates the three fermen-
tation configurations simulated in this study, i.e., inoculated
fermentation in bioreactor (IFB); spontaneous fermentation in
bioreactor (SFB); and spontaneous fermentation in open tank
(SFT). The bioreactor configuration is based on previous stud-
ies reported by Carvalho Neto et al. (2018, 2020). The IFB is
performed with the use of the starter cultures Pichia fermen-
tans YC5.2 and Lactobacillus plantarum LPBR01 developed by
Pereira et al. (2014, 2015, 2016). Both of these fermentation sys-
tems (IFB and SFB) proved to be a conducive environment for
coffee-pulp sugar consumption and formation of metabolite
compounds that improve coffee beverage quality (Carvalho
Neto et al., 2018, 2020). The SFT is performed in accordance
15
with traditional method used in coffee farms, which includes
open tanks without aeration and temperature control.
An average ratio of 65:30:5 of cherry, immature, and over-
ripe was considered (Correa et al., 2017; Dardengo et al., 2013;
De Barros et al., 2018). However, only ripe fruits were used for
the fermentation configurations, as coffee pulp of immature
and overripe fruits have not enough sugar for microbial activ-
ity. All the equipment was sized for a daily production capacity
of 10 tonnes of green coffee beans, similar to large processing
farms, in order to minimize the investment costs.
The estimated annual production, working 90 days per
harvest, is 3000 tonnes of fresh fruit, on wet basis. In the post-
harvest steps, the fruits (C-101) are washed and separated
(WS-101). When immersed in water (W-102), defective and
overripe fruits (F-101) are separated by the difference in den-
sity. This equipment removes unwanted fine material adhered
to the surface of the fruit (WW-101) and crop residues, such as
leaves and twigs (R-101). Cherry and immature fruits (C-102)
are carried to the pulping machines (DM-101). The skin and
pulp (WW-102) are removed from the cherry beans through
friction, while immature fruits remain whole after pulping.
Pulped beans and immature fruits (C-103) are separated due
to the difference in diameter of both in the rotary filter (RF-
101). The immature fruits (G-101) are directed to drying step,
while the pulped cherry beans (C-104) are allocated to the fer-
mentation containers.
The biological mucilage removal (fermentation process)
occurs for 24 h, with the addition of water (W-104) at the begin-
ning of the batch. In IFB and SFB, fermentations are performed
in 2 stirred tank bioreactors (F-101/102), with aeration (A-102)
from an air compressor (GC-101) during the initial 12 h (aer-
obic phase). Air injection is performed to improve biomass
vitality and microbial cells’ immunity to different stresses
through initial oxygen availability (Carvalho Neto et al., 2020).
Then, aeration is interrupted and an anaerobic environment is
formed allowing an anaerobic fermentation during the final 12
h (anaerobic phase). The inoculum (I-101) is only added in IFB.
In the SFT configuration, 6 fermentation tanks, 4.5 m3 each,
are needed to attend the projected production of 10 tonnes of
green coffee beans.
After fermentation (IFB, SFB, and SFT), the fermented broth
is removed (WW-103) and the coffee beans (C-105) are sepa-
rated in a sieve (S-101) and intended for drying. In the first
drying stage process, the beans (C-106) are sun-dried in the
yard (DY-101) by 3–5 days until reaching 20–18% moisture con-
tent (de Mesquita et al., 2016). Secondary drying is performed
in the rotary dryer (RD-101) until the coffee beans (C-107) have
a final water content of 10–12%. The parchment (R-102) of
the dried beans (C-108) is removed in the parchment-peeler
(P-101). Green coffee beans (C-109) are stored and ready for
sale.
Overripe fruits (F-101) and immature fruits (G-101) are pro-
cessed directly on drying yard (DY-102/103) for 21–28 days until
reaching a moisture content at 10–12%. After drying, the husk
is separated from the dried fruits in the peeler (P-101). The
green coffee beans (F-103 and G-103) are stored and marketed
as lower quality.
2.2. Economic evaluation of coffee processing
2.2.1. Capital investment
Total capital investment (TCI) is divided between fixed-capital
investment (FCI) and working capital (WC). The FCI is the sum
of the direct and indirect costs, which represents the neces-
16 Food and Bioproducts Processing 1 2 5 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 14–21
Fig. 1 – Flow diagram of the post-harvesting process of coffee fruit to green beans by the wet way with the dry beneficiation
of immature and overripe coffee fruits.
sary value for all the equipment installed with auxiliaries and
the expenses involved in engineering and project design, for a
plant in a preexisting installation. The purchased equipment
cost (PEC) was budgeted by PALINIALVES® , a Brazilian manu-
facturer with a specialty in coffee processing. To estimate the
bioreactors, it was considered an jacketed and agitated reac-
tor of 30 m3 , carbon steel, and pressure resistant up to 172
kPa (Milligan and Milligan, 2014). The data were converted to
United States dollars and corrected with the cumulative US
inflation rate.
The survey of the other costs was based on the results of
PEC and FCI, using individual factors for each item that makes
up the TCI for a chemical plant (Peters et al., 2002). Direct
costs are related to PEC and include installation costs 40% PEC,
instrumentation and control 8% PEC, piping, 16% PEC, elec-
trical 10% PEC, buildings 68% PEC, service facilities 30% PEC,
and yard improvements 10% PEC. Indirect costs were related
using the FCI value: engineering and supervision 8% FCI, legal
expenses 1% FCI, construction expenses 8% FCI, contractor’s
fee 1.5% FCI, and contingency 5% FCI.
2.2.2. Manufacturing cost
The cost of producing coffee involves various items, such
as cost of agriculture and post-harvest, fixed charges, and
other general expenses, which vary depending on the type of
planting method (corporate or family farming). A corporate
agriculture model was used for the cost analysis, without the
post-harvest expenses, which were calculated separately, as
shown in Fig. 2. The raw materials and utilities prices were
estimated in the average market of Brazil, or through the world
index, for the year 2018–2019, converting to US dollars. In gen-
eral, coffee farms have a water source for the irrigation of
the coffee plantation; thus, the expenditure of water is mini-
mal and was not considered in the cost analysis. The starter
cultures used in the IFB plant were incubated at 0.15% w/v,
equivalent to initial concentration of 108 CFU/mL described by
Carvalho Neto et al. (2018). A value of 100.56 $/kg was used for
the starters, calculated from the prices of different commer-
cial yeast for the wine industry. The drying step uses the heat
generated by natural gas—a value of 51,115 kJ/m3 was calcu-
lated for the gas heat (Wobbe index). The natural gas is sold to
Brazilian industries with a price of 0.79 $/m3 (Copergás, 2019).
The electricity was estimated using the power consumption of
each equipment. A factor of 1.5 was used to calculate the total
required electricity (Peters et al., 2002). The cost of electricity
power consumption by Brazilian Electricity Regulatory Agency
(ANEEL) for industry was 123.55 $/MWh (Agência Nacional de
Energia Elétrica (ANEEL, 2019).
The number of workers was estimated by the equipment
specificity. Pos-harvest processing, which has been designed,
needs a minimum of manual labor. Some workers can operate
more than a unit of equipment, according to the complex-
ity and quantity of coffee processed. The sum of employees
should be rounded up. Thus, it was defined that bioreactors
require 1 operator per unit, dryer and washer 0.5, pulper 0.3,
and other equipment was considered a 0.1 operator require-
ment. The drying of the yard is the step that requires the
greatest amount of labor, being necessary 1 worker to dry
5 tonnes of coffee fruit (overripe and immature) or beans
without mucilage (cherry). The average wage paid to a labor
working charges under Brazilian law was estimated at 504.84
$/operator. The operating labor cost (OLC) is the number of
workers for the whole plant for 90 days. Direct supervisory
and clerical labor was considered as 10% OLC. Maintenance
and repairs, operating supplies, and depreciation were esti-
mated at 2% FIC, 10% of maintenance and repairs, and 10%
PEC, respectively.
The economic profit was determined by the difference
between the commercial selling price of the green coffee beans
and the cost of production. The commodity value of green cof-
fee beans ranged between 2.11 to 2.87 $/kg, i.e., the average
price was at 2.50 $/kg, in 2018. However, the price of high-
quality coffee has been estimated by auctioned value of green
beans from different countries, organized by Alliance for Cof-
 Food and Bioproducts Processing 1 2 5 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 14–21
Fig. 2 – Distribution of the total cost of coffee processing from different Brazilian corporate farms at 2018 (adapted from
Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento, 2020).
fee Excellence (Alliance for Coffee Excellence (ACE, 2019). The
data between 2009–2019, with corrected inflation, and the lots
over 1 tonne, were considered. The relation of economic profit
and TCI (Eq. (1)), was used to evaluate the value of profit per
crop, in IFB, SFB, and SFT configurations.
Economic Profit
Profit Crop =
Total Capital Investiment
The profit varies depending on the choice of some param-
eters of the simulation. To identify the most important
parameters in each configuration, and the variance of the
estimated costs, a sensitivity analysis was performed. The
variables analyzed were the proportion contained in the mix
of fruits harvested (cherry, overripe, and immature), the price
and ratio of specialty and commodity coffee beans, and the
cost of the main process parameters. The initial price for
profit analysis was considered for specialty coffees, with SCAA
between 85 and 89.99, a price equivalent to four times the
value of the commodity, and SCAA above 90, eight times.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Post-harvest processing costs
The post-harvest was estimated for a coffee plant process-
ing 14.5 tonnes of green coffee beans per day (10 tonnes of
cherry, 3.9 tonnes of immature, and about 650 kg of overripe).
All configurations (IFB, SFB, and SFT) were estimated for a daily
capacity of 63 tonnes of raw fruit mix. Considering 90 days of
harvest per year, the total production of green coffee beans
from cherry, immature, and overripe fruit was 900, 350, and 58
tonnes, respectively.
17
The total capital investment for spontaneous fermenta-
tion in tank (SFT) plant was $391,000, and for both bioreactor
configurations (IFB and SFB) was $1.4 million. This 3.5-fold
cost increase was due to the estimated value of the two
bioreactors required for controlled fermentation, representing
73% PEC. The direct and indirect expenses of FCI and work-
ing capital are shown in Table 1. The demand for hygienic
(1)
production practices has increased the appeal of using stain-
less steel tanks in industrial bioprocesses for production of
yogurt, beer, wine, and cider (Steinkraus, 2004). The use of
bioreactors ensure optimal conditions of nutrients and oxy-
gen transfers through agitation, aeration, temperature and
pH controls (Singh et al., 2014). In coffee fermentation, the
use of benchtop STR promoted an efficient mucilage removal
from coffee fruit and increased the final coffee quality by
producing key-metabolites (e.g., lactic acid, ethyl acetate,
phenylacetaldehyde, and 2-phenethyl acetate) (Carvalho Neto
et al., 2020, 2018).
The post-harvest processing costs were calculated by the
direct costs and fixed charges shown in Table 2. The costs for
processing cherry fruits in SFT, SFB, and IFB were estimated in
0.05, 0.10, and 0.79 $/kg, respectively. Similar production costs
for immature and overripe fruits processing were projected in
all configurations (0.02 and 0.03 $/kg, respectively). For sponta-
neous configurations (SFT and SFB), the main processing costs
were utilities (32 and 18% of the post-harvest costs, respec-
tively), operating labor (28 and 14%), fixed charges (21 and 37%),
and maintenance and repairs (15 and 27%). Regarding the SFB
configuration, the use of bioreactor resulted in additional oper-
ational expenses, excluding TCI and PEC, which increases in
2-fold the cost of post-harvest processing when compared
to open tanks systems (SFT configuration). However, uncon-
18 Food and Bioproducts Processing 1 2 5 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 14–21

Table 1 – Total capital investment cost in different

configurations with and without bioreactors.
Configurations SFT ($) IFB and SFB ($)

1. Direct costsa 254,463.40 889,434.38

1.1. Equipmentb 157,009.33 548,799.93
1.1.1. Purchased equipment (PEC)c 90,235.25 315,402.26
1.1.2. Installation 36,094.10 126,160.90
1.1.3. Instrumentation and controls 7218.82 25,232.18
1.1.4. Piping 14,437.64 50,464.36
1.1.5. Electrical 9023.52 31,540.23
1.2. Buildings 61,359.97 214,473.54
1.3. Service facilities 27,070.57 94,620.68
1.4. Yard improvements 9023.52 31,540.23
2. Indirect costsd 78,168.49 273,224.94
2.1. Engineering and supervision 26,610.55 93,012.75 Fig. 3 – The coffee bean price in relation to the quality score
2.2. Legal expenses 3326.32 11,626.59 by sensorial analysis: the real value of the beans (dot), the
2.3. Construction expense 26,610.55 93,012.75 estimated model of average data (line), and the commodity
2.4. Contractor’s fee 4989.48 17,439.89
price in 2018 (dot line). For this data survey, only lots above
2.5. Contingency 16,631.59 58,132.97
1 tonne were considered.
3. Fixed-capital investment (FCI)e 332,631.89 1,162,659.31
4. Working capital 58,699.75 205,175.17
5. Total capital investment (TCI)f 391,331.64 1,367,834.49 The inoculation of starter cultures represents 88% of the
processing costs in the IFB configuration, which increases
Inoculated fermentation in bioreactors (IFB); spontaneous fermen-
eight times the value of the product compared to the SFB. The
tation in bioreactors (SFB); spontaneous fermentation in tank (SFT).
a
total costs of processing cherry fruit, including the planting,
The sum of equipment, buildings, service facilities, and yard
harvesting, post-harvesting, beneficiation, and storage stages,
improvements.
b
The sum of purchased equipment, installation, instrumentation in SFT, SFB, and IFB were 1.71, 1.76, and 2.45 $/kg, respec-
and controls, piping, and electrical. tively, while immature and overripe were 1.44 and 1.20 $/kg.
c
The sum of 1 washing/separator ($ 7692.60), 3 pulping machines Despite the high costs, the proposed starter cultures possess
($ 9285.56/unit), 1 rotary filter ($ 4195.12), 2 bioreactors ($ several characteristics that allow the improvement, repro-
114,830.60/unit) and 1 air compressor ($1039.18) or 6 tank ($ ducibility, and predictability of processed coffees (Evangelista
922.23/unit), 1 sieve ($ 2537.27), 1 rotary dryer ($ 17,028.07), and
et al., 2014a,b; Lee et al., 2017; Pereira et al., 2015, 2016). In
1 peeler ($ 25,389.13).
d
The sum of engineering and supervision, legal expenses, con-
addition, coffee beverages produced by starter cultures yields
struction expense, contractor’s fee, and contingency. more flavored coffee beverage reaching higher market values
e
The sum of direct and indirect costs. (Costa, 2020; Donnet et al., 2008).
f
The sum of fixed-capital investment and working capital.
3.2. Techno-economic analysis
trolled fermentation in open tanks favors the growth of several
microorganisms and promotes the formation of numerous The techno-economic analysis was performed considering the
unwanted metabolites, which compromises the quality of the experimental data reported by Carvalho Neto et al. (2018),
final beverage (Masoud et al., 2005; Pereira et al., 2015; Silva which was 85.5 and 91.0 SCAA score values for processed cof-
et al., 2013). fee beans in SFB and IFB, respectively. The prices of green

Table 2 – The post-harvest processing cost of green coffee beans, from cherry, overripe, and immature fruits, by different
configurations.
Configurations SFT SFB IFB SFT, SFB, and IFB

Parameters ($/crop) Cherry Cherry Cherry Overripe Immature

a
1. Direct production costs 34,322.32 54,228.21 676,780.87 1670.68 6692.11
1.1. Raw materialsb – – 622,552.65 – –
1.2. Operating labor 12,116.15 12,116.15 12,116.15 1514.52 6058.08
1.3. Direct supervisory and clerical labor 1211.62 1211.62 1211.62 151.45 605.81
1.4. Utilitiesc 13,676.65 15,321.94 15,321.94 282.51 1695.04
1.5. Maintenance and repairs 6652.64 23,253.19 23,253.19 – –
1.6. Operating supplies 665.26 2325.32 2325.32 – –
2. Fixed charges 9023.52 31,540.23 31,540.23 – –
Beneficiation process cost 43,345.84 85,768.44 708,321.09 1948.48 8358.93
Total coffee costd 1,523,254.38 1,565,676.97 2,188,229.63 69,178.66 498,178.85
Total production (kg/crop) 899,988 899,988 899,988 58,407 350,445
Beneficiation cost ($/kg) 0.05 0.10 0.79 0.03 0.02
Green coffee cost ($/kg) 1.71 1.76 2.45 1.20 1.44

Inoculated fermentation in bioreactors (IFB); spontaneous fermentation in bioreactors (SFB); spontaneous fermentation in tank (SFT).
a
The sum of raw materials, operating labor, direct supervisory and clerical labor, utilities, maintenance and repairs, and operating supplies.
b
Only starter culture was considered.
c
The sum of electricity and natural gas cost.
d
The sum of all processing cost indicated in Fig. 2.
 Food and Bioproducts Processing 1 2 5 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 14–21 19

Table 3 – The profit crop-year of green coffee beans, from cherry, overripe, and immature fruits, by different
configurations.
Configurations SFT SFB IFB SFT, SFB, and IFB

Parameters per crop Cherry Cherry Cherry Overripe Immature

Total capital investment ($) 391,331.64 1,367,834.49 1,367,834.49 – –

Total product cost ($) 1,538,980.07 1,581,402.67 2,200,611.72 58,893.06 503,383.74
Green coffee production (kg) 899,988 899,988 899,988 58,407 350,445
Green coffee cost ($/kg) 1.71 1.76 2.45 1.20 1.44
Green coffee price ($/kg) 2.50 10.00 20.00 1.88 2.00
Economic profit ($/kg) 0.79 8.26 17.59 0.68 0.57
Profit crop (cherry) 1.83 5.44 11.57 0.10 0.51

Inoculated fermentation in bioreactors (IFB); spontaneous fermentation in bioreactors (sfb); spontaneous fermentation in tank (SFT).

coffee beans from SFT, SFB, IFB, were estimated at 2.50, 10,00,
and 20,00 $/kg, respectively, while overripe and immature
were 1.88 and 2.00 $/kg (75% and 80% of commodity price). The
crop profit, according to the estimated prices for each bean,
is shown in Table 3. The profit of processing, which results
in higher quality products, is very advantageous. To obtain a
profit margin in SFB, the minimum selling price of green coffee
beans must be 4.55 $/kg, i.e., 82% higher than the commodity
value. In IFB, the minimum selling price of green coffee beans
is greater than 5.24 $/kg, or 109% higher. The higher scores of
coffee beans produced by inoculated processes are associated
with the passive diffusion of microbial-derived metabolites
into the seeds (Salem et al., 2020). The persistence of these
compounds after the roasting process confers distinct and
desirable fruity, floral, and lactic notes, resulting in differen-
tiated products with significantly superior prices (Fitter and
Kaplinksy, 2001; Pereira et al., 2019). This statement is corrob-
orated by the survey of specialty coffee’s sale value, obtained
from a specialized coffee auction (Fig. 3). A model describing
the relationship between green coffee beans price (CP) and
SCAA quality score (QS), from 85 to 95, has been calculated
with an error coefficient of 0.91:
CP = 0.12062 QS3 − 30.99756 QS2 + 2656.69076 QS
− 75921.35363 (2)

Fig. 4 – Sensitivity analysis of profit crop-year in coffee beneficiation with: (A) inoculated fermentation in bioreactor; (B)
spontaneous fermentation in bioreactor; (C) spontaneous fermentation in tank. Especial green coffee beans varies of
2.50–40.92 $/kg for A and 2.50–14.49 $/kg for B; relation of special/commodity coffee of 4–12 for A and 1.5–6.5 for B;
purchased equipment cost of 80–120% PEC; green coffee beans commodity of 2.11–2.87 $/kg; cherry/overripe/immature
55/35/10–75/25/0; starter culture price 61.20–227.15 $/kg for A.
20 Food and Bioproducts Processing 1 2 5 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 14–21
Based to Eq. (2), a lot of green coffee with SCAA 85.5 and
91.0 can be sold at 15.50 and 40.92 $/kg, respectively — more
than six and sixteen times the estimated price for commod-
ity coffee. This data indicates that the profit estimated in the
analysis of the processes with bioreactors has a positive sce-
nario, allowing the implementation of this improved method
of production.
A sensitivity analysis with the most significant impact on
profit crop was used to identify the main bottlenecks in the
process. The pessimistic and optimistic scenarios with the
parameters varying with the highest and lowest estimated val-
ues are shown in Fig. 4. The price of green coffee considered
an SCAA ranging from 85.5 to 91.0, calculated by Eq. (2), was
the main process parameter. Coffee prices reached a profit of
25.32 in an optimistic scenario (40.92 $/kg) or 0.04 in a pes-
simist scenario (2.50 $/kg). Although directly impacting the
fermentation costs, the price of the starter culture did not
cause a significant variation in the profit margin. It shows that
the price of high-quality coffee beans is the main factor that
makes the process economically viable.
4. Conclusion
The techno-economic analysis showed that the investment
needed for the implementation of a modern fermentation
system in coffee farms is about US$ 1 million higher than a
conventional plant using open tanks. The production cost of
three simulated configurations, using inoculated starter cul-
ture in bioreactors, spontaneous fermentation in bioreactors,
and spontaneous fermentation in open tanks were estimated
by 2.45, 1.75, and 1.71 $/kg, respectively. However, these costs
can be offset by the higher value that specialty coffees can
achieve (US$ 20/kg), when compared to the price of commodity
coffee beans (US$ 2.5/kg), due to the control of process, domi-
nance of starter cultures, and improvement of the final coffee
quality. In addition, the production costs of dried green coffee
beans are similar for both methods, resulting in higher eco-
nomic profits. This study provides the economic background
for modernizing coffee processing and to add value in the
specialty coffee chain.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Formatting of funding sources
This work was supported by the Brazilian National Council
for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) (project
number 429560/2018-4).
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the company PALINIALVES (Brazil) for the
support and contribution of the equipment data; and For-
tune Mountains Specialty Coffee (Honduras) for the assistance
with implementation cost data. We also thank the CNPq for
fellowships in research (grant numbers 303254/2017-3 and
151885/2019-2).
References
Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica (ANEEL), 2019. Tarifa Média
por Classe de Consumo e por Região [Brazilian Portuguese].
http://www.aneel.gov.br/dados/relatorios.
Alliance for Coffee Excellence (ACE), 2019. Cup of Excellence.
https://allianceforcoffeeexcellence.org/cup-of-excellence/.
Bee, S., Brando, C.H.J., Brumen, G., Carvalhaes, N., Kolling-Speer,
I., Speer, K., 2005. The raw bean. In: Illy, A., Viani, R. (Eds.),
Espresso Coffee, the Science of Quality. Elsevier Academic
Press, London, pp. 87–178.
Carvalho Neto, D.P., Pereira, G.V.M., Tanobe, V., Thomaz-Soccol,
V., da Silva, B.G., Rodrigues, C., Soccol, C., 2017. Yeast diversity
and physicochemical characteristics associated with coffee
bean fermentation from the Brazilian Cerrado Mineiro region.
Fermentation 3, 11,
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/fermentation3010011.
Carvalho Neto, D.P., Pereira, G.V.M., Finco, A.M.O., Letti, L.A.J., da
Silva, B.J.G., Vandenberghe, L.P.S., Soccol, C.R., 2018. Efficient
coffee beans mucilage layer removal using lactic acid
fermentation in a stirred-tank bioreactor: kinetic, metabolic
and sensorial studies. Food Biosci. 26, 80–87,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fbio.2018.10.005.
Carvalho Neto, D.P., Pereira, G.V.M., Finco, A.M.O., Rodrigues, C.,
de Carvalho, J.C., Soccol, C.R., 2020. Microbiological,
physicochemical and sensory studies of coffee beans
fermentation conducted in a yeast bioreactor model. Food
Biotechnol. 34, 172–192,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08905436.2020.1746666.
Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento (CONAB). Monitoring the
Brazilian sugarcane harvest [Brazilian Portuguese].
https://www.conab.gov.br/, 2020. (Accessed in 07 April 2020).
Copergás, 2019. Tarifas de gás natu-
ral para clientes industriais e comerciais [Brazilian Portuguese].
https://www.copergas.com.br/atendimento-ao-cliente/tarifas/.
Correa, J.M., Vieira, G.H.S., Baitelle, D.C., Loss, J.B., Monaco Paola,
A.V.L., Haddade, I.R., Meneghelli, C.M., Schwan, V.V., Birchler,
R., Madalon, F.Z., 2017. Controlled water stress in uniformity
of maturity and productivity of conilon coffee. Afr. J. Agric.
Res. 12, 192–199, http://dx.doi.org/10.5897/ajar2016.11995.
Costa, B.R., 2020. Brazilian specialty coffee scenario. In: Almeida,
L.F., Spers, E.E. (Eds.), Coffee Consumption and Industry
Strategies in Brazil: a Volume in the Consumer Science and
Strategic Marketing Series. Woodhead Publishing, Kidlington,
pp. 51–64,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814721-4.00003-2.
Dardengo, M.C.J.D., Sant’Ana, B.T., Pereira, L.R., 2013. Secagem e
Qualidade do Cafeeiro Conilon em Terreiro de Saibrocimento,
Concreto e Suspenso. Enciclopédia Biosf. 9, 2348–2357.
De Barros, M.M., Da Silva, F.M., Costa, A.G., e Silva Ferraz, G.A., Da
Silva, F.C., 2018. Use of classifier to determine coffee harvest
time by detachment force. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agric. e Ambient. 22,
366–370,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1807-1929/agriambi.v22n5p366-370.
De Castro, R.D., Marraccini, P., 2006. Cytology, biochemistry and
molecular changes during coffee fruit development. Braz. J.
Plant Physiol. 18, 175–199,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1677-04202006000100013.
Donnet, M.L., Weatherspoon, D.D., Hoehn, J.P., 2007. What adds
value in specialty coffee? Managerial implications from
hedonic price analysis of Central and South American
e-auctions. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 10, 1–18.
Donnet, M.L., Weatherspoon, D.D., Hoehn, J.P., 2008. Price
determinants in top-quality e-auctioned specialty coffees.
Agric. Econ. 38, 267–276,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2008.00298.x.
de Mesquita, C.M., de Rezende, J.E., Carvalho, J.S., Fabri Junior,
M.A., Moraes, N.C., Dias, P.T., de Carvalho, R.M., de Araújo,
W.G., 2016. Manual do Café: Colheita e Preparo, first ed.
EMATER-MG, Belo Horizonte.
Elhalis, H., Cox, J., Zhao, J., 2020. Ecological diversity, evolution
and metabolism of microbial communities in the wet
fermentation of Australian coffee beans. Int. J. Food Microbiol.
 Food and Bioproducts Processing 1 2 5 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 14–21
321, 108544,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2020.108544.
Evangelista, S.R., Miguel, M.G.C.P., Cordeiro, C.S., Silva, C.F.,
Pinheiro, A.C.M., Schwan, R.F., 2014a. Inoculation of starter
cultures in a semi-dry coffee (Coffea arabica) fermentation
process. Food Microbiol. 44, 87–95,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2014.05.013.
Evangelista, S.R., Silva, C.F., Miguel, M.G.P.C., Cordeiro, C.S.,
Pinheiro, A.C.M., Duarte, W.F., Schwan, R.F., 2014b.
Improvement of coffee beverage quality by using selected
yeasts strains during the fermentation in dry process. Food
Res. Int. 61, 183–195,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2013.11.033.
Fitter, R., Kaplinksy, R., 2001. Who gains from product rents as
the coffee market becomes more differentiated? A
value-chain analysis. IDS Bull. 32, 69–82,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2001.mp32003008.x.
Haile, M., Kang, W.H., 2019. The role of microbes in coffee
fermentation and their impact on coffee quality. J. Food Qual.
2019, 4836709, http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/4836709.
Hernandez-Aguilera, J.N., Gómez, M.I., Rodewald, A.D., Rueda, X.,
Anunu, C., Bennett, R., van Es, H.M., 2018. Quality as a driver
of sustainable agricultural value chains: the case of the
relationship coffee model. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 27, 179–198,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.2009.
International Coffee Organization (ICO), 2019. Historical Data on
the Global Coffee Trade.
http://www.ico.org/new historical.asp?section=Statistics.
Lee, L.W., Cheong, M.W., Curran, P., Yu, B., Liu, S.Q., 2015. Coffee
fermentation and flavor — an intricate and delicate
relationship. Food Chem. 185, 182–191,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.03.124.
Lee, L.W., Cheong, M.W., Curran, P., Yu, B., Liu, S.Q., 2016.
Modulation of coffee aroma via the fermentation of green
coffee beans with Rhizopus oligosporus: I. Green coffee. Food
Chem. 211, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.05.076.
Lee, L.W., Tay, G.Y., Cheong, M.W., Curran, P., Yu, B., Liu, S.Q., 2017.
Modulation of the volatile and non-volatile profiles of coffee
fermented with Yarrowia lipolytica: I. Green coffee. LWT Food
Sci. Technol. 77, 225–232,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2016.11.047.
Martins, P.M.M., Batista, N.N., Miguel, M.G.D.C.P., Simão, J.B.P.,
Soares, J.R., Schwan, R.F., 2020. Coffee growing altitude
influences the microbiota, chemical compounds and the
quality of fermented coffees. Food Res. Int. 129, 108872,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108872.
Masoud, W., Poll, L., Jakobsen, M., 2005. Influence of Volatile
Compounds Produced by Yeasts Predominant During
Processing of Coffea arabica in East Africa on Growth and
Ochratoxin a (OTA) Production by Aspergillus ochraceus., pp.
1133–1142, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/yea.1304.
Milligan, D., Milligan, J., 2014. Matches,. (Accessed in 13 February
2020) http://www.matche.com/.
Pereira, G.V.M., Soccol, V.T., Pandey, A., Medeiros, A.B.P., Lara,
J.M.R.A., Gollo, A.L., Soccol, C.R., 2014. Isolation, selection and
evaluation of yeasts for use in fermentation of coffee beans by
the wet process. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 188, 60–66,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2014.07.008.
Pereira, G.V.M., Neto, E., Soccol, V.T., Medeiros, A.B.P.,
Woiciechowski, A.L., Soccol, C.R., 2015. Conducting starter
culture-controlled fermentations of coffee beans during
21
on-farm wet processing: growth, metabolic analyses and
sensorial effects. Food Res. Int. 75, 348–356,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2015.06.027.
Pereira, G.V.M., Carvalho Neto, D.P., Medeiros, A.B.P., Soccol, V.T.,
Neto, E., Woiciechowski, A.L., Soccol, C.R., 2016. Potential of
lactic acid bacteria to improve the fermentation and quality of
coffee during on-farm processing. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 51,
1689–1695, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.13142.
Pereira, G.V.M., Soccol, V.T., Brar, S.K., Neto, E., Soccol, C.R., 2017.
Microbial ecology and starter culture technology in coffee
processing microbial ecology and starter culture technology
in coffee processing. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 57, 2775–2788,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2015.1067759.
Pereira, G.V.M., Carvalho Neto, D.P., Magalhães Júnior, A.I.,
Vásquez, Z.S., Medeiros, A.B.P., Vandenberghe, L.P.S., Soccol,
C.R., 2019. Exploring the impacts of postharvest processing on
the aroma formation of coffee beans — a review. Food Chem.
272, 441–452,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.08.061.
Peters, M.S., Timmerhaus, K.D., West, R.E., 2002. Plant Design and
Economics for Chemical Engineers, fifth ed. McGraw-Hill
Education.
Poltronieri, P., Rossi, F., 2016. Challenges in specialty coffee
processing and quality assurance. Challenges 7, 19,
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/challe7020019.
Salem, F.H., Lebrun, M., Mestres, C., Sieczkowski, N., Boulanger,
R., Collignan, A., 2020. Transfer kinetics of labeled aroma
compounds from liquid media into coffee beans during
simulated wet processing conditions. Food Chem. 322, 126779,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.126779.
Silva, C.F., Schwan, R.F., Sousa Dias, Ë., Wheals, A.E., 2000.
Microbial diversity during maturation and natural processing
of coffee cherries of Coffea arabica in Brazil. Int. J. Food
Microbiol. 60, 251–260,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1605(00)00315-9.
Silva, C.F., Batista, L.R., Abreu, L.M., Dias, E.S., Schwan, R.F., 2008.
Succession of bacterial and fungal communities during
natural coffee (Coffea arabica) fermentation. Food Microbiol.
25, 951–957, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2008.07.003.
Silva, C.F., Vilela, D.M., Cordeiro, C.S., Duarte, W.F., Dias, D.R.,
Schwan, R.F., 2013. Evaluation of a potential starter culture for
enhance quality of coffee fermentation. World J. Microbiol.
Biotechnol. 29, 235–247,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11274-012-1175-2.
Singh, J., Kaushik, N., Biswas, S., 2014. Bioreactors – technology &
design analysis. Scitech J. 1, 28–36.
Steinkraus, K.H., 2004. Industrialization of Indigenous Fermented
Foods, Revised and Expanded, second ed. CRC Press, Boca
Raton.
Sunarharum, W.B., Williams, D.J., Smyth, H.E., 2014. Complexity
of coffee flavor: a compositional and sensory perspective.
Food Res. Int. 62, 315–325,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2014.02.030.
van der Merwe, K., Maree, T., 2016. The behavioural intentions of
specialty coffee consumers in South Africa. Int. J. Consum.
Stud. 40, 501–508, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12275.
Wintgens, J.N., 2004. Factors influencing the quality of green
coffee. In: Coffee: Growing, Processing, Sustainable
Production. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH, Weinheim, Germany,
pp. 789–809, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9783527619627.ch29.