LWT - Food Science and Technology 145 (2021) 111363

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

LWT
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lwt

Specialty and regular coffee bean quality for cold and hot brewing:
Evaluation of sensory profile and physicochemical characteristics
Nancy Córdoba a, Fabian L Moreno b, Coralia Osorio c, Sebastián Velásquez d, Mario Fernandez-
Alduenda e, Yolanda Ruiz-Pardo b, *
a
Doctoral Program in Biosciences, Faculty of Engineering, Universidad de La Sabana, Campus Universitario Puente Del Común, Km. 7 Autopista Norte, Bogotá, 25001,
Colombia
b
Grupo de Investigación en Procesos Agroindustriales, Universidad de La Sabana, Campus Universitario Puente Del Común, Km. 7 Autopista Norte, Bogotá, 25001,
Colombia
c
Departamento de Química, Universidad Nacional de Colombia-Sede Bogotá, AA, 14490, Bogotá, Colombia
d
Research & Development Department, Industria Colombiana de Café, Medellín, Antioquia, Colombia
e
Specialty Coffee Association (SCA), Santa Ana, CA, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The effect of coffee bean quality (specialty and regular) and brewing method (cold and hot) on the sensory profile
Coffee quality and physicochemical characteristics of coffee beverages was studied. Cold brew was prepared by immersion and
Specialty coffee hot brew coffee by French Press. Total dissolved solids (TDS), titratable acidity (TA), caffeine, trigonelline, 4 and
Titratable acidity
5- caffeoylquinic acids were quantified by instrumental methods, volatile compounds by GC–MS, and the coffee
Brewing temperature
Coffee flavor
flavor was through quantitative sensory evaluation. Coffee beverages were more differentiated by brewing
method than by the coffee bean quality used in the preparation. Cold brew coffees were mainly associated with
volatile 2-methyl-butanal, 5-methyl furfural, and dihydro-2-methyl- 3 (2H) -furanone. Hot brew coffee beverages
were identified with some specific furans and 2-methoxy-4-vinylphenol. No significant differences were found in
TDS, caffeine, trigonelline, 4 and 5 caffeoylquinic acids. A higher TA was observed in hot coffee beverages than
in cold brew coffees. Regular bean quality promoted undesirable sensory attributes in both cold and hot brew
beverages. However, these attributes were perceived in higher intensity in hot brew coffee beverages. Thus,
differences in brewing methods affect the extraction of the chemical compounds present in different coffee bean
quality, translating into variations in the sensory profile.

1. Introduction with a score higher than 80 points is considered a specialty grade

In recent years, the production, trade, and consumption of coffee
have changed, going from commercializing a pure commodity (regular
coffees) to a specialty product (Sittipod, Schwartz, Paravisini, & Peter­
son, 2019). Specialty coffees are made of the highest quality coffee beans
to reveal their outstanding flavor potential. The flavor is considered an
essential criterion in determining the coffee quality, and it is directly
affected by the presence of defective coffee beans. To classify the spe­
cialty grade, a common practice in the coffee industry is to assess the
flavor quality of coffee beans (brew) using the ‘coffee cupping’ protocol
of the Specialty Coffee Association (SCA) (Sittipod et al., 2019). Coffee
samples are evaluated in 10 sensory attributes, and a final score – “Total
Score” – is obtained. This parameter enables quality grading, as coffee
compared to coffee with a score below 80 points, considered
non-specialty coffee (SCA, 2015). In addition, according to SCA stan­
dards, a coffee is considered specialty when the green coffee defect
count is zero (0) for Category 1 defects (e.g., full black, sour, and insect
damage), and ≤5 for Category 2 defects (e.g., immature/unripe, with­
ered, and floater defects) (SCA, 2018). Therefore, those with values
above these are graded as non-specialty (regular) coffees. Defects most
detrimental to beverage flavor might be, in order of predominance,
immature, sour, and black coffee beans (Toci & Farah, 2014).
The coffee market has been changing in recent years. Specialty cof­
fees and coffee beverages with high and unique sensory characteristics
have risen in popularity. Within these trends, cold brew coffee has
become one of the most popular drinks in specialty coffee shops

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ruth.ruiz@unisabana.edu.co (Y. Ruiz-Pardo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2021.111363
Received 26 January 2021; Received in revised form 20 March 2021; Accepted 22 March 2021
Available online 26 March 2021
0023-6438/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
N. Córdoba et al.
worldwide. Market analysis shows that the market for cold brew coffee
was valued at US $ 321 million in 2017 and is expected to reach US $
1.37 billion by 2023 (Conway, 2020).
Despite the increasing prevalence of cold brew coffee, only a few
scientific studies have been conducted. Previous research indicates that
the low water temperature used in cold extraction affects the extraction
of molecules from the coffee matrix into the aqueous phase, resulting in
coffee beverages with low acidity and higher total antioxidant capacity
than hot brew coffee beverages (Rao & Fuller, 2018). Cold brew coffees
have been reported to possess a different flavor profile, typically char­
acterized by intense sweetness, chocolate, fruity and floral notes, me­
dium bitterness, and acidity, as extraction conditions differ from
conventional hot brewing (Angeloni, Guerrini, Masella, Innocenti, et al.,
2019; Córdoba, Moreno, Osorio, Velásquez, & Ruiz, 2021; Cordoba,
Pataquiva, Osorio, Moreno, & Ruiz, 2019). Besides, cold brew coffees
brewed using a higher coffee/water ratio have been perceived as more
bitter than those brewed using lower coffee/water ratios (Seninde,
Chambers, & Chambers, 2020).
It is well known that in the hot coffee brewing process, several
extraction process variables affect the sensory features and chemical
composition of the coffee beverage. These changes are determined by
several factors, including coffee species, variety, origin, growing con­
ditions, roasting, grind size distribution, water chemistry, and temper­
ature of water used during extraction (Cordoba, Fernandez-Alduenda,
Moreno, & Ruiz, 2020; Córdoba et al., 2021; da Silva Portela, de
Almeida, Buzzo, Yamashita, & de Toledo, 2021; Fuller & Rao, 2017;
Seninde et al., 2020). To the best authors’ knowledge, these factors have
not been widely studied for cold extraction. Given the differences in time
and temperature used for cold brewing, compared to what is used for
conventional hot coffee brewing, a study on the role of the coffee bean
quality could help elucidate its impact on the chemical and sensory
characteristics of cold brew coffee. Thus, the main objective of this study
was to determine the impact of quality grade (regular vs. specialty
coffee) and brewing method (cold vs. hot method) on the sensory pro­
file, physicochemical characteristics, and volatile and non-volatile
compounds.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Coffee beans quality grade classification
Green coffee beans (Coffea arabica) were produced by smallholder
coffee growers from ARCAFE association (Linares, Nariño, Colombia).
Green coffee bean samples were graded (defects and cup quality)
following the SCA protocols (SCA, 2015, 2018). The specialty coffee
bean quality consisted of 100% non-defective beans. In the regular
coffee sample, non-defective beans comprised 6% slight/severe insect
damage, 2.8% immature/unripe, 1.6% sour/partial sour, 1.6% bro­
ken/cut/shells, 0.8% black/partial black, 0.8% floater, 0.8% withered in
the same sample the non-defective coffee beans corresponded to 85.6%.
Samples physically classified were cupped by licensed Q-graders. The
regular coffee sample scored 77.0 ± 2.0, while specialty coffee scored
84.5 ± 2.0.
2.2. Roasting and grinding coffee
Coffee samples were roasted using a drum roaster (Sasa Samiac, Le
Cateau Cambresis, France) for a roasting time of 11.50 ± 0.59 min and a
final temperature of 190.0 ± 1.0 ◦ C until they reached a medium roast
level. The medium roast level was chosen because it is considered the
point in which the total concentration of volatile compounds peaks and
quality is readily discriminated against (Toci, Azevedo, & Farah, 2020).
The roasted level was estimated using color CIELAB coordinates (Konica
Minolta, Ramsey, USA). Specialty and regular coffee beans at medium
roasting level displayed a Lightness (L*) of 30.4 ± 0.6 and 30.1 ± 0.9,
respectively. Roasted beans were ground in a burr grinder (BUNN®,
2
LWT 145 (2021) 111363
Mexico D.F, Mexico) to a medium grind (501–700 μm) (ICONTEC,
2011).
2.3. Coffee beverages preparation
Cold brew coffees were prepared using the indirect immersion
method. Coffee grounds were placed into a filter bag and submerged into
the water in static conditions for 14 h. A coffee: water ratio of 1:11was
used (31.5 g: 350 mL, w/v). Similar ratios have been used in recently
cold brew coffee studies (Angeloni, Guerrini, Masella, Bellumori, et al.,
2019; Córdoba et al., 2021; da Silva Portela et al., 2021; Rao, Fuller, &
Grim, 2020). Cold extraction was prepared with filtered water at 19 ±
2 ◦ C. Hot brew coffee samples were prepared using a mesh plunger
French press system (Bodum®, Inc., New York, USA), using filtered hot
water (90 ± 3 ◦ C). The coffee: water ratio is another factor that in­
fluences coffee extraction and beverages quality (Seninde et al., 2020).
Therefore, hot coffees were prepared with the same coffee: water ratio
(1:11) used in cold brewing coffee. Hot water was poured over coffee
grounds, placed in the French press vessel. After 5 min, the coffee
grounds were pressed to the bottom of the vessel using the plunger
(Córdoba et al., 2021; Rao et al., 2020). Hot coffee beverages were
immediately cooled down for approximately 45 min and cover with a
glass lid. Cold brew and hot brew coffee beverages were analyzed at
room temperature (19 ± 2 ◦ C).
2.4. Physicochemical analysis
2.4.1. Total dissolved solids (TDS) and total titratable acidity (TA)
TDS was measured according to the methodology described by
(Gloess et al., 2013). Briefly, brewed coffee samples (about 5 g) were
dried at 105 ◦ C until a constant weight was reached. For TA, coffee
beverages (50 mL) were titrated with 0.1 mol/L NaOH solution at a pH
of 6.5. Results were expressed in milligrams of chlorogenic acids per
gram of coffee (mg CGA/g) (ICONTEC, 2004).
2.4.2. Caffeine, trigonelline, 4- and 5- caffeoylquinic acids (CQAs)
Caffeine, trigonelline, 4- and 5-caffeoylquinic acid concentrations
were determined by reversed-phase high-performance liquid chroma­
tography (RP- HPLC). Quantitative analyses were carried out using a
LaChrom HPLC (Merck – Hitachi, Darmstadt/Tokyo, Germany/Japan)
with a diode array detector (UV/VIS). The separation was achieved in a
Gemini column C-18 (Phenomenex, Torrance, USA) measuring 250 mm
× 4.6 mm and 5 μm at 25 ◦ C. The mobile phase used was acetic acid 1%
(A) and methanol (B) HPLC grade (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany). The
gradient was adjusted as follows: 0–8 min: A/B 96/4; 20 min: A/B 72/
28; 25–28 min, A/B 58/42 at a flow rate of 1,5 mL/min. CQAs were
detected at 325 nm, and caffeine and trigonelline were detected at λ 275
nm. The injection volume was 10 μL. The concentrations of bioactive
compounds were calculated using a regression equation of their con­
centrations and the peak area obtained from HPLC standard references
for caffeine (purity≥99%), trigonelline (purity ≥98%), 5-caffeoylquinic
(purity ≥98%), and 4-caffeoylquinic acid (purity ≥98%) (Sigma­
–Aldrich, St. Louis, USA).
2.5. Volatile composition (GC–MS)
Coffee beverages were analyzed after brewing using Headspace
Solid-Phase Microextraction (HS-SPME) and gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry (GC–MS) analyses. An SPME fiber of Poly-
dimethylsiloxan/Divinylbenzen (PDMS/DVB) with 65 μm thick film
(Supelco Inc., Bellefonte, USA) was used. Each sample (2 g) was equil­
ibrated for 1 h in a 20 mL sealed vial at 19 ◦ C using a magnetic stirrer.
Then, samples were directly injected (5 min of fiber desorption time at
250 ◦ C) into an Agilent 7890B gas chromatograph, coupled to a 5977A
mass selective detector (Agilent Technologies Inc., Wilmington, USA). A
DB-FFAP column (Agilent Technologies Inc., Wilmington, USA, 50 m ×
N. Córdoba et al. LWT 145 (2021) 111363

0.25 mm i.d., 0.32 μm) was used. The column oven was programmed Table 1
from 45 ◦ C (after 2 min) to 250 ◦ C, at 5 ◦ C/min, and the final temper­ List of specific attributes and definition used in the descriptive analysis of
ature was maintained for 5 min. The injector temperature was main­ brewed coffee and their references.
tained at 250 ◦ C; the carrier gas was helium at a 1.5 mL/min flow rate. Specific Definition Reference
Structural elucidation of the volatile compounds was performed by attributes
comparison of their mass spectra and retention indexes (retention index Aroma (AR) & Flavor (F)
using a C8–C20 alkane standard mix, Sigma–Aldrich, St. Louis, USA),
Nutty/Cocoa A slightly sweet, brown, Hazelnut coffee flavor map ref.
with those of either the standards or NIST mass spectra library (ver. 2.2, (AR,F) astringent, and bitter. Sweet, #040. Puree the almonds and
NIST/EPA/NIH, 2014). Data were processed by the Class 5000 v 2.2 MS- dusty, musty, often bitter walnutsa Cocoa powder with
Workstation software. aromatic associated with 100 mL of water a
powdered cocoa a
Fruity (AR,F) A sweet, floral, aromatic blend Juice kiwi strawberry (100%)a.
2.6. Sensory analysis of a variety of ripe fruitsa. Strawberry coffee flavor map
ref. #015
The sensory evaluation was conducted following international Floral (AR,F) A sweet, light, slightly fragrant Rose coffee flavor map ref.
regulation from the International Organization for Standardization aromatic associated with fresh #067
flowersa
(ISO) 11035 (ISO, 1994). The panel was integrated by 10 assessors (two
Caramelly A round, full-bodied, medium Caramel coffee flavor map ref.
females and eight males) from Colombian coffee companies and re­ (AR,F) brown, sweet aromatic #051
searchers from the Engineering Faculty of Universidad de La Sabana associated with cooked sugars
(Bogota-Colombia) with more than three years of experience in coffee and other carbohydratesa
sensory analysis. All experiments were carried out following relevant Spices (AR,F) The sweet, brown aromatic Cinnamon sticks and
associated with spices such as pulverizeda. Cinnamon coffee
ethics guidelines and regulations of Universidad de La Sabana. The cinnamon, clove, nutmeg, and flavor map ref. #076
panelists were volunteers and granted informed consent. allspicea
Six sessions (16 h) were used to familiarize assessors with general Roasted (AR, Dark brown impression Roasted coffee flavor map ref.
sensory testing of cold and hot coffee and develop a sensory vocabulary F) characteristic of products #050
cooked to a high temperature
using different commercial coffee samples. At the end of these sessions, a
by dry heat a
list of descriptors was chosen (Table 1). After that, two additional ses­ Earthy (AR,F) The somewhat sweet, heavy Soil fresh a
sions of 2 h each were performed to familiarize the panel with the aromatic associated with
sensory vocabulary selected, its definitions, and intensities (World decaying vegetation and damp,
Coffee Research, 2017). A relevant, potential confounding factor in black soil a
Fermented The pungent, sweet, slightly Extra Stout beer a
studies of the effect of preparation temperature is serving temperature, (AR,F) sour, sometimes yeasty,
as it impacts sensory perception (Batali, Ristenpart, & Guinard, 2020; alcohol-like aromatic
Steen, Waehrens, Petersen, Münchow, & Bredie, 2017). Therefore, in the characteristic of fermented
present study, all samples were served at room temperature (19±2 ◦ C) fruits or sugar or over-proofed
dougha
and evaluated in a randomized order in duplicate. Panelists evaluated
Papery (AR,F) The aromatic associated with Water resulting from
the intensity of the attributes using a 0 to 15-point scale with 0.5 in­ white paper cups a submerging coffee filters
crements (0 = none; 15 = extremely intense) (World Coffee Research, during 48h a
2017). Green/ An aromatic characteristic of Fresh parsley in watera
vegetative fresh, plant-based material.
(F) Attributes may include leafy,
2.7. Data analysis unripe, grassy, and peapod a.
Phenolic (F) The aromatic described as
Coffee bean quality and brewing method were considered fixed damp, musty, and like animal
factors for all analyses of variance (ANOVA) tests. Tukey pairwise hide. Reminiscent of a tack
room a
comparisons were used to evaluated differences across the factors
Acrid (F) The sharp, pungent, bitter, one drop of liquid smoke on a
mentioned above for each variable at a significance level of α = 0.05. acidic aromatic associated with cotton ball in a large snifter a
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was done for the physicochemical products that are excessively
parameters, non-volatile compounds, and significant (p < 0.05) volatile roasted or browned a
compounds and sensory attributes for data visualization. The coffee Sweetness (F) A fundamental taste factor of 1.0% sucrose solutiona
which sucrose is typical a
brewing – coffee bean quality categorical variable was dummy coded for Sourness (F) The fundamental taste factor 0,015–0,05% Citric solution a

representation purposes in the loadings plot. All features included in the associated with a citric acid
PCA analysis were previously mean-centered and standard deviation solution a
scaled. Significance classification regions were depicted in semi- Astringency A drying, puckering or tingling 0.05% Alum solution a
(F) sensation, on the surface and/or
transparent ellipses along with the centroid for each category. Addi­
edge of the tongue and mouth a.
tionally, the explained variance for the first three components was also Bitterness (F) The fundamental taste factor 0,01–0,04-0,05% Caffeine
reported. All analyses were performed in R-project version 4.0.0. associated with a caffeine solution a
solution a
3. Results and discussion Global attributes
Aroma The smell of the coffee beverage Samples of hot and cold brew
generated by sniffing aromas coffee beverages
3.1. Influence of coffee brewing method released of the cup of coffee b.
Flavor It is a combined impression of Samples of hot and cold brew
Regardless of coffee bean quality, results show that some attributes, all the gustatory (taste bud) coffee beverages
sensations and retro-nasal
such as paper (AR/F), green/vegetative (F), spices (F), roasted (AR/F),
aromas that go from the mouth
acrid, astringency, and bitterness, showed higher significant intensities to nose b.
(p < 0.001) in hot brew coffees than in the cold ones. Conversely, floral Body Tactile feeling of the liquid in Samples of hot coffee prepared
aroma (p < 0.05) was perceived as highest in cold brew coffees the mouth, especially as with roasted coffees from
(Table 2). different origins.

The main volatile compounds identified in both hot and cold coffee (continued on next page)

3
N. Córdoba et al. LWT 145 (2021) 111363

Table 1 (continued ) Table 2

Specific Definition Reference
Comparisons in the mean intensity ratings for sensory attributes of cold and hot
attributes brewed samples as a function of specialty and regular coffee bean quality.

Aroma (AR) & Flavor (F) Cold brew coffee beverage Hot brew coffee beverage
Attributes
perceived between the tongue Specialty Regular Specialty Regular
and roof of the mouth b Aroma (AR)
Aftertaste Length of positive flavor Samples of hot and cold brew
qualities emanating from the coffee beverages Nutty/Cocoa 1.47 ± 0.50 0.62 ± 0.30 1.63 ± 0.55 2.15 ± 0.55
back of the palate and (b) (c) (b) (a)
remaining after the coffee is Fruity 2.93 ± 1.56 2.73 ± 0.68 3.48 ± 1.13 3.60 ± 1.57
expectorated or swallowed (c) (bc) (c) (ab) (a)
Overall The maximum overall sensory Samples of hot and cold brew Floral 2.45 ± 0.90 2.13 ± 0.99 1.25 ± 0.81 1.70 ± 0.88
impression a. It reflects the coffee beverages (a) (a) (b) (b)
holistically integrated rating of Caramelly 5.98 ± 1.03 4.80 ± 1.39 4.58 ± 1.45 5.25 ± 1.92
the sample as perceived by the (a) (bc) (c) (ab)
individual panelist b Spices 1.13 ± 0.82 0.90 ± 0.71 1.73 ± 0.85 2.33 ± 0.71
(b) (b) (a) (a)
a
(World Coffee Research, 2017). Roasted 3.60 ± 1.39 3.30 ± 1.38 5.85 ± 1.48 7.23 ± 1.55
b
(SCA, 2015). (c) (c) (b) (a)
Earthy 2.83 ± 0.96 3.00 ± 1.01 2.65 ± 0.65 3.68 ± 0.68
(b) (b) (b) (a)
brews were furans and pyrazines. Other minor volatile compounds Fermented 1.33 ± 0.86 1.83 ± 1.22 1.50 ± 0.68 1.23 ± 0.63
classes detected were ketones, pyrroles, aldehydes, furanones, and (ab) (a) (ab) (b)
phenols (Table 3). This is in agreement with prior studies, which have Papery 0.25 ± 0.44 0.38 ± 0.63 0.96 ± 0.95 2.05 ± 1.13
found that furans and pyrazines represent the largest share of volatile (c) (c) (b) (a)
Green/ 0.53 ± 0.83 0.83 ± 0.84 0.88 ± 0.65 3.95 ± 0.80
compounds in coffee beverages (Caporaso, Genovese, Canela, Civitella,
vegetative (b) (b) (b) (a)
& Sacchi, 2014; Córdoba et al., 2021). The preponderance of these two Flavor (F)
groups of volatile compounds in the samples could partially explain the Nutty/Cocoa 1.89 ± 0.90 1.11 ± 0.42 2.30 ± 1.18 2.42 ± 0.71
high intensity of sweetness, caramelly, fruity, roasted, and earthy in (b) (c) (ab) (a)
Fruity 2.93 ± 0.69 3.08 ± 1.10 4.73 ± 1.80 4.18 ± 1.47
aroma and flavor perceived by panelists in both hot brew and cold brew
(b) (b) (a) (a)
beverages. These findings are in line with previous studies, reporting a Floral 2.15 ± 0.92 1.70 ± 0.82 1.75 ± 0.81 0.93 ± 0.83
link between volatile furans and sweet, nutty, malty, roasted, and fruity (a) (a) (a) (b)
flavor notes, with relatively higher sensory thresholds compared to Caramelly 5.60 ± 1.15 3.87 ± 0.95 4.51 ± 1.57 4.63 ± 1.99
other groups of coffee volatiles (Akiyama et al., 2007). Moreover, pyr­ (a) (b) (b) (b)
Spices 1.75 ± 0.67 1.58 ± 0.75 2.43 ± 1.45 3.45 ± 1.11
azines have been associated with nutty, earthy, roasty, and green aromas
(c) (c) (b) (a)
(Akiyama et al., 2007; Blank, Sen, & Grosch, 1992). Roasted 0.42 ± 0.26 0.47 ± 0.22 1.45 ± 0.57 3.70 ± 1.42
Additionally, current data show that, irrespective of the coffee bean (c) (c) (b) (a)
quality used, cold brew coffee beverages have a significant higher Earthy 3.38 ± 0.93 2.98 ± 1.00 3.10 ± 0.93 4.83 ± 1.21
abundance (p < 0.050) of 2-furylmethyl formate (p < 0.001), while hot (b) (b) (b) (a)
Fermented 0.73 ± 0.64 1.38 ± 0.93 0.80 ± 0.61 1.57 ± 0.82
brew coffee beverages exhibit the highest abundance values for specific (b) (a) (b) (a)
volatile compounds such as 2′ 2-bifuran, 2,2′ -methylenebis-furan, 2-(2- Papery 0.13 ± 0.33 0.18 ± 0.38 0.73 ± 0.88 2.85 ± 0.75
furanylmethyl)-5-methyl-furan (p < 0.001), 2,7-dimethyl-oxepine (p = (c) (c) (b) (a)
0.005), 2-[(methylthio)methyl]-furan, 2-methoxy-4-vinylphenol, and Green/ 0.38 ± 0.49 0.48 ± 0.68 2.25 ± 0.74 4.23 ± 1.36
vegetative (c) (c) (b) (a)
1H-indole (p < 0.001) (Table 3).
Phenolic 0.25 ± 0.44 0.68 ± 0.76 0.40 ± 0.59 1.15 ± 0.61
It should be noted that some of these compounds may confer either (c) (b) (bc) (a)
pleasant or unpleasant notes, depending on their concentrations. For Acrid 0.73 ± 0.88 1.25 ± 0.87 2.20 ± 1.02 3.20 ± 1.03
instance, 2-(2-furanylmethyl)-5-methyl-furan at a concentration of 10 (d) (c) (b) (a)
ppm in a sugar syrup has a green-cooked taste, while at a concentration Sweetness 6.80 ± 0.82 5.75 ± 0.81 5.83 ± 1.38 5.10 ± 1.12
(a) (b) (b) (c)
of 1 ppm, it imparts a licorice-like note to a neutral soluble coffee Sourness 6.05 ± 1.04 6.30 ± 0.76 6.10 ± 0.87 6.18 ± 0.82
beverage (Toci & Farah, 2008). In general, compounds such as 2, (a) (a) (a) (a)
2′ -methylenebis-furan and bifuran have been ascribed green and me­ Astringency 2.33 ± 2.27 2.28 ± 0.75 3.68 ± 0.73 6.40 ± 0.97
dicinal flavor notes (Flament, 2002) and 2-[(methylthio)methyl]-furan (c) (c) (b) (a)
Bitterness 3.78 ± 0.92 3.38 ± 1.10 4.90 ± 0.84 6.80 ± 0.85
has been associated with sulfur, garlic, smoke, and roasted odor notes
(c) (c) (b) (a)
(Caporaso et al., 2014; Flament, 2002). Likewise, 1H-indole has been Global
ascribed burnt, naphthyl, earthy, perfume, phenolic, and chemical nu­ attributes
ances (The Good Scents Company, 2020). Notably, 2-methoxy-4-vinyl­ Aroma 7.38 ± 1.03 5.28 ± 1.24 5.98 ± 0.86 5.20 ± 0.89
phenol has been considered a potent aroma compound related to spicy (a) (bc) (b) (c)
Flavor 7.30 ± 0.76 6.24 ± 0.86 6.98 ± 1.35 6.43 ± 0.90
and clove-like odor notes (Toci & Boldrin, 2018). In this regard, the (a) (c) (ab) (bc)
higher abundance detected in these compounds for hot coffee brews Body 6.43 ± 0.93 5.85 ± 0.77 6.73 ± 1.09 6.60 ± 0.93
could explain the higher intensity in roasted (AR/F), green/vegetative (ab) (c) (a) (a)
(F), papery (AR/F), and spices (AR/F) notes perceived by panelists in Aftertaste 6.75 ± 0.81 5.80 ± 1.20 6.50 ± 0.93 6.53 ± 0.94
(a) (b) (a) (a)
these samples.
Overall 6.95 ± 1.15 6.14 ± 0.88 6.69 ± 1.03 5.68 ± 1.19
Furthermore, the physicochemical characteristics and non-volatile (a) (bc) (ab) (c)
compositions of coffees brewed using hot and cold water were
Each value is the mean of measurements ± standard deviation, corresponding to
analyzed. Hot brew and cold brew coffee samples did not show signifi­
the evaluation given by 10 evaluators for each coffee sample evaluated in
cant differences (p > 0.05) in TDS. Although coffee extraction depends
duplicate. Mean intensity scores with a different letter in the same row represent
on a large number of process variables, the mass-conservation argu­ a significant difference among all coffee beverages for specialty and regular
ments demonstrate that TDS and extraction ratio are linearly correlated, coffee bean quality (Tukey’s honest significant difference test, p < 0.05).
with the slope relating to the “brew ratio,” which is defined as the mass

4
N. Córdoba et al. LWT 145 (2021) 111363

Table 3
Relative percentage of volatile compounds in cold and hot brew coffee prepared with specialty and regular bean quality.
IK# Compound Cold brew coffee beverage Hot brew coffee beverage Aroma descriptor & potential impact (*) Chemical
Class
Specialty Regular Specialty Regular

<1000 2-Methyl-butanal 3.40 ± 4.42 ± 2.74 ± 2.63 ± (þ) Buttery(1) Aldehyde

1.90(ab) 0.69(a) 0.90(b) 1.41(ab) (þ) Fruity, malty (2,7)
(¡) Rancid (4)
(þ) Almond-like, toasty(4)
<1000 2,7-Dimethyl-oxepiney 0.21 ± 0.18 ± 0.32 ± 0.74 ± – Ether
0.14(b) 0.12(b) 0.38(b) 0.24(a)
1060 2,3-Pentanedione 1.68 ± 1.53 ± 0.2(a) 1.24 ± 0.28 1.17 ± (þ) Buttery, creamy, sweet (1,7,8)
Ketone
0.08(a) 8(a) 0.59(a) (þ) Caramel-like(2,7,8)
1244 2-(Methoxymethyl)-furan 0.56 ± 0.61 ± 0.54 ± 0.49 ± (¡) Burnt, pungent, chemical(3) Furan
0.12(a) 0.09(a) 0.15(a) 0.13(a)
1273 Dihydro-2-methyl-3(2H)- 1.13 ± 1.10 ± 1.05 ± 0.84 ± (þ) Sweet, bread, buttery, nutty(4,7) Furanone
furanone 0.06(a) 0.13(a) 0.21(ab) 0.10(b)
1275 Methyl pyrazine 2.50 ± 2.42 ± 1.93 ± 1.58 ± (¡) Moldy/earth (7) Pyrazine
0.25(a) 0.52(ab) 0.25(ab) 0.73(b) (þ) Roasted/cereal (7)
1332 2,5-Dimethyl-pyrazine 1.67 ± 1.68 ± 1.52 ± 1.68 ± (þ) Hazelnut/roasted(1) Pyrazine
0.26(a) 0.27(a) 0.24(a) 0.70(a) (þ) Nutty (2,7)
(þ) Fruity (8)
(¡) Moldy/earth (8)
1338 2,6-Dimethyl-pyrazine 1.40 ± 1.41 ± 1.26 ± 1.54 ± (þ) Chocolate, cocoa, roasted, nuts(2,7) Pyrazine
0.19(a) 0.20(a) 0.15(a) 0.70(a) (¡) Chemical, ethereal, solvent(8)
(¡) Spicy, cooked, sulfur (8)
1343 Ethyl-pyrazine 1.66 ± 1.70 ± 1.43 ± 1.49 ± (þ) Peanuts/roasted(1), Pyrazine
0.24(a) 0.22(a) 0.17(a) 0.21(a) (þ) Nutty, butter(2)
(þ) Fruity (7)
1393 2-Ethyl-6-methyl-pyrazine 1.33 ± 1.42 ± 1.22 ± 1.51 ± (þ) Cereal, peanuts/roasted(1,7) Pyrazine
0.23(a) 0.26(a) 0.18(a) 0.43(a) (þ) Flowery, fruity, hazelnut(2)
(¡) Smoked, phenolic (7)
1400 2-Ethyl-5-methyl-pyrazine 1.21 ± 1.27 ± 1.06 ± 1.09 ± (þ) Coffee-like(2,7,8) Pyrazine
0.23(a) 0.23(a) 0.22(a) 0.23(a) (þ) Roasted (7)
1414 2-Ethyl-3-methyl-pyrazine 0.73 ± 0.77 ± 0.68 ± 0.84 ± (þ) Nutty, peanut(2) Pyrazine
0.12(a) 0.16(a) 0.11(a) 0.38(a) (þ) Fruity (8)
(þ) Roasted/cereal (7,8)
(¡) Chemical, solvent (8)
1443 2,6-Diethyl-pyrazine n.d(c) 0.10 ± 0.07 ± 0.17 ± (þ) Roasted, cereal (7) Pyrazine
0.12(ab) 0.10(ab) 0.08(a) (¡) Potato-like(9)
1453 3-Ethyl-2,5-dimethyl-pyrazine 0.70 ± 0.84 ± 0.60 ± 0.87 ± (¡) Earth, roasted(1,2) Pyrazine
0.30(a) 0.14(a) 0.22(a) 0.46(a)
1456 3-Ethyl-3,5-dimethyl-pyrazine 0.16 ± 0.15 ± 0.24 ± 0.30 ± (¡) Earth, roasted (1,2) Pyrazine
0.18(a) 0.17(a) 0.19(a) 0.07(a)
1471 1-(Acetyloxy)-2-propanone 0.76 ± 0.79 ± 0.87 ± 1.05 ± (þ) Fruity (2,7) buttery, dairy(2) Ketone
0.16(a) 0.08(a) 0.19(a) 0.86(a) (¡) Smoked, phenolic (7)
1476 2-Furan-carboxaldehyde 13.86 ± 14.33 ± 12.72 ± 11.44 ± (¡) Cooked pea, chemical, smoky(3) Furan
(furfural) 2.66(a) 1.60(a) 2.32(a) 2.58(a) (¡) Vegetable, herbaceous (7,8)
1496 2-[(Methylthio)methyl]-furan 0.35 ± 0.36 ± 0.91 ± 0.70 ± (¡) Onion/garlic, cooked, burnt, cabbage, Furan
0.11(c) 0.16(c) 0.18(a) 0.28(b) sulphury(2,3)
1504 2-Furylmethyl formate 2.62 ± 2.45 ± 0.5(a) 1.25 ± 1.24 ± (¡) Ethereal(4) Furan
0.21(a) 0.13(b) 0.11(b)
1517 1-(2-Furanyl)-ethanone 3.73 ± 3.86 ± 3.71 ± 3.39 ± (þ) Sweet, almond, nutty(5) Furan
0.37(ab) 0.17(a) 0.23(ab) 0.24(b) (¡) Grassy, plastic (3)
1529 1-(2-Furyl)-2-propanone 0.73 ± 0.40 ± 0.86 ± 0.73 ± (þ) Sweet, fruity, caramel (5) Furan
0.10(a) 0.44(a) 0.40(a) 0.09(a) (¡) Spicy, green, capsicum (3)
1538 1-(acetyloxy)-2-butanone 0.24 ± 0.24 ± 0.20 ± 0.40 ± (þ) Coffee-like(5) Ketone
0.07(a) 0.01(a) 0.12(a) 0.45(a)
1543 2-Furanmethanol, acetate 10.05 ± 10.38 ± 13.12 ± 9.87 ± (þ) Ethereal-floral, herbal-spicy(2) Furan
0.97(a) 1.45(a) 4.22(a) 1.92(a)
(2,7)
1588 5-Methyl furfural 14.49 ± 14.68 ± 15.78 ± 13.12 ± (þ) Spice, caramel, maple, cereal Furan
0.40(ab) 0.92(ab) 2.67(a) 1.33(b)
(5)
1603 2-Furanmethanol, propanoate 0.41 ± 0.40 ± 0.73 ± 0.56 ± (þ) Fruity, green, pear Furan
0.06(b) 0.06(b) 0.26(a) 0.06(ab)
1608 2,2′ -Bifuran 0.46 ± 0.52 ± 1.40 ± 1.12 ± (¡) Medicinal(5) Furan
0.12(b) 0.18(b) 0.31(a) 0.48(a)
1619 2,2′ -Methylenebis-furan 0.51 ± 0.56 ± 1.50 ± 1.28 ± (¡) Green(5) Furan
0.13(b) 0.17(b) 0.39(a) 0.44(a)
(2)
1638 1-Methyl-1H-pyrrole-2- 1.15 ± 1.20 ± 1.35 ± 1.25 ± (þ) Roasted, nutty Pyrrole
carboxaldehyde 0.05(a) 0.12(a) 0.24(a) 0.13(a)
1663 2-Furanmethanol 8.67 ± 8.79 ± 6.78 ± 9.97 ± (þ) Caramel (6), Furan
2.03(a) 0.72(a) 5.37(a) 1.25(a) (¡) Burnt, smoky(2,3)
1688 2-(2-Furanylmethyl)-5-methyl- n.d (c) 0.11 ± 0.41 ± 0.43 ± (¡) Earthy and mushroom(5) Furan
furan 0.12(b) 0.11(a) 0.14(a) (¡) Fermented/sour (7)
(b)
1831 3-Methyl-4-(methylthio)- n.d n.d(b) n.d (b) 0.19 ± (¡) Meaty, onion, garlic, sulfurous, egg(6) Furan
phenol 0.07(a)
(6)
1983 1-(1H-Pyrrol-2-yl)-ethanone 0.27 ± 0.29 ± 0.39 ± 0.34 ± (þ) Sweet, fruity, cherry, nutty Pyrrole
0.03(b) 0.05(b) 0.09(a) 0.02(ab) (¡) Musty (6)
(continued on next page)

5
N. Córdoba et al. LWT 145 (2021) 111363

Table 3 (continued )
IK# Compound Cold brew coffee beverage Hot brew coffee beverage Aroma descriptor & potential impact (*) Chemical
Class
Specialty Regular Specialty Regular

2040 1H-Pyrrole-2-carboxaldehyde 0.41 ± 0.43 ± 0.49 ± 0.41 ± (¡) Vegetable, musty, beefy(2) Pyrrole
0.06(a) 0.07(a) 0.06(a) 0.07(a)
(1,7)
2221 2-Methoxy-4-vinylphenol 0.49 ± 0.49 ± 1.17 ± 0.97 ± (þ) Phenolic/Clove Phenol
0.12(b) 0.10(b) 0.20(a) 0.26(a)
2471 1H-Indole n.d(b) n.d(b) 0.10 ± 0.09 ± (¡) Burnt, naphthyl, earthy, perfume, phenolic Indole
0.11(a) 0.08(a) and chemical nuances (6)

Results are mean ± standard deviation from triplicate extractions. Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences among all coffee beverages for
specialty and regular coffee bean quality (Tukey’s honest significant difference test, p < 0.05).#KI, Experimental Kovats indexes calculated on a DB-WAX column; n.d –
not detected. †Tentative identifications were achieved by comparing mass spectra. (*) Indicates a potential positive (+) or negative (− ) impact in the coffee extract/
beverages. Data are based on the literature; they can change due to the concentration of the volatile compounds in the beverages and their sensory threshold. Sources:
(1)
Toci and Boldrin (2018); (2) (Caporaso et al., 2018); (3) (Chin et al., 2011); (4) (Yeretzian, Opitz, Smrke, & Wellinger, 2019); (5) (Flament, 2002); (6) (The Good Scents
Company, 2020); (7) (Bassoli, 2006); (8) (Kalschne, Viegas, De Conti, Corso, & Benassi, 2018); (9) (López-Galilea et al., 2006).

of applied water per mass of dry coffee (Frost, Ristenpart, & Guinard,
2020). In this study, the same water-to-coffee ratio was used for both
cold and hot brewing, which could account for the similar TDS values
among cold and hot brews. On the other hand, regardless of coffee bean
quality, TA values show that cold brews were less acidic than their hot
brew counterparts (p < 0.001), as reported by Fuller and Rao (2017). As
solubility increases with temperature, organic acid extraction can
become more efficient in hot coffee brewing and become almost com­
plete in the first minutes of extraction (Severini, Ricci, Marone, Derossi,
& De Pilli, 2015). These facts may explain the differences observed in TA
between beverages brewed with hot and cold water (Table 4).
Quantitation of non-volatile compounds did not show significant
differences (p > 0.05) in 5-and 4-CQA concentrations (Table 4). These
results agree with Fuller and Rao (2017), who found that hot brew and
cold brew coffees did not show significant differences in CQA concen­
trations. Besides, caffeine concentration did not exhibit significant dif­
ferences (p > 0.05) among the coffee brews evaluated, in agreement
with recent cold brew studies (Angeloni, Guerrini, Masella, Innocenti,
et al., 2019; Fuller & Rao, 2017).
In the present study, hot coffees showed higher bitterness, astrin­
gency, and acrid flavor than cold brew coffees. Some sensory charac­
teristics such as bitter taste, aftertaste, and astringent flavor have been
widely associated with the concentration of chlorogenic acids, trig­
onelline, and caffeine in coffee beverages (Cid & de Peña, 2016; Farah,
Monteiro, Calado, Franca, & Trugo, 2006). However, they are not the
only compounds responsible for these sensory attributes. Other key
Table 4
Physicochemical characterization of cold and hot beverages as a function of the
coffee bean quality.
Parameters Cold brew coffee Hot brew coffee beverage
beverage
Specialty Regular Specialty Regular
compounds, such as chlorogenic acid lactones (CGL), have been iden­
tified as the main contributors to bitterness in coffee (Frank, Zehent­
bauer, & Hofmann, 2006). Although CGL formation is highly dependent
on roast level, prior studies have shown that, due to the reactivity of
chlorogenic acids, CGLs can be generated during hot brewing, resulting
in significant chemical and sensory changes in coffee beverages (Matei,
Jaiswal, & Kuhnert, 2012).
Sensory characteristics of coffee beverages are determined mainly by
the molecules extracted during brewing, which depends on extraction
variables and the chemical properties of the molecules present in the
roasted coffee beans. Some properties, such as solubility and polarity,
play a role that either hinders or facilitates the transport of flavor
molecules from the ground coffee to the brew. During extraction using
hot water, highly polar compounds are extracted at the beginning and
less polar compounds near the end (Mestdagh, Glabasnia, & Giuliano,
2017). Therefore, hot water favors the efficient extraction of compounds
with less solubility and polarity, namely those related to bitter or
astringent flavors, such as phenylindanes and chlorogenic acid lactones
(Frank et al., 2006). These effects could explain why hot coffees in this
study were more bitter, acrid, and astringent, despite their not showing
significant differences in other compounds also associated with bitter­
ness and astringency, such as caffeine, trigonelline, and CQAs.
Furthermore, using hot water for extraction increases the mobility of
the water molecules, which increases the likelihood of leaching out
compounds from the coffee bed due to higher physical forces (Mestdagh
et al., 2017). Under these conditions, water can permeate the coffee bed
more easily and access intercellular spaces to solubilize coffee com­
pounds. This effect can enhance the extraction of suspended solids (e.g.,
lipids and carbohydrates), which are considered relevant to impart
body, bitterness, and mouthfeel to coffee beverages (Mestdagh et al.,
2017). These effects could also explain the higher bitterness, body, and
astringency perceived in most hot brews compared to those brewed with
low-temperature water.

TDS (mg mL¡1) 1.6 ± 0.1(a) 1.6 ± 1.8 ± 1.7 ± 3.2. Influence of coffee bean quality
0.1(a) 0.2(a) 0.1(a)
Titratable acidity (mg 2.9 ± 0.3 3.2 ± 4.4 ± 4.7 ± Sensory data show that, as coffee bean quality shifts from specialty to
(b)
chlorogenic acid per g 0.2(b) 0.7(a) 0.4(a)
regular, panelists perceived variations in about 65% of the sensory at­
coffee)
Caffeine (mg L¡1) 750.5 ± 805.0 ± 828.7 ± 852.4 ± tributes evaluated in hot coffee brews. Conversely, in cold brews, sig­
130.6(a) 152.1(a) 41.2(a) 101.5(a) nificant differences were identified in only 42% of sensory attributes.
Trigonelline (mg L ¡1
) 509.7 ± 546.4 ± 549.0 ± 564.2 ± Regardless of the type of coffee brew, the data show that shifting from
49.5 (a) 52.6(a) 31.4(a) 35.0(a) specialty coffee to regular coffee resulted in a significant increase in
5-CQA (mg L¡1) 397.8 ± 415.4 ± 432.6 ± 435.6 ±
50.4(a) 60.8(a) 20.9(a) 43.1(a)
fermented, phenolic(p = 0.007), and acrid (p < 0.001) flavors and a
4-CQA (mg L¡1) 335.6 ± 349.3 ± 358.3 ± 361.7 ± decrease in global aroma, overall perception (p < 0.001), and sweetness
41.3(a) 52.7(a) 18.1(a) 33.6(a) (p = 0.044) (Table 2).
Results are mean ± standard deviation from triplicate of the coffee samples. Additionally, hot coffees brewed with regular coffees showed a sig­
Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences among all coffee nificant increase in the intensity of other attributes such as caramelly
beverages for specialty and regular coffee bean quality (Tukey’s honest signifi­ (AR) (p = 0.008), earthy (AR), paper (AR/F), green/vegetative (AR/F) (p
cant difference test, p < 0.05). TDS: Total dissolved solids; 5-CQA: 5- caffeoyl­ < 0.001), spices (F) (p = 0.001), roasted (AR/F), astringency, and bitter
quinic acid 4-CQA: caffeoylquinic acid. (p < 0.001). Furthermore, cold coffee brewed with regular bean quality

6
N. Córdoba et al.
showed a significant decrease in nutty/cocoa (AR/F), caramelly (AR/F),
sweetness, aftertaste (p < 0.001), and body (p = 0.004).
In general, coffee beverages prepared with regular coffee bean
quality displayed a higher intensity in some sensory attributes consid­
ered undesirable in coffee (e.g., paper, green/vegetative, phenolic,
earthy, acrid) (World Coffee Research, 2017). This result was expected,
considering that the sensory properties of coffee are partly based on the
quality and chemical composition of the coffee beans. Therefore,
defective beans in coffee samples contribute to the generation of
off-flavors and reduce overall cup quality (Casas et al., 2017).
The higher intensity of some unpleasant attributes perceived in
coffee beverages prepared with regular coffee bean quality could be
associated with the presence of defective beans. In the present study, the
specialty coffee bean quality used was 100% healthy beans without
defects. On the contrary, in the regular coffee bean quality, defects such
as insect damage beans, immature, sour, broken, black, floater, and
withered were present. These differences could explain the variations in
the intensity of some sensory attributes when coffee bean quality was
shifted. Previous studies have shown that coffee sensory quality
decrease as the increase in the percentage of defective beans in coffee
samples (Farah et al., 2006). In hot coffee brew beverages, the presence
of some specific defects such as insect-damaged (coffee berry borer),
immature and black beans have been associated with a decrease in
acidity. These defects have also been correlated to an increase in
bitterness, astringency, green-leaf, metallic, fermented, ashy, and burnt
flavor notes (Bee et al., 2005; Toledo, Pezza, Pezza, & Toci, 2016).
Variations in coffee bean quality did not significantly (p > 0.05)
affect the composition of non-volatile compounds and physicochemical
characteristics of neither hot brew nor cold brew coffees (Table 4).
Likewise, as coffee bean quality is shifted from specialty to regular
within the same type of brewing, few significant differences (p < 0.05)
were detected in volatile compound abundance (Table 2). For hot coffee
brews, three out of 35 identified compounds varied as a function of
coffee bean quality. 2,7-Dimethyl-oxepine, and 3-methyl-4-(methyl­
thio)-phenol, displayed a significant increase (p < 0.001) when shift­
ing from specialty to regular coffee bean quality.
Toci and Farah (2008) reported a higher concentration of 3-meth­
yl-4-(methylthio)-phenol in coffee samples with black, green, and sour
defective beans, which could explain the greater abundance of this
compound in coffee beverages brewed from regular coffee bean quality.
Regarding the sensory impact of this compound, odor notes-related to
3-methyl-4-(methylthio)-phenol have not been reported in coffee bev­
erages. Based on its chemical structure, this compound could be ex­
pected to be related to notes such as burnt, phenolic, straw, onion,
garlic, and sulfurous, similar to other aromatic sulfides (Flament, 2002;
The Good Scents Company, 2020). Due to their sensory potency,
sulfur-containing and phenolic compounds have been considered
important contributors to coffee flavor, despite their relatively low
concentrations (Semmelroch & Grosch, 1995).
Likewise, a notable decrease (p = 0.040) in 5-methyl furfural was
detected when regular coffee bean quality was used in hot brewing.
Furans are mainly derived from the degradation of carbohydrates during
the coffee roasting process (Toci & Farah, 2014). Previous studies have
identified that defective beans (black, sour, and immature beans)
contain lower sucrose and produce fewer furans than healthy coffee
beans (Toci & Farah, 2014). These facts may help explain the decrease in
furans such as 5-methyl furfural when regular coffee bean quality was
used in hot brewing, as this quality grade includes beans with different
types of defects. 5-Methyl furfural has been found to be a potent odorant
in roasted coffee (Caporaso, Whitworth, Cui, & Fisk, 2018) and has been
linked to the aroma and flavor of sweet aromatics, spice, caramel, and
maple (Caporaso et al., 2018; Steen et al., 2017).
It is worth noting that flavor perception involves integrating several
factors, and human perception of these factors depends on different
physicochemical, biochemical, and physiological phenomena (Toci &
Boldrin, 2018). However, based on sensory notes associated with the
7
LWT 145 (2021) 111363
aforementioned volatile compounds, it could be established that the
variation in their abundance could partly explain the decrease in some
sweetness-related attributes and the increase of undesirable sensory
attributes in hot brew beverages prepared with regular coffees.
For cold brews, 2-(2-furanylmethyl)-5-methyl-furan and 2,6-diethyl-
pyrazine were only detected in beverages brewed with regular coffees.
Previous studies have identified 2-(2-furanylmethyl)-5-methyl-furan in
coffee bean mixtures with defective beans (Casas et al., 2017). This last
compound has been linked to earthy and mushroom sensory notes
(Flament, 2002) while 2,6-diethyl-pyrazine has been associated with
potato-like, burnt, roasted, and cereal flavor notes (Bassoli, 2006;
López-Galilea, Fournier, Cid, & Guichard, 2006).
For both coffee qualities, 2-methyl-butanal had a higher abundance
(p = 0.042) in cold brew coffees. Likewise, these beverages were char­
acterized by higher values of dihydro-2-methyl-3(2H)-furanone (p =
0.007) and 1-(2-furanyl)-ethanone (p = 0.039). Their abundance was
comparable to that observed in hot brew prepared with specialty coffee.
However, when coffee bean quality was shifted from specialty to regular
in the hot brewing, these compounds decreased, and their abundance
became significantly lower than observed in cold brews. Previous
studies have indicated that aldehydes such as 2-methylbutanal are odor
compounds in roasted beans and coffee beverages primarily related to
buttery, malty, and caramel flavor (Caporaso et al., 2018; Toci & Bol­
drin, 2018).
Similarly, some furanones have been associated with sweet/caramel-
like notes (Toci & Boldrin, 2018) and 1-(2-furanyl)-ethanone with
coffee-like, sweet, almond, and nutty (Chin, Eyres, & Marriott, 2011).
Hence, the higher abundance of these compounds detected in cold brew
coffees could be linked to the higher intensities of the sweet-related
flavor attributes (e.g., caramelly and sweetness) found in the sensory
analysis, mainly for those beverages prepared with specialty bean
quality.
In contrast, the abundance of 1-(1H-pyrrol-2-yl)-ethanone and 2-fur­
anmethanol, propanoate (p = 0.001) was significantly higher in hot
brew prepared with specialty coffee than in any cold brew. To the best of
our knowledge, these compounds have not been considered potent
odorants in coffee beverages. However, they have been associated with
specific sensory notes. For instance, 1-(-(1H-pyrrol-2-yl)-ethanone is
related to sweet, fruity, musty, cherry, and nutty flavor notes (The Good
Scents Company, 2020), while 2-furanmethanol, propanoate has been
related to fruity, green, and pear (Flament, 2002). Thus, the variation in
the abundance of these compounds probably led to changes that trans­
lated into a higher sensory intensity of some attributes such as fruity and
nutty/cocoa flavors, mainly observed in hot brew prepared with spe­
cialty coffees.
3.3. Relationships between sensory perception and chemical composition
The first three PCA components represent explained variances of
40.9%, 17.0%, and 9.6%, respectively, for a 67.5% total variance
explained (Fig. 1A). The first component separates across brewing
method, with hot brew coffees on the positive side and cold brew ones
on the negative one. Additionally, it also depicts a slight separation in
respect to the coffee bean quality used. PC2 is segregating across coffee
bean quality for cold brew beverages, and PC3 is mainly defined by the
coffee bean quality used in hot brew coffee. Coffees prepared from
specialty coffee bean quality were associated with the positive side of
the component. In general, hot brew coffees were distributed across the
positive side of PC1. In contrast, cold brew coffees were located on the
negative side, meaning that the dominant effect was determined pri­
marily by the brewing method rather than the coffee bean quality.
When the loadings plot is considered (Fig. 1B), some sensory attri­
butes related to undesirables sensory notes or defects in coffee beverages
are distribute across the component’s most positive portion, while the
negative side contained desirable attributes. PC2 in its most positive
portion contains sweetness and caramel-related sensory notes, linked to
N. Córdoba et al. LWT 145 (2021) 111363

Fig. 1A. Principal component analysis (PCA). PC1 vs PC2 and PC1 vs PC3 account for 67.5% of the total variability. Significance classification regions were depicted
in semi-transparent ellipses along with the centroid for each category (α = 0.05). SP-Cold (Specialty Coffee bean quality-Cold brew beverage), CN-Cold (Regular
Coffee bean quality-Cold brew beverage), SP-Hot (Specialty Coffee bean quality-Hot brew beverage), CN-Hot (Regular Coffee bean quality-Hot brew beverage).

Fig. 1B. Principal component analysis (PCA) loading plots. SP-Cold (Specialty Coffee bean quality-Cold brew beverage), CN-Cold (Regular Coffee bean quality-Cold
brew beverage), SP-Hot (Specialty Coffee bean quality-Hot brew beverage), CN-Hot (Regular Coffee bean quality-Hot brew beverage). AR: Aroma, F: Flavor, TDS:
Total dissolved solids, TA: Titratable acidity, T.CQAs: Total Caffeoylquinic acids. PQ: Physicochemical analysis.

cold brew beverages prepared with specialty coffee bean quality.
Conversely, when the PC3 vs. PC1 plot was examined, the fourth
quadrant – the positive side of component 1 and the negative side of PC3
– contain defects such as acrid, bitterness, and papery. Consequently,
undesirable attributes are more representative in hot brew coffee bev­
erages. In contrast, cold brew beverages are represented in this plot by
desirable sensory notes (e.g., floral, caramel, flavor, aroma and, after­
taste) with higher perceived sweetness in coffees prepared from spe­
cialty coffee beans compared to those from regular coffee bean quality.
Cold brew coffee beverages were mainly related to some undesirable
attributes such as fermented aroma and flavor.
The impact of coffee bean quality changes that were perceived more
significantly in the hot brewing method may be related to the fact that
hot extraction releases volatiles during the preparation and serving of
beverages. This loss of volatile compounds could be translated into the
sensory profile, affecting the intensities of flavor characteristics (Steen
et al., 2017). During olfactory perception, aromatic compounds must
compete for receptor sites. Therefore, more abundant odors have a
greater likelihood of taking over these sites, thereby reducing the
stimulation caused by the less abundant compounds in the mixture
(Laing, 1994). Some odorants with higher intensities could mask or
suppress the less intense aroma notes (Grosch, 2001). Thus, aromatic
compounds present in high concentrations may make it difficult to
detect slight differences in attributes that do not have sufficient intensity
(Bhumiratana, Adhikari, & Chambers, 2011).
In this study, the hot extraction conditions and subsequent cooling
down could have led to the release of a fraction of the volatile com­
pounds, allowing a better detection of the lower-intensity volatile
compounds in hot brew beverages. Thus, hot coffee brewing conditions
allowed a more significant differentiation of these beverages as a

8
N. Córdoba et al.
function of coffee bean quality. In contrast, the weak differentiation of
cold brew coffees as a function of coffee bean quality may be related to
the extraction characteristics. In cold extraction, low temperatures and
long duration, compared to any hot brewing method, favor the extrac­
tion of more soluble and more polar compounds. Similarly, it is esti­
mated that long extraction duration (e.g., in cold brewing) improves the
retention of flavor compounds (Seninde et al., 2020). Therefore, the
extraction of volatile compounds and their retention could cause low
variability when coffee bean quality is shifted from specialty to regular
in the case of cold brew. In this regard, some studies have shown that
human subjects are unable to detect changes in odor mixtures when the
odor activities of the components are similar (Grosch, 2001).
This study shows that the differences in the brewing methods (e.g.,
water temperature) could affect the extraction of chemical compounds,
translating into changes in the sensory profile being perceived differ­
ently in hot and cold brew coffees.
4. Conclusions
The present study results indicate that coffee bean quality (specialty
or regular) affects the sensory attributes, volatile composition, and TA in
hot and cold coffee brewing. Cold and hot brew coffees are better
differentiated by the brewing method than by coffee bean quality. In
general, cold brew coffees are mainly related to volatile compounds
associated with sensory attributes such as buttery, sweetness, sweet-
aroma compounds, and a lower TA than hot brew coffee beverages.
Regardless of the brewing method, shifting from specialty to regular
coffee bean quality resulted in a significant increase in nutty/cocoa,
fermented, phenolic, and acrid flavors and decreased sweetness, aroma,
and flavor intensity. The impact of coffee bean quality on the sensory
profile was most perceived in hot brew beverages than cold brew coffee
beverages. Notably, a shift from specialty to regular bean quality in cold
brews leads to a drop in the intensity of some attributes considered
desirable in coffee beverages (e.g., caramelly, body, and aftertaste) and
an intensity increase for some undesirable attributes like fermented and
acrid. Conversely, in hot brew beverages, as it shifts from specialty to
regular coffee bean quality, affects the intensity of most of the sensory
attributes, with a remarkable increase in bitterness, roasty, astringency,
earthy, and green/vegetative, among others.
It is worth pointing out that coffee bean quality change depending on
genetic, environmental, and management. Thus, regular coffees could
include a different distribution of defective beans variating the chemical
composition and coffee flavor profile. Findings presented in this study
are mainly relevant in cold brewing, wherein, to the authors’ knowl­
edge, the effect of coffee bean quality has not yet been explored.
Funding
This work was supported by Universidad de La Sabana, the Coffee­
lands Program of the Catholic Relief Services (CRS) [grant number ING-
180-2016] and MINCIENCIAS (Colombia) doctoral scholarship for the
author N.Cordoba [grant number 727–2015].
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Nancy Córdoba: Investigation, Methodology, Formal analysis,
Visualization, Writing – original draft. Fabian L Moreno: Formal
analysis, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Coralia Osorio: Su­
pervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis, Data
curation. Sebastián Velásquez: Supervision, Validation, Writing – re­
view & editing, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. Mario Fer­
nandez-Alduenda: Supervision, Writing – review & editing,
Conceptualization, Resources, Writing – review & editing, Supervision,
Project administration, Funding acquisition.
9
LWT 145 (2021) 111363
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Dra. Tatiana Cuadrado for her support during
SPME-GC/MS analyses. Besides, we are grateful to the sensory panel,
trained assessors of Colombian specialty coffee exporter companies:
Café y Procesos (Hernando Tapasco), Cafecultor/Inconexus (Juan
Espinel), Café 18/Banexport (Julio Villaneda), Luis Felipe Trujillo, José
Luis Escobar (Kalma coffee), Johnny Tovar (Café Techo), Universidad de
La Sabana (Annamaria Filomena, M.Sc.; Dr. Leonardo Moreno, Cristian
Montaña). We are grateful to Manuel Osorio, MSc.; Laura Pataquiva, M.
Sc.; all bachelors and Master volunteer students and Engineering staff
(Universidad de La Sabana) who helped in the logistics of sensory
analysis sessions. Last but not least, to ARCAFE Linares and Fidencio
Chamorro for providing the coffee.
References
Akiyama, M., Murakami, K., Ikeda, M., Iwatsuki, K., Wada, A., Tokuno, K., et al. (2007).
Analysis of the headspace volatiles of freshly brewed arabica coffee using solid-phase
microextraction. Journal of Food Science, 72(7). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-
3841.2007.00447.x
Angeloni, G., Guerrini, L., Masella, P., Bellumori, M., Daluiso, S., Parenti, A., et al.
(2019a). What kind of coffee do you drink? An investigation on effects of eight
different extraction methods. Food Research International, 116, 1327–1335. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.10.022
Angeloni, G., Guerrini, L., Masella, P., Innocenti, M., Bellumori, M., & Parenti, A.
(2019b). Characterization and comparison of cold brew and cold drip coffee
extraction methods. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 99(1), 391–399.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.9200
Bassoli, D. G. (2006). Impacto aromático dos componentes voláteis do café solúvel: Uma
abordagem analítica e sensorial. Universidade Estadual de Londrina.
Batali, M., Ristenpart, W. D., & Guinard, J. X. (2020). Brew temperature, at fixed brew
strength and extraction, has little impact on the sensory profile of drip brew coffee.
Scientific Reports, 10(16450). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73341-4
Bee, S., Brando, C. H. J., Brumen, G., Carvalhaes, N., Kölling-Speer, I., Speer, K., et al.
(2005). Raw bean. In R. Illy A, & Viani (Eds.), Espresso coffee: The science of quality
(2nd ed., pp. 87–178). Elsevier Academic Press.
Bhumiratana, N., Adhikari, K., & Chambers, E. (2011). Evolution of sensory aroma
attributes from coffee beans to brewed coffee. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft und
-Technologie- Food Science and Technology, 44(10), 2185–2192. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.lwt.2011.07.001
Blank, I., Sen, A., & Grosch, W. (1992). Potent odorants of the roasted powder and brew
of Arabica coffee. Zeitschrift Für Lebensmittel-Untersuchung Und Forschung, 195(3),
239–245. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp386
Caporaso, N., Genovese, A., Canela, M. D., Civitella, A., & Sacchi, R. (2014). Neapolitan
coffee brew chemical analysis in comparison to espresso, moka and American brews.
Food Research International, 61, 152–160.
Caporaso, N., Whitworth, M. B., Cui, C., & Fisk, I. D. (2018). Variability of single bean
coffee volatile compounds of Arabica and robusta roasted coffees analysed by SPME-
GC-MS. Food Research International, 108(April), 628–640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodres.2018.03.077
Casas, M. I., Vaughan, M. J., Bonello, P., McSpadden Gardener, B., Grotewold, E., &
Alonso, A. P. (2017). Identification of biochemical features of defective Coffea
arabica L. beans. Food Research International, 95, 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodres.2017.02.015
Chin, S. T., Eyres, G. T., & Marriott, P. J. (2011). Identification of potent odourants in
wine and brewed coffee using gas chromatography-olfactometry and comprehensive
two-dimensional gas chromatography. Journal of Chromatography A, 1218(42),
7487–7498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2011.06.039
Cid, M. C., & de Peña, M. P. (2016). Coffee: Analysis and composition. In B. Caballero,
P. M. Finglas, & F. Toldrá (Eds.), Encyclopedia of food and health (pp. 225–231).
Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384947-2.00185-9.
Conway, J. (2020). Coffee consumption worldwide from 2012/13 to 2020/21. Retrieved
from https://www.statista.com/statistics/292595/global-coffee-consumption/.
Cordoba, N., Fernandez-Alduenda, M., Moreno, F. L., & Ruiz, Y. (2020). Coffee
extraction: A review of parameters and their influence on the physicochemical
characteristics and flavour of coffee brews. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 96,
45–60.
Córdoba, N., Moreno, F. L., Osorio, C., Velásquez, S., & Ruiz, Y. (2021). Chemical and
sensory evaluation of cold brew coffees using different roasting profiles and brewing
methods. Food Research International, 141, 110141.
Cordoba, N., Pataquiva, L., Osorio, C., Moreno, F., & Ruiz, R. (2019). Effect of grinding,
extraction time and type of coffee on the physicochemical and flavour characteristics
of cold brew coffee. Scientific Reports, 9(8440), 8440. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-019-44886-w
N. Córdoba et al.
Farah, A., Monteiro, M. C., Calado, V., Franca, A. S., & Trugo, L. C. (2006). Correlation
between cup quality and chemical attributes of Brazilian coffee. Food Chemistry, 98
(2), 373–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.07.032
Flament, I. (2002). Coffee flavor chemistry. England: John Wiley and Sons.
Frank, O., Zehentbauer, G., & Hofmann, T. (2006). Bioresponse-guided decomposition of
roast coffee beverage and identification of key bitter taste compounds. European
Food Research and Technology, 222(5–6), 492–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-
005-0143-6
Frost, S. C., Ristenpart, W. D., & Guinard, J. X. (2020). Effects of brew strength, brew
yield, and roast on the sensory quality of drip brewed coffee. Journal of Food Science,
85(8), 2530–2543. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.15326
Fuller, M., & Rao, N. Z. (2017). The effect of time, roasting temperature, and grind size
on caffeine and chlorogenic acid concentrations in cold brew coffee. Scientific
Reports, 7(1), Article 17979. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-18247-4
Gloess, A. N., Schönbächler, B., Klopprogge, B., D’Ambrosio, L., Chatelain, K.,
Bongartz, A., et al. (2013). Comparison of nine common coffee extraction methods:
Instrumental and sensory analysis. European Food Research and Technology, 236(4),
607–627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-013-1917-x
Grosch, W. (2001). Evaluation of the key odorants of foods by dilution experiments,
aroma models and omission. Chemical Senses, 26(5), 533–545. https://doi.org/
10.1093/chemse/26.5.533
ICONTEC. NTC 2441. (2011). Roast and milled coffee. Colombia: Method for
determination of average particle size by granulometric distribution.
ICONTEC. NTC 5247. (2004). Roasted coffee, ground or beans. Determination of titratable
acidity. Colombia.
ISO. (1994). Sensory analysis - identification and selection of descriptors for establishing a
sensory profile by a multidimensional approach, 11035 §.
Kalschne, D. L., Viegas, M. C., De Conti, A. J., Corso, M. P., & Benassi, M. de T. (2018).
Steam pressure treatment of defective Coffea canephora beans improves the volatile
profile and sensory acceptance of roasted coffee blends. Food Research International,
105, 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.11.017
Laing, D. (1994). Percentual odour interactions and objective mixture analysis. Food
Quality and Preference, 5, 75–80.
López-Galilea, I., Fournier, N., Cid, C., & Guichard, E. (2006). Changes in headspace
volatile concentrations of coffee brews caused by the roasting process and the
brewing procedure. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 54(22), 8560–8566.
https://doi.org/10.1021/jf061178t
Matei, M. F., Jaiswal, R., & Kuhnert, N. (2012). Investigating the chemical changes of
chlorogenic acids during coffee brewing: Conjugate addition of water to the olefinic
moiety of chlorogenic acids and their quinides. Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry, 60(49), 12105–12115. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf3028599
Mestdagh, F., Glabasnia, A., & Giuliano, P. (2017). The brew. Extracting for excellence.
In B. Folmer (Ed.), The craft and science of coffee (pp. 355–380). Academic Press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803520-7.00015-3.
Rao, N. Z., & Fuller, M. (2018). Acidity and antioxidant activity of cold brew coffee.
Scientific Reports, 8(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-34392-w
Rao, N. Z., Fuller, M., & Grim, M. D. (2020). Physiochemical characteristics of hot and
cold brew coffee Chemistry : The effects of roast level and brewing temperature on
compound extraction. Foods, 9(902), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9070902
SCA. (2015). Protocol cupping specialty coffee. Santa Ana, California: SCAA Protocols.
10
LWT 145 (2021) 111363
SCA. (2018). The washed Arabica green coffee defect guide. In Specialty coffee association
research center. Santa Ana, California, US: Specialty Coffee Association (SCA).
Semmelroch, P., & Grosch, W. (1995). Analysis of roasted coffee powders and brews by
gas chromatography-olfactometry of headspace samples. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft
und -Technologie- Food Science and Technology, 28(3), 310–313. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0023-6438(95)94411-7
Seninde, D. R., Chambers, E., & Chambers, D. (2020). Determining the impact of roasting
degree , coffee to water ratio and brewing method on the sensory characteristics of
cold brew Ugandan coffee. Food Research International, 137.
Severini, C., Ricci, I., Marone, M., Derossi, A., & De Pilli, T. (2015). Changes in the
aromatic profile of espresso coffee as a function of the grinding grade and extraction
time: A study by the electronic nose system. Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry, 63(8). https://doi.org/10.1021/jf505691u
da Silva Portela, C., de Almeida, I., Buzzo, A. L., Yamashita, F., & de Toledo, M. (2021).
Brewing conditions impact on the composition and characteristics of cold brew
Arabica and Robusta coffee beverages. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft und -Technologie-
Food Science and Technology, (143), 111090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
lwt.2021.111090
Sittipod, S., Schwartz, E., Paravisini, L., & Peterson, D. G. (2019). Identification of flavor
modulating compounds that positively impact coffee quality. Food Chemistry, 301.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.125250
Steen, I., Waehrens, S. S., Petersen, M. A., Münchow, M., & Bredie, W. L. P. P. (2017).
Influence of serving temperature on flavour perception and release of Bourbon
Caturra coffee. Food Chemistry, 219, 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodchem.2016.09.113
The Good Scents Company. (2020). The Good Scents Company.
Toci, A. T., Azevedo, D. A., & Farah, A. (2020). Effect of roasting speed on the volatile
composition of coffees with different cup quality. Food Research International, 137.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109546
Toci, A. T., & Boldrin, M. V. Z. (2018). Coffee beverages and their aroma compounds. In
A. Grumezescu, & A. Holbal (Eds.), Handbook of food bioengineering: Natural and
artificial flavoring agents and food dyes (pp. 397–425). Academic Press.
Toci, A. T., & Farah, A. (2008). Volatile compounds as potential defective coffee beans’
markers. Food Chemistry, 108(3), 1133–1141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodchem.2007.11.064
Toci, A. T., & Farah, A. (2014). Volatile fingerprint of Brazilian defective coffee seeds:
Corroboration of potential marker compounds and identification of new low quality
indicators. Food Chemistry, 153, 298–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodchem.2013.12.040
Toledo, P., Pezza, L., Pezza, H. R., & Toci, A. T. (2016). Relationship between the
different aspects related to coffee quality and their volatile compounds.
Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 15, 705–719. https://doi.org/
10.1111/1541-4337.12205
World Coffee Research. (2017). Sensory lexicon: Unabridged definition and references.
College Station,TX: World Coffee Research.
Yeretzian, C., Opitz, S. E. W., Smrke, S., & Wellinger, M. (2019). Coffee volatile and
aroma compounds – from the green bean to the cup. In A. Farah (Ed.), Coffee:
Production, quality and chemistry (pp. 726–770). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Royal
Society of Chemistry.