Food Research International 137 (2020) 109667

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Research International

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

Determining the impact of roasting degree, coffee to water ratio and

brewing method on the sensory characteristics of cold brew Ugandan coffee
Denis Richard Seninde , Edgar Chambers IV *, Delores Chambers
Center for Sensory Analysis and Consumer Behavior, Kansas State University, United States

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

Keywords: In today’s market, there is a growing demand for high-quality coffee with distinctive sensory characteristics, such
Coffee a cold brew (CB) coffee. The objectives of this study were to determine the impact of a) degree of roasting, b)
Cold brew coffee to water ratio (C2WR), and c) brewing method on the sensory characteristics of CB coffee from d) various
Uganda
Ugandan coffee beans, both Robusta and Arabica. Four distinct coffee samples, sourced from lowland and
Roast
Water ratio
mountainous regions in Uganda, were roasted and tested using a factorial design. A highly trained sensory panel
Robusta evaluated the samples using 42 attributes. Results showed that all factors studied had an impact on most of the
Arabica attributes. Not surprisingly, Robusta coffees generally had more bitter taste than Arabica coffees and the dark
Sensory roast samples generally were more bitter than the medium roast coffees. Also, coffee samples that were brewed
Flavor using a higher C2WR generally were more bitter than the coffees using a lower C2WR. However, although most
Taste of the main effects had a significant impact, their effects were mitigated by their interaction with other factors.
For example, Medium roast Robusta that was slow-dripped with a high C2WR had a more bitter taste than the
corresponding Arabica samples. However, when the Medium roast Robusta was steeped with a high C2WR it had
a similar bitter intensity with the corresponding Arabica samples. Thus, although major impacts are critical,
individual sample combinations must be considered when evaluating coffee samples for their impact on the
sensory characteristics.

1. Introduction
Coffee is the most traded food product in the world. In 2019/20,
global coffee production was 166.9 million 60-kg bags and total exports
were 112.0 million 60-kg bags (USDA Foreign Agricultural Service,
2019). Coffee remains one of the most widely consumed beverage in the
world (National Coffee Association, 2019; Topper, 2019). World coffee
consumption for 2019/20 was estimated at 164.5 million bags and the
main importing sectors were the European Union, United States of
America, and Japan (International Coffee Organization, 2019). More
consumers are drinking coffee because of its characteristic flavor and
aroma and also due to the benefits of its antioxidant and physiological
properties (Adriana, 2009; Dórea & da Costa, 2005).
Uganda is Africa’s second-largest coffee producer after Ethiopia and
the continent’s largest coffee exporter with average total exports at 4.0
million 60-kg bags in the 2019/20 coffee year (USDA Foreign Agricul­
tural Service, 2019). Coffee remains a major foreign exchange earner in
Uganda and a key source of income to an estimated 500,000 smallholder
farmer households (Baffes, 2006; Snipes, 2017). Robusta and Arabica
coffees account for 80% and 20% of the country’s annual production
respectively. Over 95% of Uganda’s coffee is exported as green beans
through direct sales to buyers. The value of Uganda’s coffee has dropped
considerably over the years mainly because of unsustainable and limited
competitiveness in the international markets (Kufa, Ayano, Yilma,
Kumela, & Tefera, 2011).
In recent years there has been a continued desire by consumers for
more high-quality coffees with distinctive sensory characteristics. An
example of such coffees is “cold brew” (CB) which has become popular
in the market (National Coffee Association, 2019; Patent No.
US9629493B2, 2017). CB coffee (also known as Dutch coffee, Kyoto-
style coffee, or cold water extract coffee) is a ubiquitous term for cof­
fee that is steeped or dripped using cold water or ice to extract the
aromas and flavors of roasted coffee grounds over a period of time. The
extended extraction period can last 3 to 24 hr. This slow extraction
occurs over a longer time as compared to any hot brewing method which
is believed to improve the retention of the flavor compounds (Albanese,

* Corresponding author at: Center for Sensory Analysis and Consumer Behavior, Kansas State University, 1310 Research Park Dr., Manhattan, KS 66502, United
States.
E-mail address: eciv@ksu.edu (E. Chambers).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109667
Received 12 May 2020; Received in revised form 30 August 2020; Accepted 6 September 2020
Available online 18 September 2020
0963-9969/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D.R. Seninde et al. Food Research International 137 (2020) 109667

Table 1
Information on coffee samples used for this study.
Sample Farmer Association Coffee Grade Processing Moisture Region Altitude/m
Label Type Method Content

AW Bufumbo Organic Coffee Farmers Arabica AA Wet-Processed 12.5% Bugisu, Mbale Eastern Uganda 1945–2044
Association
AD Kabonero Mountaneous Coffee Growers Arabica ungraded Dry Processed 12.9% Kabarole, Rwenzori Western 1480–1532
Association Uganda
RW Mabira Coffee Farmers Association Robusta 1800 Wet-Processed 12.6% Mabira, Central Uganda 1070–1340
RD Buwama Coffee Farmers Association Robusta 1800 Dry Processed 12.6% Bunjako, Buwama, Central 1137–1185
Uganda

Di Matteo, Poiana, & Spagnamusso, 2009; Lane, Palmer, Christie, Ehlt­ Angeloni, Guerrini, Masella, Bellumori, et al. (2019). The authors
ing, & Le, 2017; Salamanca, Fiol, González, Saez, & Villaescusa, 2017). ascribed the higher caffeine and chlorogenic acid concentrations to the
Mintel estimated ready to drink (RTD) coffee sales of $3.8 billion in prolonged contact time provided during CB extraction as compared to
2019 which would account for 25.4% of the total market share (Topper, hot brewed coffees such as espresso coffee. Cordoba et al. (2019) indi­
2019). Their report attributed the market growth to continued product cated that CB samples prepared using coarse grounds had a higher
line extensions of RTD products (e.g. CB coffees) by companies such as concentration of total dissolved solids and a higher percentage of
Starbucks, McDonald’s, and Dunkin’ (Failla, 2019). The increased de­ extraction yield as compared to CB samples prepared from medium-level
mand for CB coffee is based on both growing one-time purchases and grounds. The authors (Cordoba et al., 2019) attributed these findings to
subsequent same unit sales all arising from the consumers’ increased the indirect immersion cold brewing method (coffee grounds were
interest to try different coffee innovations. For example, Baileys’ salted placed in a filter bag that was placed in a holding container with water
caramel flavored non-alcoholic RTD CB coffee (launched in 2019) had a for a pre-set time) that was used. The brewing method when used with
higher purchase interest (56%) and significantly higher convenience coarse grounds (larger particle size) allowed for increased diffusion and
store sales than corresponding RTD iced coffee (Failla, 2019). Con­ mass transfer during the coffee extraction process which was not the
sumers drank Bailey’s RTD CB coffee mainly because they liked the case for the medium-grind coffee particles. Even more, Cordoba et al.
flavor, it was convenient, they wanted to indulge (for pleasure) and (2019) used coffee cuppers and found higher scores for aroma and taste
because the price was right (Failla, 2019). Also, young consumers, when shorter brewing times and coarser grinding were used for two
particularly Generation Z, were reported to have a preference for the CB types of Colombian CB coffee. However, cuppers have been found to be
coffees (Failla, 2019; Topper, 2019). unreliable when testing specific flavor attributes of coffee (Di Don­
Recently, CB coffee has received increased attention in the research francesco, Gutierrez Guzman, & Chambers, 2014; Worku, Duchateau, &
literature. Coffee grinding was shown to have a critical impact on the Boeckx, 2016). Contact time between coffee powder and water was
extraction yield, and other aspects that influence the flavor of CB coffees noted to have little impact on coffee flavor although cold “brewed”
such as total phenolic content and total dissolved solids. Higher in­ coffee was found to be less bitter than cold drip coffee using a trained
tensities for total dissolved solids and higher extraction yield were sensory panel following cupper guidelines (Angeloni, Guerrini, Masella,
associated with CB samples which were prepared using a coarse grind- Innocenti, et al., 2019). Freshly brewed CB coffee was differentiated
level and brewed for a long time (22 h) as compared to corresponding from ready-to-serve CB and from coffee shop CB by consumers, but those
samples which were hot brewed (Cordoba, Pataquiva, Osorio, Moreno, samples were from different coffee brands and sources (Heo, Choi,
& Ruiz, 2019). On the other hand, hot brewed coffee samples were Wang, Adhikari, & Lee, 2019). Salmaa Dwiranti, Ardiansyah, and Asiah
characterized by higher intensities of total titratable acidity as compared (2019) found that even short aging of the roasted beans (0–9 days) could
to corresponding CB samples. Higher intensities of caffeine and be differentiated by consumers, although the main sensory character of
chlorogenic acids for CB samples as compared to hot brewed samples (e. the coffee (i.e. fruity, coffee-like, bitter, and acidic) is maintained.
g. espresso) based on cup volume of beverage were reported by Considerable work on the sensory properties of hot brewed coffee
has been done in recent years, particularly the development of a lexicon
for coffee sensory properties (Chambers et al., 2016). In addition, issues
Table 2 such as roasting (Dharmawan, Cahyo, & Widyotomo, 2018; Król,
Mean values (n = 3) of L*A*B* color parameters of the roasted samples.
Gantner, Tatarak, & Hallmann, 2020), brewing methods for hot brewed
Sample Coffee Roasting L* a* b* coffee (Espitia-López et al., 2019; Sanchez & Chambers, 2015), storage
label species degree
temperature for bean (Cotter & Hopfer, 2018), addition of milk or sugar
AW Arabica Medium 23.4 ± 5 ± 0.0 5 ± 1.2 (Adhikari, Chambers, & Koppel, 2019), growing location (Di Don­
1.7 francesco, Gutierrez Guzman, & Chambers, 2019), coffee species
AW Arabica Dark 21.3 ± 3.9 2.7 ±
(Akiyama et al., 2005; Caporaso, Whitworth, Cui, & Fisk, 2018) and new
±
0.8 0.5 0.3
AD Arabica Medium 23.8 ± 5.6 ± 5.5 ± beverages from spent coffee grounds have all been studied in recent
0.9 1.0 0.7 years (Machado, Mussatto, Teixeira, Vilanova, & Oliveira, 2018).
AD Arabica Dark 21.3 ± 4.4 ± 3.1 ± Despite the increasing prevalence of CB, little research has been done
0.5 0.1 0.3
using a highly trained descriptive sensory panel to assess the effect of
RW Robusta Medium 23.7 ± 5.1 ± 4.6 ±
2.3 0.0 0.5 various factors on the sensory properties of CB coffee. Thus, the purpose
RW Robusta Dark 22.5 ± 3.9 ± 3 ± 0.2 of this study was to determine the impact of four factors; coffee bean
0.7 0.7 species, roasting degree, coffee to water ratio, and brewing method on
RD Robusta Medium 24.3 ± 4.9 ± 4.9 ± the sensory attributes of CB coffee.
1.3 1.2 0.5
RD Robusta Dark 21.7 ± 3.7 ± 2.6 ±
0.0 0.1 0.4 2. Materials and methods

Each value is the mean of three measurements ± standard deviation.

2.1. Coffee samples
L* indicates lightness; + = lighter, - = darker: a*indicates red/green coordinate;
+ =redder, - = greener: b* indicates yellow/blue coordinate; + = yellower, - =
bluer. A total of four Ugandan green coffee samples, two Arabica, and two

2
D.R. Seninde et al.
Robusta samples were used in this study. For Arabica, one coffee sample
was dry-processed (AD) and the other coffee sample was wet-processed
(AW). Similarly, one Robusta sample was dry-processed (RD) and the
other Robusta sample was wet-processed (RW). The coffee sample ori­
gins were four coffee farmer associations located in different coffee
growing regions with varying terroirs. NUCAFE, the coffee farmers’
organization in Uganda provided the green coffee samples. The details of
the coffee samples are provided in Table 1.
2.2. Sample preparation
2.2.1. Roasting degree
Each green coffee sample was roasted in two batches of 2.2 Kg using
a Diedrich IR-2.5 (2.5 kg coffee roaster, USA) to Medium and Dark
levels. Medium and Dark roast levels were attained by roasting the green
beans at 230 ◦ C for 19 min and 23 min respectively (Kalaska et al., 2014;
Mendes, de Menezes, Aparecida, & Da Silva, 2001). The two roasting
degrees were determined based on the color of the beans using the CIE
L*, a*, and b* color space values of roasted coffee samples (Dmowski &
Dąbrowska, 2014; McGuire, 1992). (Table 2). After the coffees were
roasted, they were cooled and placed in vacuum bags and sealed using a
Food Saver Heat-Seal Vacuum Sealing System (Sunbeam Products Inc.,
Boca Raton, FL, USA). The roasted beans were then flash-frozen before
being placed in a freezer set at approximately − 18 ◦ C. Roasting of the
coffee samples was done approximately one week before the start of the
sensory evaluation sessions. The roasted coffee samples were retrieved
from the freezer, allowed to thaw briefly, and were ground approxi­
mately 15 min before the start of the brewing process.
2.2.2. Coffee to water ratio (C2WR)
Two coffee to water ratios: 80 g/L and 120 g/L were used for this
study. The 80 g/L C2WR was employed following the standard for the
preparation of green coffee samples for use in the sensory analysis that
was developed by the International Organization for Standardization
(International Organization for Standardization, 2008). That standard
recommends using a ratio in the range of 50 to 90 g of coffee per liter of
water when preparing coffee for sensory analysis studies. Consideration
was made that CB coffee is usually prepared using a higher C2WR than
regular hot brewed coffee. As such, a second C2WR, 120 g/L was applied
to the samples that were used in the study. The coffee extraction was
done using reverse osmosis treated, carbon filtered water to provide for
standardization among the brewed coffee samples.
2.2.3. Brewing methods
Coffee samples were ground using a flat steel burr commercial-grade
coffee grinder (Baratza Forte Brew Grinder, Baratza LLC, Bellevue, WA,
USA). Standard Test sieves meeting ASTM standard E11:2011(ASTM
International, 2020) were used to adjust the grinder to produce a stan­
dard grind level across all samples within a brewing method.
Two CB brewing methods were used in this study: a) full-immersion
or steeping and b) drip. The steeping method used a Toddy CB System,
which relies on dispersion and diffusion to extract the soluble compo­
nents from the coffee grounds into water. The samples were prepared
following the brewer recommendations (including grinding to sieve
through test sieve No. 16) and the brew extraction containers were
placed in a refrigerator set at 1.7 ◦ C The dispersion process is slow and
the coffee extraction required 16 hr. The drip method used the Yama
cold coffee brewer (32 oz. which was manufactured by Yamei Heat
Resistant Glass Co., Ltd in Toufen City, Taiwan. The coffee samples were
ground and then sieved in test sieve No. 20. One-third of the water used
in this method was in the form of ice cubes while the other portion was
room temperature. This method involved iced water dripping through
the coffee grounds. Unlike the full-immersion method, the slow drip
method relied on increased agitation and increased surface area of the
coffee grounds to extract the coffee components by the dripping water.
The water fell at an average speed of 35–40 drops per minute onto a
3
Food Research International 137 (2020) 109667
paper-filter that evenly distributed it over the pre-wetted coffee
grounds. During brewing, the ice cubes melted maintaining the tem­
perature of the falling water between 0 ◦ C and 1.7 ◦ C. However, after all
the ice cubes had melted, the temperature of the falling water ranged
between 1.7 ◦ C and 4 ◦ C. The entire brewing duration lasted 3 hr. Once
the brewing process was done, the CB was covered with a lid and placed
in a refrigerator set at 1.7 ◦ C.
2.2.4. Standard references
Standard references (Control A, Control B, Control C, and Control D)
were prepared by hot-brewing pre-selected roasting treatment levels for
the four coffee samples (AD, AW, RD, and RW). Control A was prepared
using Medium roasted (AW), Control B was prepared using Dark roasted
AD, Control C was prepared using Medium roasted (RW), and Control D
was prepared using Dark roasted RD. As explained by Rainey (1986), the
four standard references or controls guided the panelists in developing
and refining of the lexicon for the CB sample combinations and were
critical in anchoring the 0 to 15-point scale (0.0 = none; 15.0 =
extremely high intensity). That allows standardization and improves the
process of measurement by the panelists during both the orientation and
evaluation sessions. Also, the authors noted that the use of standard
references was more time-efficient as panelists were able to base de­
cisions on scores for the tested products using only the four references as
opposed to having to consult 42 different product references during
sample evaluations. The standard references were brewed using the
filtered infusion method with a coffee to water ratio of 70 g/L. The
Baratza Forte Brew Grinder (Baratza LLC, Bellevue, WA, USA) was
adjusted to produce coffee to pass through test sieve No. 30) the same
type of water used in the CB process was heated to 98 ◦ C and poured over
the grounds in a swirl motion using a gooseneck kettle to ensure all the
grounds were wetted. The infusion was let to steep for 3 min after which
it was strained using a test sieve No.50 into a glass refrigerator pitcher
with the lid placed on the top (Chambers et al., 2016; International
Organization for Standardization, 2008). The pitcher was immediately
placed in a refrigerator and cooled to 1.7 ◦ C. The CB samples and the
reference standards were each served at temperatures ranging between
3.9 ◦ C and 6.7 ◦ C to the panelists in 0.237 L Bodum band canteen
double-wall cooler glasses for sensory evaluation. The temperature of
the coffee in the double-wall glasses was maintained using an ice-cube
bath by placing the glasses in plastic bins and carefully surrounding
them with ice cubes for the entire session. The temperature of the coffee
was regularly measured using a Thermapen Mk4 thermometer (Ther­
moWorks, Inc., USA).
2.3. Panelists and sensory evaluation procedure
A highly trained panel comprised of five (5) members from the
Center for Sensory Analysis and Consumer Behavior at Kansas State
University evaluated the CB samples. The panelists each had 120 hr of
general descriptive analysis training and over 2000 hr of general
descriptive sensory testing of beverages and other foods products
including coffee and were familiar with the published coffee lexicon
now used by World Coffee Research and the Specialty Coffee Associa­
tions (Chambers et al., 2016). Such numbers of highly trained panelists
have been shown to be able to discriminate among samples better than
larger panels of less trained panelists (Chambers & Smith, 1993;
Chambers, Allison, & Chambers, 2004; Chambers, Bowers, & Dayton,
1981). Similar panels have been used in other studies (Adhikari et al.,
2019; Kumar & Chambers, 2019; Pujchakarn, Suwonsichon, & Suwon­
sichon, 2016; Tran, James, Chambers, Koppel, & Chambers, 2019; Wang
& Chambers, 2018; Wang, Chambers, & Kan, 2018).
The panel had four days of 1.5 hr orientation sessions using a
consensus approach (Chambers, 2017) that began with testing of the 11
attributes (woody, roasted, sour, sweet, sweet aromatics, green, bitter,
nutty, fruity, floral, and Coffee Identity or fullness) recommended by
researchers and world coffee research experts for sensory analysis of
D.R. Seninde et al. Food Research International 137 (2020) 109667

Table 3 Table 3 (continued )

Attribute list and their definition and respective standard reference1 intensities. Attribute Definition and Standard Reference Intensities
Attribute Definition and Standard Reference Intensities
fruits or sugar or over-roofed dough
Acridaromaa,c,f The sharp pungent bitter acidic aromatics associated Standard references
with products that are excessively roasted or browned. A = 0, B = 7, C = 0, D = 2.5
Standard References Floral aromaa,d,f Sweet, light, slightly fragrant aromatic associated with
A = 0, B = 0, C = 0, D = 0 (fresh) flowers.
Acrid flavora,c,d The sharp pungent bitter acidic aromatics associated Standard references
with products that are excessively roasted or browned. A = 0, B = 0, C = 0, D = 0
Standard references Floral flavora,b,d,f Sweet, light, slightly fragrant aromatic associated with
A = 0, B = 0, C = 2, D = 4 (fresh) flowers.
Ashy aromaa,b,f Dry, dusty, dirty smoky aromatics associated with the Standard references
residual of burnt products. A = 0, B = 0, C = 0, D = 0
Standard references Fruity aromaa,d,f A sweet, floral aromatic blend of a variety of ripe fruits.
A = 2, B = 0, C = 0, D = 0 Standard references
Ashy flavora,d,f Dry, dusty, dirty smoky aromatics associated with the A = 0, B = 0, C = 0, D = 0
a,b,d,f
residual of burnt products. Fruity flavor A sweet, floral aromatic blend of a variety of ripe fruits.
Standard references Standard references
A = 0, B = 0, C = 3.5, D = 6 A = 0, B = 0, C = 0, D = 0
Balance/Blendeda, The melding of individual sensory notes such that the Green aromaa,f Aromatic characteristic of fresh plant-based material.
products present a unified overall Sensory experience Attributes may include leafy, viney, unripe, grassy,
as opposed to spikes or individual notes. peapod.
Standard references Standard references
A = 11.5, B = 6, C = 8, D = 5 A = 0, B = 0, C = 0, D = 3
Bitter aftertastea,b,d,e The fundamental taste factor associated with a caffeine Green flavora,d,f Aromatic characteristic of fresh plant-based material.
solution. Attributes may include leafy, viney, unripe, grassy,
Standard references peapod.
A = 9, B = 11.5, C = 11, D = 13.5 Standard references
Bitter tastea,b,d,e The fundamental taste factor associated with a caffeine A = 0, B = 0, C = 0, D = 0
solution. Longevitya,b, The time that the full integrated sensory experience
Standard references sustain itself in the month and after swallowing.
A = 9, B = 10.5, C = 11, D = 12.5 Standard references
Burnt aromaa,c,e,f The dark brown impression of an over-cooked or over- A = 7.5, B = 12, C = 10.5, D = 11.5
roasted product that can be sharp, bitter and sour. Mouth Dryinga,c,d A drying puckering or tingling sensation on the surface
Standard references and/or edge of the tongue and mouth.
A = 0, B = 0, C = 0, D = 0 Standard references
Burnt flavora,d The dark brown impression of an over-cooked or over- A = 2, B = 2, C = 2, D = 2
roasted product that can be sharp, bitter and sour. Musty/Earthy aromaa,d,f The slightly musty aromatics associated with raw
Standard references potatoes and damp humus, slightly musty notes.
A = 2.5, B = 0, C = 0, D = 0 Standard references
Chocolate/Dark Chocolate A high intensity blend of cocoa and cocoa butter that A = 0, B = 0, C = 0, D = 3
aromaa,b,c,d may include dark roast, spicy, burnt, must notes which Musty/Earthy flavora,d The slightly musty aromatics associated with raw
includes increased astringency and bitterness. potatoes and damp humus, slightly musty notes.
Standard references Standard references
A = 0, B = 0, C = 0, D = 0 A = 0, B = 4, C = 2, D = 6
Chocolate/Dark Chocolate A high intensity blend of cocoa and cocoa butter that Nutty aromaa,d,f A combination of slightly sweet, brown, woody, oily,
flavora,b,c,d may include dark roast, spicy, burnt, must notes which musty, astringent, and bitter aromatics commonly
includes increased astringency and bitterness. associated with nuts, seeds, beans, and grains.
Standard references Standard references
A = 0, B = 0, C = 0, D = 3 A = 4, B = 0, C = 0, D = 2
Cocoa aromaa,c,d,f A brown, sweet, dusty, musty, often bitter aromatic Nutty flavora,d,f A combination of slightly sweet, brown, woody, oily,
associated with cocoa bean, powdered cocoa and musty, astringent, and bitter aromatics commonly
chocolate bars. associated with nuts, seeds, beans, and grains.
Standard references Standard references
A = 6, B = 0, C = 2, D = 4 A = 3.5, B = 0, C = 0, D = 0
Cocoa flavora,d,e,f A brown, sweet, dusty, musty, often bitter aromatic Overall impacta,c The maximum overall sensory impression during the
associated with cocoa bean, powdered cocoa and whole tasting time.
chocolate bars. Standard references
Standard references A = 7, B = 9, C = 10, D = 11
A = 2, B = 4, C = 6.5, D = 5 Roasted aromaa,c,d,e,f Brown impression characteristic of products cooked to
Coffee ID/Fullnessa,b,e,f The foundation of flavors notes that gives substance to a high temperature by dry heat. Does not include bitter
the product. The perception of robust flavor that is or burnt notes.
rounded with body; in this case a full, rounded coffee Standard references
identity. A = 9, B = 4, C = 7, D = 5
Standard references Roasted flavora,c,d,e,f Brown impression characteristic of products cooked to
A = 11, B = 8, C = 9.5, D = 12 a high temperature by dry heat. Does not include bitter
Color Intensitya,b The intensity or strength of the brown color from light or burnt notes.
to dark. Standard references
Standard references A = 8, B = 6, C = 9.5, D = 11
A = 7.5, B = 12, C = 10.5, D = 11.5 Smoky aromaa,c,d An acute pungent aromatic that is a product of
Fermented aromaa,d Pungent, sweet, slightly sour, sometimes yeasty, combustion of wood, leaves or non-natural product.
alcohol like aromatics characteristics of fermented Standard references
fruits or sugar or over-proofed dough A = 2.5, B = 0, C = 0, D = 0
Standard references Smoky flavora,b,c,d An acute pungent aromatic that is a product of
A = 0, B = 6, C = 0, D = 2.5 combustion of wood, leaves or non-natural product.
Fermented flavora,d Pungent, sweet, slightly sour, sometimes yeasty, Standard references
alcohol like aromatics characteristics of fermented A = 0, B = 0, C = 4.5, D = 0
Sour tastea,c,d
(continued on next page)

4
D.R. Seninde et al. Food Research International 137 (2020) 109667

Table 3 (continued ) CB samples, labeled with three-digit codes, were presented to the pan­
Attribute Definition and Standard Reference Intensities elists for assessment. The established attribute intensities of the four
reference samples were used as comparison samples for scoring the in­
The fundamental taste factor associated with a citric
acid solution.
dividual CB Ugandan coffee samples. Appropriate oral cleansers (e.g.
Standard references bites of bagels, mozzarella cheese, and sips of tomato juice and purified
A = 4, B = 2, C = 0, D = 0 water and) were used to cleanse the panelists’ palates between each
Stale aromaa,e The aromatics characterized by lack of freshness sample evaluation. Panelists used one or a combination of palate
Standard references
cleansers at will in between sample evaluations except that water is
A = 0, B = 0, C = 4, D = 0
Stale flavora,d,e The aromatics characterized by lack of freshness always used last regardless of whether it has been used previously. The
Standard references panelists evaluated appearance (color intensity), aroma and flavor, and
A = 0, B = 0, C = 4, D = 0 coffee identity, overall impact, balance, and longevity of flavor for every
Sweet Aromatics aromaa,d, An aromatic associated with the impression of a sweet sample. Chambers et al. (2016) described longevity as the time that the
f
substance.
Standard references
full integrated sensory experience sustains itself in the mouth and after
A = 0, B = 3.5, C = 0, D = 2 swallowing; longer sensory experiences that sustained for longer times
Sweet Aromatics flavora,b, An aromatic associated with the impression of a sweet were scored closer to 15 while sensory experiences that sustained for
d,f
substance. shorter times were scored closer to zero. For appearance, one-fourth cup
Standard references
of the sample was placed in a medium snifter and evaluated under a
A = 1, B = 1, C = 1, D = 1
Sweet tastea,d A fundamental taste factor of which sucrose is typical. uniform, shadow-free white light (~5000 K). The aroma (a) and flavor
Standard references (f) attributes that were evaluated included: smoky(a)(f), ashy(a)(f),
A = 2, B = 2, C = 0, D = 0 woody(a)(f), roasted(a)(f), sweet aromatics(a)(f), burnt(a)(f), acrid(a)
Woody aromaa,c,d,e,f The sweet, brown, musty, dark aromatics associated (f), chocolate/Dark chocolate(a)(f), green(a)(f), nutty(a)(f), fruity(a)(f),
with a bark of a tree.
Standard references
floral(a)(f), cocoa(a)(f), fermented(a)(f), Musty/Earthy(a)(f), Stale(a)
A = 5, B = 0, C = 2, D = 3 (f), sour taste, sweet taste, bitter taste, and mouth-drying and bitter
Woody flavora,d The sweet, brown, musty, dark aromatics associated aftertaste (Table 3).
with a bark of a tree. All work conducted was reviewed and approved as exempt by the
Standard references
Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects.
A = 0, B = 0, C = 3, D = 6

A = Hot brewed Control A prepared using medium roasted wet-processed 2.4. Data analysis
Arabica (AW).
B = Hot brewed Control B prepared using dark roasted dry-processed Arabica
The statistical program SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary,
(AD).
NC) was used to conduct the mixed-effects four-way interaction model
C = Hot brewed Control C prepared using medium roasted wet-processed
Robusta (RW).
analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the data and Least Square (LS) means
D = Hot brewed Control D prepared using dark roasted dry-processed Robusta were computed. Sample effects (species, roast degree, C2WR, brewing
(RD). method) were fixed effects, replication was a blocking effect (fixed), and
Sensory characteristics and their corresponding descriptions can be found in the panelists were random effects in the ANOVA model. Fisher’s pro­
previous literature: tected least significant difference test (LSD) was used with a confidence
a = (Chambers et al., 2016). level of 95%. All effects in the model were considered during the mul­
b = (Adhikari et al., 2019). tiple comparisons of groups using LS–Means. Comparisons made using
c = (Sanchez & Chambers, 2015). arithmetic means do not consider other effects in the model which could
d = (Di Donfrancesco et al., 2014). have impacted the accuracy of the results (Martinez & Bartholomew,
e = (Bhumiratana et al., 2019).
2017). The results of the data analysis provided information on the
f = (Bhumiratana et al., 2011).
1 impact of the main effects as well as the four-way and three-way in­
Standard references.
teractions that had a significant impact on the sensory characteristics of
the CB coffee samples. Scatter plots were used to illustrate the significant
coffee varietals (Chambers et al., 2016). Coffee Identity has been defined
three- and four-way interactions. XL-STAT (a Microsoft excel data
as the foundation of flavor notes that gives substance to the coffee brew
analysis add-on tool) was used to compute agglomerative hierarchical
(Chambers et al., 2016). After the second orientation session, the pan­
clustering (AHC) and principal component analysis (PCA) on the 32
elists added 31 attributes to represent the entire set of CB Ugandan
sample combinations based on 36 sensory characteristics.
coffees. During the third orientation session panel members practiced
using the terms and used a 0 to 15- point scale with 0.5 increments (0.0
3. Results and discussion
= none; 15.0 = extremely high intensity) to evaluate each of the control
samples (Control A, Control B, Control C, and Control D) based on the 42
3.1. Effect of coffee species (Arabica and Robusta)
identified sensory attributes. References and corresponding definitions
that were developed by Chambers et al. (2016) were used to anchor the
CB Robusta samples were characterized by a greater coffee ID or
ends of the 15-point scale (Table 3). In the fourth and last orientation
fullness as compared to the corresponding CB Arabica samples (Table 4).
session, panelists used the four controls as standard references to eval­
Chambers et al. (2016) defined Coffee ID or fullness as the foundation of
uate four random CB samples. The purpose of these last two sessions was
flavor notes that gives substance to the coffee brew. This perception of
to calibrate the sensory panel as they re-familiarized themselves with the
robust flavor that is rounded with the body of the coffee brew was higher
terms and the standard references that they would use for the sample
in Robusta CB samples because they contained higher levels of high
evaluation sessions. Using descriptive sensory lexicons has been
molecular-weight polysaccharides as compared to Arabica CB samples
described for many products (Suwonsichon, 2019).
(Farah, 2012). Higher intensities for aroma and flavor attributes such as
The orientation sessions were followed by sixteen 1.5 hr evaluation
acrid (f), ashy (f), bitter taste and bitter aftertaste, chocolate/dark
sessions where the 32 CB coffee samples were evaluated individually,
chocolate (a), smoky (f), burnt(f), mouth drying (f), overall impact,
one at a time, in triplicate, following a completely balanced randomized
longevity, woody (a), woody (f), and musty/earthy (f) were also
block design. Six samples were evaluated during each 1.5 hr session
ascribed to CB Robusta samples as compared to CB Arabica samples.
indicating that a total of 15 min were used to evaluate each sample. The
Robusta coffee either in its green bean form or roasted form does contain

5
D.R. Seninde et al. Food Research International 137 (2020) 109667

Table 4
Least Square Means for sensory attributes of CB coffee.1
Sample Color Identity Smoky(a) Ashy(a) Woody(a) Roasted(a) Sweet aromatics(a) Burnt(a) Acrid(a)

AW 7.9b 1.2b 0.4b 2.1c 6.5b 2.6bc 0.1ab 0.1

AD 8.0b 0.4c 0.2c 2.1c 5.8c 3.0a 0.0b 0.0
RW 8.3a 1.5a 0.7a 2.7a 7.1a 2.38c 0.1a 0.0
RD 8.4a 1.1b 0.5ab 2.4b 6.5b 2.7b 0.0b 0.1
Roast
Dark 7.9b 1.1 0.4 2.3 6.5 2.8a 0.0 0.1
Medium 8.4a 1.0 0.5 2.3 6.5 2.6b 0.1 0.1
C2WR
C2WR 12 8.8a 1.0 0.4 2.2 6.7a 2.7a 0.0 0.1
C2WR 8 7.5b 1.1 0.5 2.4 6.3b 2.6b 0.1 0.1
B Method
Drip 8.9a 1.2a 0.5 2.5a 6.7a 2.8a 0.1 0.1
Steep 7.3b 0.9b 0.4 2.2b 6.2b 2.5b 0.0 0.0

Sample Chocolate/Dark Chocolate(a) Green(a) Nutty(a) Fruity(a) Floral(a) Cocoa(a) Fermented(a) Musty/Earthy(a)

AW 1.3b 0.9b 2.8a 2.5b 1.4b 2.6a 3.5c 0.2b

AD 1.4b 1.6a 2.5b 3.5a 2.1a 2.4b 4.9a 0.5a
RW 2.0a 0.7b 2.3c 1.9c 1.1c 2.6ab 3.0d 0.5a
RD 1.7a 0.9b 2.3c 2.5b 1.5b 2.5ab 3.9b 0.4a
Roast
Dark 1.4b 1.0 2.5 2.6 1.6a 2.4b 4.0a 0.4
Medium 1.7a 1.1 2.5 2.7 1.4b 2.6a 3.6b 0.4
C2WR
C2WR 12 1.7a 1.0 2.5 2.8a 1.7a 2.6a 4.1a 0.5
C2WR 8 1.5b 1.0 2.5 2.4b 1.3b 2.4b 3.6b 0.3
B Method
Drip 1.9a 0.7b 2.5 2.6a 1.6a 2.7a 4.0a 0.3b
Steep 1.3b 1.4a 2.5 2.5b 1.4b 2.4b 3.7b 0.5a

Sample Stale(a) Smoky(f) Ashy(f) Woody(f) Roasted(f) Sweet Aroma(f) Burnt(f) Acrid(f)

AW 0.2ab 1.5c 1.4b 3.0c 7.8c 1.5a 0.7c 1.3c

AD 0.3ab 1.5c 1.5b 3.0c 7.9c 1.6a 0.8c 1.4c
RW 0.2b 2.4a 2.4a 3.6a 9.0a 0.4c 1.9a 2.4a
RD 0.3a 2.1b 2.3a 3.4b 8.7b 0.9b 1.6b 2.0b
Roast
Dark 0.2 2.1a 2.1a 3.4a 8.7a 0.9b 1.4a 2.1a
Medium 0.3 1.6b 1.7b 3.1b 8.1b 1.3a 1.1b 1.4b
C2WR
C2WR 12 0.2 2.1a 2.2a 3.4a 8.8a 0.9b 1.5a 2.1a
C2WR 8 0.3 1.7b 1.6b 3.1b 7.9b 1.3a 1.0b 1.4b
B Method
Drip 0.1b 2.2a 2.2a 3.5a 8.9a 1.0b 1.4a 2.1a
Steep 0.3a 1.7b 1.6b 3.0b 7.8b 1.2a 1.1b 1.5b

Sample Chocolate/Dark Chocolate(f) Green(f) Nutty(f) Fruity(f) Floral(f) Cocoa(f) Fermented(f) Musty/Earthy(f)

AW 2.1b 1.0a 2.0a 2.2b 1.1a 2.9ab 3.5b 1.2b

AD 2.4a 1.1a 1.6b 2.5a 1.1a 2.9b 4.47a 1.3b
RW 2.6a 0.1c 1.0c 0.9d 0.3b 3.1a 2.5d 2.1a
RD 2.5a 0.5b 1.3b 1.1c 0.3b 3.1a 3.0c 2.2a
Roast
Dark 2.5 0.5b 1.3b 1.6b 0.8a 3.0 3.4 1.7
Medium 2.3 0.8a 1.7a 1.8a 0.6b 3.0 3.2 1.7
C2WR
C2WR 12 2.6a 0.7 1.4b 1.7 0.6 3.0 3.5a 1.9a
C2WR 8 2.2b 0.7 1.6a 1.6 0.8 3.0 3.1b 1.5b
B Method
Drip 2.7a 0.5b 1.4 1.8a 0.9a 3.1 3.6a 1.9a
Steep 2.1b 0.9a 1.5 1.6b 0.8b 3.0 3.1b 1.5b

Sample Stale(f) Sour(f) Sweet(f) Bitter(f) Mouth drying(f) Bitter(at) Coffee ID Overall Impact

AW 0.5c 1.9a 0.8b 9.4b 2.2b 9.7b 9.4c 8.3d

AD 0.7bc 1.9a 1.2a 9.2b 2.2b 9.5b 9.4c 8.8c
RW 0.8ab 1.4b 0.1d 10.2a 2.3a 10.7a 10.4a 9.9a
RD 1.0a 1.7a 0.3c 10.1a 2.3a 10.4a 10.0b 9.5b
Roast
Dark 0.7 1.8 0.5b 10.0a 2.3 10.3a 10.1a 9.5a
Medium 0.8 1.7 0.8a 9.5b 2.2 9.8b 9.5b 8.7b
C2WR
C2WR 12 0.8 1.8a 0.5b 10.2a 2.3a 10.5a 10.3a 9.9a
C2WR 8 0.7 1.6b 0.7a 9.3b 2.2b 9.6b 9.2b 8.3b
B method
Drip 0.8 1.6b 0.5 10.0a 2.3a 10.3a 10.4a 9.6a
Steep 0.7 1.9a 0.7 9.5b 2.2b 9.8b 9.2b 8.7b

(continued on next page)

6
D.R. Seninde et al.
Table 4 (continued )
Sample
AW
AD
RW
RD
Roast
Dark
Medium
C2WR
C2WR 12
C2WR 8
B method
Drip
Steep
1
Sample Codes: A = Arabica, R = Robusta; W = wet process, D = dry Process, Roast = roasting degree; C2WR = coffee to water ratio; B method = Brewing method.
higher concentrations of particular volatile and non-volatile compounds
that responsible for the aroma and flavor of the derived CB as compared
to Arabica coffee. For example, Robusta coffee concentrations for
Chlorogenic acids (e.g caffeoylquinic, and feruloylquinic acids), and
caffeine are about twice those of Arabica coffee. Farah (2012) and Farah,
De Paulis, Trugo, and Martin (2005) supported earlier research by Trugo
and Macrae (1984) by reporting that chlorogenic acids had a significant
contribution to the bitter taste and aftertaste and mouth drying
(astringent flavor) of brewed coffee. Chlorogenic acids also work as
precursors in the formation of phenols (e.g. Guaiacols which are partly
responsible for the burnt and smoky flavor of brewed coffee) and cate­
chols (Farah, 2012; Farah et al., 2005; Vignoli, Viegas, Bassoli, &
Benassi, 2014). Caffeine a heat-stable stimulant belonging to the
methylxanthine class that was found to contribute about 10% to the
bitterness of brewed coffee (Voilley, Sauvageot, Simatos, & Wojcik,
1981). Hence, considering the heightened levels of chemical compounds
such as caffeine and chlorogenic acids in roasted Robusta samples, it was
no wonder that corresponding CB samples had a higher overall impact
with a more intense bitter taste that lasted longer (longevity) even after
swallowing or expectorating (bitter aftertaste) when compared to the CB
Arabica samples.
Other chemical compounds such as trigonelline (an alkaloid) and
kahweol (diterpene alcohol) also contributed to the bitter taste of CB
samples though their contribution was minimal (Bicho, Leitão, Ram­
alho, De Alvarenga, & Lidon, 2013; Casal, Oliveira, Alves, & Ferreira,
2000; Keidel, Von Stetten, Rodrigues, Máguas, & Hildebrandt, 2010;
Moores & Greninger, 1951; Oestreich-Janzen, 2010).
Robusta samples also had a darker brew color as compared to the CB
Arabica samples. The color intensities can be explained by the presence
of higher levels of the intermediate and high molecular weight mela­
noidins in the Robusta samples as compared to the Arabica samples
(Vignoli et al., 2014). The melanoidins are brown-colored polymers that
are produced mainly as a result of the non-enzymatic browning re­
actions during the coffee roasting process (Vignoli et al., 2014). The
greater musty/earthy flavor in CB Robusta samples was attributed to
higher concentrations of pyrazines such as 3-Ethyl-2,5-dimethylpyra­
zine which is associated with the earthy-like and moldy aroma and
flavor characteristics in the coffee brew (Caporaso et al., 2018).
On the other hand, CB Arabica samples had higher intensities for
aroma and flavor attributes such as Nutty (a), Sweet aromatics (f), green
(f), fruity (f), floral (f), fermented (f) and sweet taste as compared to CB
Robusta samples. The fact that Arabica green beans have higher con­
centrations of sucrose as compared to Robusta green beans serves as a
reason for the higher intensities of certain sensory characteristics. Coffee
processing stages such as fermentation more so among the wet-
processed coffee beans and roasting play a key role in the develop­
ment of aroma and flavor profiles of CB coffee. For instance, fruity, and
fermented aromas and flavors were partly attributed to the increased
acidity (lactic acids and acetic acids) during the fermentation process
(Caporaso et al., 2018). Also, as the sucrose (carbohydrates) were
Food Research International 137 (2020) 109667
Balance/Blended Longevity
9.5a 8.5c
9.3a 8.6c
7.8c 9.3b
8.4b 10.2a
8.1b 9.7a
9.4a 8.6b
8.3b 9.8a
9.2a 8.5b
8.5b 9.7a
9.0a 8.6b
broken down during the roasting process, they produced volatile com­
pounds such as furans (e.g. 2-Acetylfuran, 2-Methylfuran, and 5-
furfural) whose aroma and flavor characteristics in brewed coffee can
been described as sweet aromatic, nutty, and fruity (Akiyama et al.,
2007; Bertrand et al., 2012; Caporaso et al., 2018; Costa Freitas, Par­
reira, & Vilas-Boas, 2001; Nicoli, Calligaris, & Manzocco, 2009). Green
Arabica beans do contain a higher concentration of trigonelline which
upon degradation during roasting produces nicotinic acid and other
volatiles such as pyridines and pyrroles which contribute to the nutty
aroma of the brew (Bicho et al., 2013; Casal et al., 2000; Kalaska et al.,
2014). Even more, CB Arabica samples were perceived as more blended
as compared to the Robusta CB samples, which indicated that the indi­
vidual notes of the CB Arabica samples did not “stick out” or overwhelm
other notes. Blendedness may be a reason that Arabica beans are
traditionally thought of as “higher quality”, by some coffee professionals
(Hayakawa et al., 2010).
3.2. Effect of roasting degree
During coffee roasting, chemical reactions such as Maillard re­
actions, pyrolysis, and Strecker degradation were responsible for the
development of volatile and non-volatile compounds that characterized
the sensory characteristics of the CB samples (Bhumiratana, Adhikari, &
Chambers, 2011; de Melo Pereira et al., 2019). Dark roasted CB samples
had higher intensities for attributes such as sweet aromatics (a), fer­
mented (a), smoky (f), ashy (f), woody (f), roasted (f), acrid (f), bitter
taste, bitter aftertaste, coffee ID, Overall Impact, and longevity as
compared to corresponding medium roasted beans. Maillard reactions
where carbohydrates (e.g. sucrose) reacted with proteins in presence of
chlorogenic acids to produce flavor compounds such as pyridines (e.g. 3-
Ethylpyridine), pyrroles (e.g.1-Methyl-1H-pyrrole), and pyrazines (e.g.
2,3,5,6-tetramethylpyrazine) which contributed to the higher intensities
of several of the aforementioned attributes. For example, smoky (a)(f),
woody (a) (f) can be partly ascribed to 1-Methyl-1H-pyrrole and fer­
mented aroma can be partly ascribed to 2,3,5,6-tetramethylpyrazine
(Caporaso et al., 2018; Kalschne, Viegas, De Conti, Corso, & de
Benassi, 2018; Moon & Shibamoto, 2009; Toci & Farah, 2008). Ac­
cording to Dulsat-Serra, Quintanilla-Casas, and Vichi (2016), the
perceived higher intensities for roasted for CB dark roasted samples can
be explained by the higher intensities of thiols (e.g. 2-furfurylthiol) that
were produced during roasting. Lang et al. (2013) reported that as the
degree of roasting increased (medium to dark roast), concentrations for
chlorogenic acids such as caffeoylquinic acid decreased while caffeine
concentrations increased. This would explain why the CB dark roasted
samples (with more caffeine and lesser chlorogenic acids content) had a
significantly more bitter taste and bitter aftertaste as compared to the CB
medium roasted samples (with more chlorogenic acids but lesser
caffeine content) (Fuller & Rao, 2017). Similar to the findings of Moon
and Shibamoto (2009), medium roasted CB samples had a stronger
cocoa aroma and had a more balanced flavor as compared to the CB Dark
7
D.R. Seninde et al.
14.0
12.0
10.0
Intensity
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
DD DM
Brewing method|Roast degree
Fig. 1. Four-way interaction for Color Intensity.
roasted samples. This was partly because CB medium roasted samples
had higher intensities for non-coffee-like sensory attributes such as
sweet aromatics (f), green (f), nutty (f), fruity (f) and sweet taste which
blended more with the other coffee-like characteristics such as bitter
taste, and roasted flavor, unlike the CB dark roasted samples which had
lower intensities for non-coffee-like attributes such as sweet taste, fruity
flavor and higher intensities for coffee-like attributes such as bitter taste
and roasted flavor. It is worth noting that the intensity scores for the
non-coffee-like flavor attributes (e.g. sweet, green) ranged between zero
and five while coffee-like flavor attribute intensities ranged between 5
and 11 on 15-point scale (Masi, Dinnella, Barnabà, Navarini, & Mon­
teleone, 2013).
3.3. Effect of coffee to water ratio (C2WR)
The CB samples that were prepared using higher C2WR (120 g/L)
were characterized by significantly higher intensities for attributes such
as color intensity, bitter taste and aftertaste, sour taste, coffee ID, mouth
drying (f), overall impact, longevity, roasted (a)(f), chocolate/dark
chocolate(a)(f), cocoa(a), fruity(a), fermented(a)(f), smoky (f), ashy(f),
woody (f), sweet aromatics(a), burnt(f), acrid(f) and musty/earthy(f) as
compared to CB of lower C2WR. Higher C2WR indicated a presence of
higher concentrations of volatile and non-volatile compounds that were
produced as a result of Maillard reactions and Strecker degradation in
the roasted coffee grounds. For example, the darker brown color of CB
samples made from higher C2WR can be ascribed to the higher con­
centrations of melanoidins (produced from Maillard reactions during
coffee roasting) that were constituted in the roasted coffee grounds
(Buffo & Cardelli-Freire, 2004; Dharmawan et al., 2018; Farah, 2012).
Also, higher C2WR CB samples contained higher concentrations of
pyridines, pyrroles, and pyrazines which were responsible for the
heightened intensities for smoky (f), woody (f), and fermented (a)(f)
respectively as compared to the lower C2WR CB samples (Akiyama
et al., 2005, 2007; Caporaso et al., 2018; Kalschne et al., 2018). Even
more, higher C2WR CB samples contained elevated concentrations of
caffeine and chlorogenic acids which contributed significantly to the
bitter taste and corresponding aftertaste of the samples as compared to
the CB samples that were prepared using lower C2WR. Conversely, at­
tributes such as sweet taste, sweet aromatics (f), Nutty (f), and balanced
or blended scored higher for CB of lower C2WR (80 g/L) as compared to
CB samples that were prepared using higher C2WR.
8
Food Research International 137 (2020) 109667
AD12
AD8
AW12
AW8
RD12
RD8
RW12
RW8
SD SM
3.4. Effect of brewing method
Samples that were brewed using the slow-drip method had a darker
brown color, had higher intensities for coffee-like flavor attributes such
as roasted(a)(f), bitter taste and bitter aftertaste, overall impact, coffee
ID, and other attributes such as fermented(a)(f), fruity(a)(f), floral(a)(f),
chocolate/dark chocolate(a)(f) as compared to the samples that were
brewed using the full-immersion method. For the dripping method, a
finer grind level was employed as compared to the steeping method
where a coarser grind level was used. Grinding to a finer (smaller)
particle size increased the availability of volatile and non-volatile
chemical compounds of roasted beans during the extraction process of
CB samples (Uman et al., 2016).
According to Hariyadi, Tedja, Zubaidah, Yuwono, and Fibrianto
(2020), the solubility of caffeine and tannins is increased with prolonged
extraction periods. Based on this, CB samples that were steeped for 16 hr
would be expected to have a higher bitter taste and aftertaste as
compared to the dripped CB samples (brewed for 3 hrs.). But this was not
the case in the current study. The higher intensity of bitterness that
characterized the dripped CB samples can be explained by the fact that
more caffeine was extracted at a slightly higher temperature (0 ◦ C to
1.7 ◦ C as the ice melted; 1.7 ◦ C to 4 ◦ C after all ice melted) as compared
to corresponding CB samples which were steeped at 1.7 ◦ C (Hariyadi
et al., 2020). These findings were supported by an earlier study that
reported that extraction of compounds such as caffeine, chlorogenic
acids, and total solids content was higher at raised temperatures (22 ◦ C)
as compared to lower temperatures (5 ◦ C) for CB samples (Angeloni,
Guerrini, Masella, Bellumori, et al., 2019).
3.5. Interactions of treatment variables
However, the results of this study also suggested that the impact of
one factor (e.g., coffee bean species or roasting degree or coffee to water
ratio or brewing method) on the sensory characteristics was dependent
on the levels of the other factors. This was shown by the statistically
significant four-way and three-way interaction effects among the fac­
tors. Sensory characteristics such as color intensity, longevity, balanced/
blended, overall impact, bitter taste and bitter aftertaste, mouth-drying
(f), sour taste, fermented(a)(f),cocoa(a)(f), fruity(a)(f), nutty(a)(f),
green(a)(f), chocolate/dark chocolate(a)(f), acrid(a)(f), roasted(a)(f),
smoky(a)(f), woody(a)(f), stale(a), floral(a), burnt(a), and ashy aroma
(a) all had significant four-way interactions. The musty/earthy aroma
D.R. Seninde et al. Food Research International 137 (2020) 109667

Table 5
p-values of individual factors and factor interactions from Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for coffee attributes.
Individual variables and variable interactions

Attribute Sample Roast C2WR B Method Sample*Roast Sample*C2WR Sample*B Method Roast*C2WR

Color intensity <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0187 0.4366 0.0024 0.534
Smoky (a) <0.0001 0.3732 0.1309 0.03 <0.0001 0.002 0.2285 0.7247
Ashy (a) 0.0005 0.1162 0.1743 0.4717 0.1028 0.8043 0.1996 0.2746
Woody (a) <0.0001 1 0.103 0.0024 0.2204 0.0305 0.5003 0.8016
Roasted (a) <0.0001 0.9017 0.0002 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.1375 0.0648 0.0918
Sweet aromatics (a) <0.0001 0.009 0.0377 <0.0001 0.0003 0.1613 0.1014 0.499
Burnt (a) 0.0079 0.405 0.082 0.4956 0.0295 0.2664 0.0896 0.4956
Acrid (a) 0.1771 0.7859 0.7859 0.1748 0.107 0.7048 0.2267 0.7859
Chocolate/Dark chocolate (a) <0.0001 0.0039 0.0137 <0.0001 0.1649 <0.0001 0.5312 0.9321
Green (a) <0.0001 0.1426 0.8781 <0.0001 0.0382 0.5446 0.0006 0.0173
Nutty (a) <0.0001 0.6173 0.7813 0.9116 0.6522 <0.0001 0.0006 <0.0001
Fruity (a) <0.0001 0.5149 <0.0001 0.0003 <0.0001 0.8098 0.3268 0.0023
Floral (a) <0.0001 0.0091 <0.0001 0.0315 0.0088 0.0003 0.0009 0.5378
Cocoa (a) 0.1736 0.0246 0.0071 0.0007 0.9515 0.0452 0.2386 0.2707
Fermented (a) <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0145 <0.0001 0.7196 0.1991 0.0633
Musty Earthy (a) 0.0015 0.5238 0.0728 0.0067 0.017 0.002 0.0002 0.5238
Stale (a) 0.1334 0.3443 0.6999 0.0019 0.0016 <0.0001 0.4635 0.7525
Smoky (f) <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0003 0.7708 0.4754 0.0001 0.1662
Ashy (f) <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0006 0.546 <0.0001 0.5959
Woody (f) <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0003 <0.0001 0.7849 0.1101 0.0431 0.0477
Roasted (f) <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.4894 0.4322 0.3726
Sweet aromatics (f) <0.0001 0.0003 <0.0001 0.0228 0.0096 0.0001 0.1753 0.4132
Burnt (f) <0.0001 0.0057 <0.0001 0.0002 0.0008 0.1355 0.0031 0.1556
Acrid (f) <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.631 0.0005 0.0025 0.4438
Chocolate/Dark chocolate (f) 0.0004 0.057 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0518 0.2217 0.0022 0.0029
Green (f) <0.0001 <0.0001 0.9802 <0.0001 0.0102 0.0004 0.0171 0.0033
Nutty (f) <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0406 0.1853 0.1864 0.1481 0.0058 0.2315
Fruity (f) <0.0001 0.031 0.275 0.0055 <0.0001 0.2466 0.194 <0.0001
Floral (f) <0.0001 0.0344 0.1426 <0.0001 0.0045 0.0018 0.8098 0.4799
Cocoa (f) 0.0823 0.8364 0.18 0.0991 0.0045 0.7402 0.003 0.8364
Fermented (f) <0.0001 0.1791 0.0001 <0.0001 0.015 0.0974 0.0882 0.0002
Musty earthy (f) <0.0001 0.8579 0.0003 0.0005 0.6356 0.7928 0.0292 0.8267
Stale (f) 0.0021 0.104 0.8113 0.7778 0.303 0.2591 0.1817 0.8113
Sour taste 0.0015 0.1979 0.0242 0.0017 0.0116 0.0001 <0.0001 0.7513
Sweet taste <0.0001 0.0005 0.0061 0.083 0.188 0.3206 0.2064 0.0002
Bitter taste <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0004 0.0919 0.0101 0.7174
Mouth drying (f) 0.0058 0.1067 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0654 0.5233 0.8841 0.076
Bitter aftertaste <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0003 0.026 0.1593 0.3581
Coffee ID <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0006 <0.0001 0.147 0.0013
Overall Impact <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.4106 0.0425 0.0001 0.0001
Balanced/Blended <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0002 <0.0001 0.0004 <0.0001 <0.0001
Longevity <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.1135 0.0542 0.0125 0.3673

Individual variables and variable interactions

Attribute Roast*B Method C2WR*B Method A B C D

Color intensity 0.0889 0.1373 0.0091 0.0121 0.6074 0.0103

Smoky (a) 0.1533 0.1533 0.429 0.0002 0.0028 <0.0001
Ashy (a) 0.1044 0.7693 0.1493 0.1688 0.2306 0.0029
Woody (a) 0.503 0.1947 0.0476 0.1497 0.0241 0.0408
Roasted (a) 0.0705 0.044 0.502 <0.0001 0.0485 0.0262
Sweet aromatics (a) 0.0033 0.0488 0.0964 0.0003 0.2239 0.0026
Burnt (a) 0.082 0.7049 0.7945 0.3093 0.0413 0.0304
Acrid (a) 0.0148 0.7859 0.1771 0.289 0.4152 0.0475
Dark chocolate (a) 0.7013 0.3709 0.2093 0.0093 0.0122 <0.0001
Green (a) <0.0001 0.0009 0.2875 0.6525 0.4698 0.0004
Nutty (a) 0.1205 0.3178 0.0129 0.0051 0.2671 0.0037
Fruity (a) <0.0001 0.0512 0.092 0.0594 0.9629 <0.0001
Floral (a) <0.0001 0.2812 0.0419 0.0029 0.0243 0.0241
Cocoa (a) <0.0001 0.5816 0.3444 0.76 0.2108 0.0126
Fermented (a) <0.0001 0.0254 0.0742 0.783 0.3979 <0.0001
Musty Earthy (a) 0.0067 0.0022 0.68 0.0036 0.4512 0.7765
Stale (a) 0.8062 0.0193 0.0003 0.1009 0.6999 0.0036
Smoky (f) 0.254 0.1219 0.5882 0.0031 0.6539 0.005
Ashy (f) 0.0019 0.0942 0.0719 <0.0001 0.5959 0.1755
Woody (f) 0.1568 0.0731 0.0013 0.1254 0.0731 0.0004
Roasted (f) 0.1176 0.9423 0.2604 <0.0001 0.0254 0.0126
Sweet aromatics (f) 0.1021 0.0778 0.0074 0.0003 0.228 0.2565
Burnt (f) 0.7762 0.7101 0.135 0.0082 0.2294 0.3873
Acrid (f) 0.8097 0.0423 0.0366 <0.0001 0.038 0.0015
Dark chocolate (f) 0.1265 0.0326 0.8766 0.0022 0.0178 0.0067
Green (f) 0.0015 <0.0001 0.1803 0.1539 0.9802 0.0015
Nutty (f) 0.9659 0.7975 0.0201 0.0554 0.1716 0.0006
(continued on next page)

9
D.R. Seninde et al. Food Research International 137 (2020) 109667

Table 5 (continued )
Fruity (f) 0.0006 0.053 <0.0001 0.2151 0.9113 <0.0001
Floral (f) 0.8279 0.5867 0.084 0.0011 0.3846 0.1821
Cocoa (f) <0.0001 0.409 0.3515 0.8809 0.9178 0.0283
Fermented (f) <0.0001 0.8274 0.0155 0.7321 0.0355 <0.0001
Musty earthy (f) 0.2104 0.0493 0.3872 0.1001 0.0305 0.0916
Stale (f) 0.0539 0.1719 0.0017 0.0023 0.8113 0.3786
Sour taste 0.1836 0.1043 0.0107 0.0384 0.0007 <0.0001
Sweet taste 0.0038 0.5749 <0.0001 0.0002 0.0658 0.8859
Bitter taste 0.6124 0.0285 0.1127 <0.0001 0.3469 <0.0001
Mouth drying (f) 0.01 0.01 0.2746 0.0596 0.6279 0.0251
Bitter aftertaste 0.1295 0.0112 0.0666 <0.0001 0.0917 0.0036
Coffee ID <0.0001 0.5836 0.5703 <0.0001 0.0063 0.6682
Overall Impact 0.061 0.103 0.0018 0.0005 0.5751 0.0037
Balanced/Blended 0.0168 0.0018 <0.0001 0.0252 0.5341 <0.0001
Longevity 0.5717 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0023 0.8425 0.0008

Sample Codes: A = Arabica, R = Robusta; W = wet process, D = Dry Process; Roast = roasting degree; C2WR = Coffee to water ratio; B Method = Brewing method; A =
Sample*Roast*C2WR; B = Sample*Roast*B Method; C = Roast* C2WR *B Method; D = Sample*Roast* C2WR *B Method.

14.0

12.0

10.0 AD12
AD8
AW12
Intensity

8.0
AW8
6.0 RD12
RD8
4.0
RW12
RW8
2.0

0.0
DD DM SD SM

Brew method|Roast degree

Fig. 2. Four-way interaction for Bitter taste.

attribute and attributes such as coffee ID, sweet taste, stale(f), floral(f),
burnt(f), sweet aromatics(f), ashy(f), and musty/earthy(f) had statisti­
cally significant three-way interaction effects.
3.5.1. Effect of the significant four-way interactions
Fig. 1 shows that Dark roast Robusta that was steeped with a low
C2WR had a darker brown brew color than the corresponding Arabica
samples. However, when the Dark roast Robusta and Arabica samples
were brewed by slow-dripping with a low C2WR, both Robusta and
Arabica samples had similar brew color intensities (Table 5).
Medium roast Robusta samples that were slow-dripped with a high
C2WR had a more bitter taste than the corresponding Arabica samples
but when the medium roast Robusta was steeped with a high C2WR it
had a matching bitter intensity with the corresponding Arabica samples
as shown in Fig. 2.
Medium roast Robusta that was steeped with a high C2WR had a
higher overall impact than the corresponding Arabica samples, howev­
er, the Robusta and Arabica samples had a similar overall impact when
these samples were brewed by dripping.
Furthermore, Medium roast Robusta that was steeped with a low
C2WR had a higher intensity of attributes such as woody aroma, sour
taste, and flavor attributes such as Chocolate/Dark Chocolate, acrid,
cocoa, smoky, and woody and had a more intense bitter aftertaste and
greater overall impact as compared to the corresponding Arabica sam­
ples. However, when this Arabica and Robusta were dripped, they had
more similar intensities for attributes such as woody aroma, sour taste,
acrid, cocoa, Chocolate/Dark Chocolate, smoky, woody flavor, bitter
aftertaste, and overall impact.
It is noteworthy to mention that Dark roast Arabica had a more
intense fruity, and nutty aroma and had a higher fermented flavor when
it was slow-dripped with a high C2WR as compared to dark Robusta that
was prepared similarly. Dark roast Arabica that was steeped with a low
C2WR upheld a higher fruity aroma and a higher intensity of fruity and
fermented flavor when compared with the corresponding Robusta
samples. However, there was no difference in intensities for fruity
aroma, fruity flavor, and fermented flavor when the Arabica and
Robusta samples were brewed using the slow-dripping method.
When Medium roast Arabica was steeped with a high C2WR, the
samples had a higher intensity for fermented flavor and were more
balanced/blended than the corresponding Robusta samples. But then
when the samples were slow-dripped, there was no difference in fer­
mented flavor and blendedness/balance intensities between these
Arabica and Robusta samples. Fig. 3 shows the four-way interaction for
balanced/blended.

10
D.R. Seninde et al. Food Research International 137 (2020) 109667

14.0

12.0
AD12
AD8
10.0
AW12
Intensity

AW8
8.0
RD12
6.0 RD8
RW12
4.0 RW8

2.0

0.0
DD DM SD SM
Brewing method|Roast degree
Fig. 3. Four-way interaction for Balanced/Blended.

14.0

12.0

10.0
AD
Intensity

8.0 AW
RD
6.0
RW
4.0

2.0

0.0
DD DM SD SM
Brewing method-Roast degree
Fig. 4. Three-way interaction for Coffee ID/Fullness.

3.5.2. Effect of the significant three-way interactions
Fig. 4 shows that Medium roast Robusta that was brewed by slow-
dripping had a higher Coffee ID than the corresponding Arabica sam­
ples. However, when steeped the Robusta and Arabica samples had
similar coffee ID intensities.
Medium roast Robusta that was steeped had a more burnt flavor than
the corresponding Arabica samples. Dark roast Robusta that was steeped
had a higher ashy, burnt flavor when compared with the corresponding
Arabica samples. Then when the same samples were slow-dripped, they
had similar intensities for ashy and burnt flavor attributes.
Understanding how the different aspects (coffee bean species,
roasting degree, coffee to water ratio and brewing method) combine to
influence the key sensory traits of a coffee cup can bring standardization
to activities such as post-harvest handling, secondary processing (wet
and dry methods) and roasting. Furthermore, the development of coffee
profiles can help with the establishment of relationships among sensory
characteristics that could be illustrated using coffee flavor trees.
Multivariate analysis (agglomerative hierarchical clustering (AHC)
and principal component analysis (PCA) that was conducted on the 32
sample combinations (four coffee bean samples*two roasting
degrees*two C2WR*two brewing methods) (see Table 6) further
explained the impact of the sample combinations on the flavor profile of
the CB coffees. Six sensory characteristics (ashy(a), burnt(a), acrid(a),
musty/earthy (a), stale(f), stale(f)) whose LS means for all 32 sample
combinations (four-way interaction) were ≤2 were not included in the
AHC and PCA computations. This was done because the attribute in­
tensity estimates were so small to be noticed and if left in the dataset,
they would have impacted the accuracy of the AHC and PCA results.
Agglomerative hierarchical clustering (AHC) using wards’ method
grouped the 32 sample combinations into a total of 15 clusters based on
dissimilarity in terms of sensory characteristics (Fig. 5). The 15 clusters
varied on the number of sample combinations each cluster contained.

11
D.R. Seninde et al. Food Research International 137 (2020) 109667

Table 6 the sample combinations positioning on the sensory space based on

Sample Codes for the 32 sample combinations that were used in agglomerative sensory characteristics (Fig. 6). Robusta coffee beans (that were either
hierarchical clustering (AHC) and Principal component analysis (PCA). dry-processed or wet-processed) that were dark-roasted and dripped
Sample Species Roasting Brewing C2WR Sample using a higher C2WR were most differentiated from other sample
degree method combination code combinations by sensory attributes such as bitter taste and bitter after­
Dry-processed Dark Drip 8 ADDD8 taste, coffee ID, longevity, overall impact, roasted (f), woody(f), ashy(f),
Arabica smoky(f), burnt(f), acrid(f), and chocolate/dark chocolate(f). Although
Dry-processed Dark Steep 8 ADDS8 we cannot positively state what attributtes would drive liking of these
Arabica
samples, based on Bhumiratana, Wolf, Chambers, and Adhikari (2019),
Dry-processed Dark Drip 12 ADDD12
Arabica dark-roasted Robusta that was dripped using a higher C2WR could be
Dry-processed Dark Steep 12 ADDS8 associated with positive-high energy and productive feelings. Such
Arabica sample combinations could likely be marketed to consumers who are
Dry-processed Medium Drip 8 ADMD8 motivated to drink coffee mainly because they need the energy (need
Arabica
Dry-processed Medium Steep 8 ADMS8
and hunger), or those consumers who are accustomed to drinking
Arabica “strong” coffee (as a habit) (Phan & Chambers, 2016). It is worth noting
Dry-processed Medium Drip 12 ADMS12 that the findings of Bhumiratana et al. (2019) were based on hot coffee
Arabica brewing methods and not CB methods which were used in the current
Dry-processed Medium Steep 12 ADMS12
study. Seninde and Chambers (2020) identified a need for more inves­
Arabica
Wet-processed Dark Drip 8 AWDD8 tigation of sensory drivers of emotional responses and coffee acceptance
Arabica of novel RTD coffee beverages such as CB coffees which are increasingly
Wet-processed Dark Steep 8 AWDS8 popular (Topper, 2019).
Arabica Also, wet-processed Robusta that was dark-roasted and dripped
Wet-processed Dark Drip 12 AWDD12
using a lower C2WR and wet-processed Robusta that was medium-
Arabica
Wet-processed Dark Steep 12 AWDS12 roasted and dripped using a higher C2WR were both mostly differenti­
Arabica ated from other sample combinations by chocolate/dark chocolate (a)
Wet-processed Medium Drip 8 AWMD8 and roasted aroma.
Arabica
Conversely, wet-processed Arabica that was medium-roasted and
Wet-processed Medium Steep 8 AWMS8
Arabica either dripped or steeped using a lower C2WR were most associated with
Wet-processed Medium Drip 12 AWMD12 being balanced or blended. Authors noted also, that wet-processed
Arabica Arabica that was dark-roasted and dripped using a higher C2WR was
Wet-processed Medium Steep 12 AWMS12 most characterized by a higher intensity of cocoa aroma. Bhumiratana
Arabica
et al. (2019) found that consumers associated coffees that were most
Dry-processed Dark Drip 8 RDDD8
Robusta differentiated by cocoa(a) with positive emotions such as fulfilled,
Dry-processed Dark Steep 8 RDDS8 balanced, productive, awake, motivated, and energetic). Dry-processed
Robusta Arabica that was dark-roasted and dripped using either a lower or a
Dry-processed Dark Drip 12 RDDD12
higher C2WR were most differentiated by sensory attributes such as
Robusta
Dry-processed Dark Steep 12 RDDS12
fruity(a)(f), floral(a)(f), fermented(a)(f) and sweet aromatics(a).
Robusta
Dry-processed Medium Drip 8 RDMD8 4. Limitations
Robusta
Dry-processed Medium Steep 8 RDMS8
Although this study looked at several different aspects of coffee
Robusta
Dry-processed Medium Drip 12 RDMD12 (beans, roasting, cold brewing), the study is limited in its scope. Samples
Robusta representing other growing conditions, terroirs, geographic and climatic
Dry-processed Medium Steep 12 RDMS12 considerations, drying and processing, roast levels, or brewing methods
Robusta
could, and likely would, produce different interactions and different
Wet-processed Dark Drip 8 RWDD8
Robusta
results. That does not negate the fact that this study shows in a single
Wet-processed Dark Steep 8 RWDS8 study, the complexity of the issues surrounding the end “cup of coffee”
Robusta that a consumer drinks. It shows clearly that it is possible to manipulate
Wet-processed Dark Drip 12 RWDD12 various aspects of the product during its journey to the consumer in
Robusta
order to produce a uniquely designed sensory experience.
Wet-processed Dark Steep 12 RWDS12
Robusta In addition, the research did not measure the chemical or most
Wet-processed Medium Drip 8 RWMD8 phyical alterations in the beans and beverage during processing, roast­
Robusta ing, or brewing. This means that any information regarding the impact
Wet-processed Medium Steep 8 RWMS8 of the chemistry on the sensory aspects is an inference from prior
Robusta
Wet-processed Medium Drip 12 RWMD12
literature and not direct research findings of this study. Additional
Robusta research certainly is needed to determine such relationships.
Wet-processed Medium Steep 12 RWMS12 The degree to which the sensory differences impact consumer
Robusta acceptance also was not studied in this research. Because the goal of this
project was not to identify specific positive and negative sensory prop­
Two clusters contained only one sample combination each, eight clus­ erties, but to identify the types and degree to which interactions take
ters contained 2 sample combinations each, two clusters contained three place among various factors related to coffee the research we did not
sample combinations each, and two clusters contained four sample conduct a similar test with consumers. At some point, such research is
combinations each. The AHC findings highlighted the difficulty in cat­ important to determine what characteristics of these coffees, or other
egorizing of CB sample combinations. coffees, specific consumers segments desire in order to suggest optimal
PCA findings verified the results of AHC analysis and also visualized combinations of bean, roast, and brew.

12
D.R. Seninde et al. Food Research International 137 (2020) 109667

350

300

250
Dissimilarity

200

150

100

50

0
ADDD12
AWMS12

AWDS8

AWDS12

AWMS8
AWMD12

AWMD8

AWDD12

RWMS8

AWDD8

RWMS12
ADDD8

RWDS12

RDMD8

RWMD8

RDMS8

RWMD12

RWDD12

RDMD12

RDMS12
ADMS8

ADMS12

ADDS8

ADMD8

RWDS8

RWDD8

ADDS8

ADMS12
RDDS12

RDDS8

RDDD12

RDDD8
Fig. 5. Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering (AHC) dendrogram of the 32 sample combinations based on 36 sensory characteristics.

12

Fruity (a) Fermented (a)

10 Fermented (f) Floral (a)
Sweet aromatics (a)

8 Fruity (f)

Floral (f)
6
Color intensity Mouthdrying (f)
ADDD8 AWDD12
ADDD12 Cocoa (a) Chocolate/dark chocolate (f)
Nutty (a)
F2 (17.43 %)

4 Sweet (f) Longevity Coffee ID

Overall impact ADMS12
Green (a) Cocoa (f) Roasted (f)
Sweet aromatics (f) RDMD12 Acrid (f)
2 Green (f) Bitter (f)
ADMS12 Sour (f) RDDD8 Bitter (at)
ADMS8 Smoky (f)
ADDS8 RDMS12 RWMD12 Woody (f) RWDD12
Nutty (f) AWDS12 AWMS12 Ashy (f)
AWDD8 Chocolate/ dark chocolate (a)
0
Burnt (f)
Balance/Blended ADDS8 ADMD8 AWMD12 RDMS8 RWMS12 RDDD12
Musty/earthy (f)
AWMD8 AWDS8 RDDS8 RWDD8
RDDS12
-2 Smoky (a)
RDMD8 RWMS8
Woody (a) Roasted (a)
RWMD8
-4 AWMS8 RWDS8 RWDS12

-6
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10

F1 (42.08 %)

Active variables Active observations

Fig. 6. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) biplot of the 32 sample combinations based on 36 sensory characteristics.

5. Conclusions coffee are critically important. Suggestions of one type of coffee, roast­
ing, brew, or coffee to water ratio must be considered alongside other
This research suggests that interactions among variables for CB factors. Simply indicating that coffee is appropriate for CB is insufficient.

13
D.R. Seninde et al.
As such, this suggests that countries such as Uganda can improve the
competitiveness of its coffee on the international market through
increased marketing guidance – how specifically can particular coffee
best be used by consumers or coffee shops, for example. With guidance
from the coffee sensory and quality department, process owners such as
coffee farmers, and processors (both secondary and tertiary processors)
can, in part, contribute to the increased control of the flavor and sell a
more specific “sensory profile” rather than simply CB coffee.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Denis Richard Seninde: Methodology, Investigation, Data curation,
Visualization, Writing - original draft. Edgar Chambers: Conceptuali­
zation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing - review & editing. Delores
Chambers: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Software, Writing -
review & editing.
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.
Acknowledgments
The authors are indebted to the National Union of Coffee Agribusi­
nesses and Farm Enterprises (NUCAFE), the coffee farmer organization
in Uganda that provided the green coffee samples. Also, we thank the
staff of the Center for Sensory Analysis and Consumer Behavior who
assisted in conducting this research.
Funding
This research was supported, in part, by the National Institute of
Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hatch under
accession number 1016242.
References
Adhikari, J., Chambers, E., & Koppel, K. (2019). Impact of consumption temperature on
sensory properties of hot brewed coffee. Food Research International, 115(August),
95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.08.014
Adriana, F. (2009). Coffee as a functional beverage. Agro Food Industry Hi-Tech, 20(6),
36–39.
Akiyama, M., Murakami, K., Ikeda, M., Iwatsuki, K., Wada, A., Tokuno, K., …
Iwabuchi, H. (2007). Analysis of the headspace volatiles of freshly brewed arabica
coffee using solid-phase microextraction. Journal of Food Science, 72(7), C388–C396.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00447.x
Akiyama, M., Murakami, K., Ikeda, M., Iwatsuki, K., Kokubo, S., Wada, A., … Tanaka, K.
(2005). Characterization of flavor compounds released during grinding of roasted
robusta coffee beans. Food Science and Technology Research, 11(3), 298–307. https://
doi.org/10.3136/fstr.11.298
Albanese, D., Di Matteo, M., Poiana, M., & Spagnamusso, S. (2009). Espresso coffee (EC)
by POD: Study of thermal profile during extraction process and influence of water
temperature on chemical-physical and sensorial properties. Food Research
International, 42(5–6), 727–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2009.02.027
Angeloni, G., Guerrini, L., Masella, P., Bellumori, M., Daluiso, S., Parenti, A., &
Innocenti, M. (2019). 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. (2019).
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
ASTM International, E.-20. (2020). Standard Specification for Woven Wire Test Sieve
Cloth and Test Sieves. West Conshohocken, PA, USA: ASTM International. https://
doi.org/10.1520/E0011-20.
Baffes, J. (2006). Restructuring Uganda’s coffee industry: Why going back to basics
matters. Development Policy Review, 24(4), 413–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-7679.2006.00332.x
Belanich, A., Belanich, D., Belanich, N., & Crabo, A. (2017). Patent No. US9629493B2.
United States Patent Office. Retrieved from https://patents.google.com/pa
tent/US9629493B2/en.
14
Food Research International 137 (2020) 109667
Bertrand, B., Boulanger, R., Dussert, S., Ribeyre, F., Berthiot, L., Descroix, F., & Joët, T.
(2012). Climatic factors directly impact the volatile organic compound fingerprint in
green Arabica coffee bean as well as coffee beverage quality. Food Chemistry, 135(4),
2575–2583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.06.060
Bhumiratana, N., Adhikari, K., & Chambers, E. I. (2011). Evolution of sensory aroma
attributes from coffee beans to brewed coffee. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 44
(10), 2185–2192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2011.07.001
Bhumiratana, N., Wolf, M., Chambers, E., IV, & Adhikari, K. (2019). Coffee drinking and
emotions: Are there key sensory drivers for emotions? Beverages, 5(2), 27. https://
doi.org/10.3390/beverages5020027
Bicho, N. C., Leitão, A. E., Ramalho, J. C., De Alvarenga, N. B., & Lidon, F. C. (2013).
Identification of chemical clusters discriminators of Arabica and Robusta green
coffee. International Journal of Food Properties, 16(4), 895–904. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10942912.2011.573114
Buffo, R. A., & Cardelli-Freire, C. (2004). Coffee flavour: An overview. Flavour and
Fragrance Journal, 19(2), 99–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/ffj.1325
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
Casal, S., Oliveira, M. B. P. P., Alves, M. R., & Ferreira, M. A. (2000). Discriminate
analysis of roasted coffee varieties for trigonelline, nicotinic acid, and caffeine
content. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 48(8), 3420–3424. https://doi.
org/10.1021/jf990702b
Chambers, D. H., Allison, A. M. A., & Chambers, E., IV (2004). Training effects on
performance of descriptive panelists. Journal of Sensory Studies, 19(6), 486–499.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2004.082402.x
Chambers, E. (2017). Consensus methods for descriptive analysis. In S. Kemp, J. Hort, &
T. Hollowood (Eds.), Descriptive analysis in sensory evaluation (pp. 213–236).
Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118991657.
ch6.
Chambers, E., Bowers, J. A., & Dayton, A. D. (1981). Statistical designs and panel
training/experience for sensory analysis. Journal of Food Science, 46(6), 1902–1906.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1981.tb04515.x
Chambers, E., Sanchez, K., Phan, U. X. T., Miller, R., Civille, G. V., & Di Donfrancesco, B.
(2016). Development of a “living” lexicon for descriptive sensory analysis of brewed
coffee. Journal of Sensory Studies, 31(6), 465–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/
joss.12237
Chambers, E., & Smith, E. A. (1993). Use of qualitative research in product research and
development. In H. Lawless, & B. Klein (Eds.), Sensory science theory and applications
in food (pp. 395–412). New York: Marcel Dekker.
Cordoba, N., Pataquiva, L., Osorio, C., Moreno, F. L. M., & Ruiz, R. Y. (2019). Effect of
grinding, extraction time and type of coffee on the physicochemical and flavour
characteristics of cold brew coffee. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41598-019-44886-w
Costa Freitas, A. M., Parreira, C., & Vilas-Boas, L. (2001). The use of an electronic aroma-
sensing device to assess coffee differentiation - Comparison with SPME gas
chromatography-mass spectrometry aroma patterns. Journal of Food Composition and
Analysis, 14(5), 513–522. https://doi.org/10.1006/jfca.2001.0987
Cotter, A., & Hopfer, H. (2018). The effects of storage temperature on the aroma of whole
bean Arabica coffee evaluated by coffee consumers and HS-SPME-GC-MS. Beverages,
4(3), 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages4030068
de Melo Pereira, G. V., de 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 Chemistry, 272, 441–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodchem.2018.08.061
Dharmawan, A., Cahyo, F., & Widyotomo, S. (2018). Determining optimum point of
Robusta coffee bean roasting process for taste consistency. Pelita Perkebunan (a
Coffee and Cocoa Research Journal), 34(1), 59–65. https://doi.org/10.22302/iccri.
jur.pelitaperkebunan.v34i1.308
Di Donfrancesco, B., Gutierrez Guzman, N., & Chambers, E. (2014). Comparison of
results from cupping and descriptive sensory analysis of Colombian brewed coffee.
Journal of Sensory Studies, 29(4), 301–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12104
Di Donfrancesco, B., Gutierrez Guzman, N., & Chambers, E. (2019). Similarities and
differences in sensory properties of high quality Arabica coffee in a small region of
Colombia. Food Research International, 116, 645–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodres.2018.08.090
Dmowski, P., & Dąbrowska, J. (2014). Comparative study of sensory properties and color
in different coffee samples, Akademia Morska w Gdyni. Zeszyty Naukowe Akademii
Morskiej w Gdyni, 84, 28–36.
Dórea, J. G., & da Costa, T. H. M. (2005). Is coffee a functional food? British Journal of
Nutrition, 93(06), 773. https://doi.org/10.1079/BJN20051370
Dulsat-Serra, N., Quintanilla-Casas, B., & Vichi, S. (2016). Volatile thiols in coffee: A
review on their formation, degradation, assessment and influence on coffee sensory
quality. Food Research International, 89, 982–988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodres.2016.02.008
Espitia-López, J., Rogelio-Flores, F., Angel-Cuapio, A., Flores-Chávez, B., Arce-
Cervantes, O., Hernández-León, S., & Garza-López, P. M. (2019). Characterization of
sensory profile by the CATA method of Mexican coffee brew considering two
preparation methods: Espresso and French press. International Journal of Food
Properties. https://doi.org/10.1080/10942912.2019.1619577
Failla, J. (2019). U.S. Convenience Store Foodservice Market Report. London, UK.
Retrieved from https://store.mintel.com/us-convenience-store-foodservice-market-r
esearch-report.
D.R. Seninde et al.
Farah, A. (2012). Coffee constituents. Coffee: Emerging Health Effects and Disease
Prevention, 21–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119949893.ch2
Farah, A., De Paulis, T., Trugo, L. C., & Martin, P. R. (2005). Effect of roasting on the
formation of chlorogenic acid lactones in coffee. Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry, 53(5), 1505–1513. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf048701t
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), 17979. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-18247-4
Hariyadi, D. M., Tedja, C. A., Zubaidah, E., Yuwono, S. S., & Fibrianto, K. (2020).
Optimization of brewing time and temperature for caffeine and tannin levels in
Dampit coffee leaf tea of Robusta (Coffea canephora) and Liberica (Coffea liberica).
Potravinarstvo, 14, 58–68. https://doi.org/10.5219/1212
Hayakawa, F., Kazami, Y., Wakayama, H., Oboshi, R., Tanaka, H., Maeda, G., …
Miyabayashi, T. (2010). Sensory lexicon of brewed coffee for Japanese consumers,
untrained coffee professionals and trained coffee tasters. Journal of Sensory Studies,
25(6), 917–939. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2010.00313.x
Heo, J., Choi, K. S., Wang, S., Adhikari, K., & Lee, J. (2019). Cold Brew Coffee : Consumer
acceptability and characterization using the Check-all-that-Apply (CATA) method.
Foods, 8, 344.
International Coffee Organization (2019). World Coffee consumption for 2019/2020.
London, England.
International Organization for Standardization (2008). Green coffee — Preparation of
samples for use in sensory analysis (ISO 6668:2008. Geneva, Switzerland:
International Organization for Standardization. Retrieved from https://www.iso.
org/standard/44609.html.
Kalaska, B., Piotrowski, L., Leszczynska, A., Michalowski, B., Kramkowski, K.,
Kaminski, T., … Buczko, W. (2014). Antithrombotic effects of pyridinium
compounds formed from trigonelline upon coffee roasting. Journal of Agricultural and
Food Chemistry, 62(13), 2853–2860. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf5008538
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(August 2017), 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.11.017.
Keidel, A., Von Stetten, D., Rodrigues, C., Máguas, C., & Hildebrandt, P. (2010).
Discrimination of green Arabica and Robusta coffee beans by Raman spectroscopy.
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 58(21), 11187. https://doi.org/10.1021/
jf101999c
Król, K., Gantner, M., Tatarak, A., & Hallmann, E. (2020). The content of polyphenols in
coffee beans as roasting, origin and storage effect. European Food Research and
Technology, 246(1), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-019-03388-9
Kufa, T., Ayano, A., Yilma, A., Kumela, T., & Tefera, W. (2011). The contribution of
coffee research for coffee seed development in Ethiopia. E3 Journal of Agricultural
Research and Development, 1(1), 9–16.
Kumar, R., & Chambers, E. (2019). Lexicon for multiparameter texture assessment of
snack and snack-like foods in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Hindi. Journal of
Sensory Studies, 34, Article e12500. https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12500
Lane, S., Palmer, J., Christie, B., Ehlting, J., & Le, C. (2017). Can cold brew coffee be
convenient? A pilot study For caffeine content in cold brew coffee concentrate using
high performance liquid chromatography. The Arbutus Review, 8(1), 15–23. https://
doi.org/10.18357/tar81201716816
Lang, R., Yagar, E. F., Wahl, A., Beusch, A., Dunkel, A., Dieminger, N., … Hofmann, T.
(2013). Quantitative studies on roast kinetics for bioactives in coffee. Journal of
Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 61(49), 12123. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf403846g
Machado, E., Mussatto, S., Teixeira, J., Vilanova, M., & Oliveira, J. (2018). Increasing the
sustainability of the coffee agro-industry: Spent coffee grounds as a source of new
beverages. Beverages, 4(4), 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages4040105
Martinez, M. N., & Bartholomew, M. J. (2017). What does it “mean”? A review of
interpreting and calculating different types of means and standard deviations.
Pharmaceutics, 9(2), 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics9020014
Masi, C., Dinnella, C., Barnabà, M., Navarini, L., & Monteleone, E. (2013). Sensory
properties of under-roasted coffee beverages. Journal of Food Science, 78(8). https://
doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.12211
McGuire, R. G. (1992). Reporting of objective color measurements. HortScience, 27(12),
1254–1255.
Mendes, L. C., de Menezes, H. C., Aparecida, M., & Da Silva, A. P. (2001). Optimization of
the roasting of robusta coffee (C. canephora conillon) using acceptability tests and
RSM. Food Quality and Preference, 12(2), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-
3293(00)00042-2
Moon, J. K., & Shibamoto, T. (2009). Role of roasting conditions in the profile of volatile
flavor chemicals formed from coffee beans. Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry, 57(13), 5823–5831. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf901136e
15
Food Research International 137 (2020) 109667
Moores, R. G., & Greninger, D. M. (1951). Determination of trigonelline in coffee.
Analytical Chemistry, 23(2), 327–331. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac60050a025
National Coffee Association. (2019). NCA National Coffee Data Trends 2019. Retrieved
from https://nationalcoffee.blog/2019/03/09/national-coffee-drinking-trends-20
19/.
Nicoli, M. C., Calligaris, S., & Manzocco, L. (2009). Shelf-life testing of coffee and related
products: Uncertainties, pitfalls, and perspectives. Food Engineering Reviews, 1(2),
159–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12393-009-9010-8
Oestreich-Janzen, S. (2010). Chemistry of Coffee. In Comprehensive Natural Products II
(pp. 1085–1117). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008045382-8.00708-5.
Phan, U. T. X., & Chambers, E. (2016). Motivations for choosing various food groups
based on individual foods. Appetite, 105, 204–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
appet.2016.05.031
Pujchakarn, T., Suwonsichon, S., & Suwonsichon, T. (2016). Development of a sensory
lexicon for a specific subcategory of soy sauce: Seasoning soy sauce. Journal of
Sensory Studies, 31(6), 443–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12234
Rainey, B. A. (1986). Importance of reference standards in training panelists. Journal of
Sensory Studies, 1(2), 149–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1986.
tb00167.x
Salamanca, C. A., Fiol, N., González, C., Saez, M., & Villaescusa, I. (2017). Extraction of
espresso coffee by using gradient of temperature. Effect on physicochemical and
sensorial characteristics of espresso. Food Chemistry, 214, 622–630. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.07.120
Salmaa Dwiranti, N., Ardiansyah, A., & Asiah, N. (2019). Sensory attributes of cold brew
coffee products at various resting time rfter roasting process. Pelita Perkebunan (a
Coffee and Cocoa Research Journal), 35(1), 42–50. https://doi.org/10.22302/iccri.
jur.pelitaperkebunan.v35i1.349
Sanchez, K., & Chambers, E. (2015). How does product preparation affect sensory
properties? An example with coffee. Journal of Sensory Studies, 30(6), 499–511.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12184
Seninde, D. R., & Chambers, E. (2020). Coffee flavor: A review. Beverages, 6(3), 44.
https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages6030044
Snipes, K. (2017). Uganda Coffee Annual 2016 Coffee Report. 2015–2018.
Suwonsichon, S. (2019). The importance of sensory lexicons for research and
development of food products. Foods, 8(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/
foods8010027
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
Topper, A. (2019). U.S. Coffee and Tea On Premise Market Report. London, UK.
Retrieved from https://store.mintel.com/us-coffee-and-tea-on-premise-market-r
eport.
Tran, T., James, M. N., Chambers, D., Koppel, K., & Chambers, E. (2019). Lexicon
development for the sensory description of rye bread. Journal of Sensory Studies, 34
(1), Article e12474. https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12474
Trugo, L. C., & Macrae, R. (1984). A study of the effect of roasting on the chlorogenic acid
composition of coffee using HPLC. Food Chemistry, 15(3), 219–227. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0308-8146(84)90006-2
Uman, E., Colonna-Dashwood, M., Colonna-Dashwood, L., Perger, M., Klatt, C.,
Leighton, S., … Hendon, C. H. (2016). The effect of bean origin and temperature on
grinding roasted coffee. Scientific Reports, 6, 24483. https://doi.org/10.1038/
srep24483
USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. (2019). Coffee: World Markets and Trade. In Coffee:
World Markets and Trade. Washington, DC, USA.
Vignoli, J. A., Viegas, M. C., Bassoli, D. G., & Benassi, M.de T. (2014). Roasting process
affects differently the bioactive compounds and the antioxidant activity of Arabica
and Robusta coffees. Food Research International, 61, 279–285. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodres.2013.06.006
Voilley, A., Sauvageot, F., Simatos, D., & Wojcik, G. (1981). Influence of some processing
conditions on the quality of coffee brew. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, 5
(3), 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4549.1981.tb00629.x
Wang, H., Chambers, E., & Kan, J. (2018). Sensory characteristics of combinations of
phenolic compounds potentially associated with smoked aroma in foods. Molecules,
23(8), 1867. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules23081867
Wang, H., & Chambers, E., IV (2018). Sensory characteristics of various concentrations of
phenolic compounds potentially associated with smoked aroma in foods. Molecules,
23(4), 780. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules23040780
Worku, M., Duchateau, L., & Boeckx, P. (2016). Reproducibility of coffee quality cupping
scores delivered by cupping centers in Ethiopia. Journal of Sensory Studies, 31(5),
423–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12226