vne ai,C,966 S.Drc nure oato unr (E-mail: Guinard Shields author One to Davis, inquiries California, Califor- Direct Ristenpart of USA. of Univ. Author Univ. 95616, Engineering, [email protected]). USA. Technology, CA, Chemical 95616, and Davis, of CA, Science Avenue, Dept. Davis, Food Avenue, with of Shields is Dept. One Davis, with nia, are Guinard and osigo h a edi nipratdie o ayo the of many for driver important an the is that seed documented raw well the is It of Schmalzried, 2009). roasting (Poisson, Kerler, process & then Blank, roasting are cof- Davidek, which the Green precursors, 2016). during flavor al., and et transformed aroma Uman the 2017; contain al., seeds fee Gloess et Ribeiro 2018; 2008; Hopfer, al., & et L Cotter 2013; 2012; al., and et al., grinding, et roasting, (Bertrand storage, brewing from green resulting techniques, pro- mixture and cessing harvesting chemical influences, complex environmental genomics, a plant is the cup final The vor. experience. consumer the benefit in-cup could the from experience detract sensory of or investigation enhance an methods brewing Thus, specific paramount. how is brewing and quality during beverage in- affected sustainability how this is of With understanding 2006). emphasis, promise Cash, consumer the & creased of Boxall, as variety (Arnot, well a responsibility as social desire aromas, consumers and that flavors confirmed has research vious Introduction Guinard Jean-Xavier and Ristenpart, Coffee D. William Frost, Brewed C. Scott Drip of Quality Acceptance Sensory Consumer the and on Geometry Basket of Effect ute erdcinwtotpriso sprohibited is permission without reproduction Further 10.1111/1750-3841.14696 doi: FS21-18Sbitd1/621,Acpe /721.AtosFrost Authors 5/17/2019. Accepted 12/26/2018, Submitted JFDS-2018-2118 C 09Isiueo odTechnologists Food of Institute 2019 uttd fbooia n hsclfcosdiecfe fla- coffee drive factors physical and biological of multitude A pre- and 2018), (USDA, increasing is coffee for demand The rcia Application: Practical Keywords: Abstract: o i trbts lhuhbeiggoer,a igefco,wsol infiatydfeetfrtreindependent three for ( different attributes two significantly for only was factor, single flavor grind a by as and geometry, attributes ( threshold 11 brewing difference for attributes roast Although sensory by a differences attributes. estimated significant showed six we (DA) and analysis for descriptive %TDS, subsequent higher A significantly %TDS. brewed that had 0.24 but basket of drip discernable, ( semi-conical of different not the significantly were in acceptance were size brewed baskets particle consumer particle coffee filter and flat-bottom median and or roast in semi-conical quality coffee differences either small with sensory using brewed that conjunction the showed in tests evaluated on were discrimination geometry Initial flat-bottom, size. basket and semi-conical brew geometries, of basic Two effects coffee. the evaluate to used aktgoer,ratlvl n rn ieo h oa isle ois esr rpris n cetblt fdrip of acceptability coffee. their and of properties, quality sensory sensory the solids, optimize dissolved to total opportunity an the alike on consumers and size producers grind gives coffee and brewed level, roast geometry, basket ee hwdlse cetne vrl,terslssrnl orbrt h yohssta aktgoer fet the affects geometry basket that hypothesis the coffee. brewed corroborate drip strongly of results quality the sensory analysis Overall, cluster acceptance. by lesser analyzed showed was level scale) hedonic (9-point liking consumer ( Overall liking/disliking. consumer of drivers key N = , bitterness 5,wihrvae ordsic rfrnecutr.Frec lse,apriua aktgoer n/rroast and/or geometry basket particular a cluster, each For clusters. preference distinct four revealed which 85), drc ta. 01 eo ta. 06 Lindinger 2006; al., et Leroy 2011; al., et aderach ¨ mk aroma smoke aktgoer,cnue iig ecitv nlss rpcoffee drip analysis, descriptive liking, consumer geometry, basket nti ok iciiaintss ecitv nlss osmrtss n oa isle ois(D)were (TDS) solids dissolved total and tests, consumer analysis, descriptive tests, discrimination work, this In , un wood/ash burnt bitterness , otAeiascnuedi rwdcfe.Ipoigorudrtnigo h fet of effects the of understanding our Improving coffee. brewed drip consume Americans Most sweetness and R , irsflavor citrus oa aroma floral ,and oac flavor tobacco , .Atiue hwn infiatitrcin ihbrewing with interactions significant showing Attributes ). atyflavor earthy ), roast ,and × geometry sourness al a ihra“eicncl r“a-otm emty(cf. typi- geometry basket “flat-bottom” brew or The “semi-conical” coffee. a ground either freshly has the drip cally holding structure all and physical among the filter is commonality the which to A basket, brew cup. machines the single is automatic brewers a capacity produce large that from those brewing ranging for choices coffee, equipment drip multiple is have through water pass Consumers hot and filter. grounds as coffee a coffee of bed the a through of “drip” out to allowed washed and extracted are pounds day 2018). the Association, coffee Coffee drip (National traditional United consumed prior the over, and in National surveyed 18 people aged The States, of Currently, 45% 1972). reports in- Coffee Association (Abel, Mr. common Coffee the a by 1970’s is drip the coffee in brand Drip popularized 2013). first method al., home et & Gloess Civitella, 2014; Canela, Sacchi, Genovese, composition (Caporaso, chemical properties different sensory of and coffees produce having to method brewing capacity each the with 1988), Davis, & (Pang- geography Guinard, and born, trends, to social linked culture, be lifestyle, can as method such given factors a for preference The shops. coffee 2016). in al., et Uman the of 2017; into Rao, process compounds & physical aroma (Fuller the beverage and as final flavor well of been extraction as has and quality brewing, size sensory particle affect to median Additionally, shown 2010). (Bicho, Hofmann, result- degradation & complexity Strecker and this reaction Leit of Maillard much the from with ing flavors, coffee impactful rpcfe olw omnpooo hr hmclcom- chemical where protocol common a follows coffee Drip and home at both options, brewing of variety a have Consumers o aah,d laeg,&Ldn 03 lmeg Frank, Blumberg, 2013; Lidon, & Alvarenga, de Ramalho, ao, ˜ )andthe neatoswr infiatfrsxatiue ( attributes six for significant were interactions grind o.0 s.0 2019 0, Iss. 0, Vol. × geometry P < 0.05, neato a significant was interaction r N ora fFo Science Food of Journal = geometry 5.Additionally, 45). eealso were berry R 1

Sensory & Consumer Sciences 2facto- × C. Service ° 2 × m as “medium,” µ 2 design produced four coffees brewed using the light C. The brewer was then given a 2:30 drip out period. ° m as “coarse.” We emphasize that these designations might × µ A two-factor design utilizing geometry (flat-bottom and semi- Quantitative descriptive analysis (Lawless & Heymann, 2010) The service of coffee was standardized across all experimental differ from descriptions sometimesfee industry; used the qualitatively grind inrange sizes the of used grind cof- here sizes were commonly chosen usedas for to “fine” drip bracket or brew, and the “coarse” are denoted in comparison to each other. rial design with roastsemi-conical), (dark and and light), grind geometry (finepanel (flat-bottom and was and coarse) composed as of factors.tween 12 The the volunteers trained (six ages females, ofon six 18 their males, to be- interest 34 andof years). four availability, but Panelists or were also morevice.” selected coffee correct Each pairs based panelist discrimination as attendedperiod. described five training in During sessions section the over “Coffee acompleted initial ser- with 2-week two the sessions, assistance attribute of the generation Coffee was Taster’s Flavor Wheel median particle sizeand of the approximately coarsest 1,000 1,200 grind with median particle size approximately & Diller, 2008). Coffeesfashion, were that presented is, incoffee a sequential, was coffee served. monadic was served, and tasted before the next conical) and grindThis (fine 2 and medium) asroast. factors All was six developed. compared combinations using triangle (Figure testing. Data 3) wereperiod, collected of during over a which the 10-day 14 four sessionspants with per coffees session a were maximum offered. were of Aall total five of partici- six 45 evaluations. participants Tasting completed sessionstemperature controlled, were tasting conducted booths, in litvisual individual, with differences among red the lights coffees. toangle For mask was a single presented session, in eachservice”), series tri- as along described with above twoan (section unsalted empty “ crackers, to a expectorate.each cup Prior panelist to of evaluating was water, the presented and the six dark a triangles, roast demonstration and light triangle roastsix coffees. triangles comparing The was presentation randomized order by of sessionthe the thus, same each triangle panelist received order, butout within was a randomized given triangle by participant. the odd coffee was used todifferences describe among the and eight coffees quantify brewed the to a flavor, 2 aroma, and taste testing. All coffee was brewedno and point served fresh was for coffee each heldprepared session; by or loading at partial 1,200 batch gof of reused. ground water Each into coffee coffee the into was water theon tank the brew and “gold basket. 66 cup” All g setting brewers offlow were the operated rate). Breville Precision The brewer (4 temperaturewas mL/s of 95 the waterFor exiting service, the a spray 200(height head mL 8 ivory-color china cm, (ceramic) openingof mug diameter was 5.5 7.5 used cm). cm,into and Each the a cup cup bottom and was diameter heating allowing water, preheated approximately it 100 by to g of rest pouringthe coffee for cup. was boiling The 60 then poured coffee water s. into temperature Afterheld was discarding then thermocouple the measured and with atemperature served was hand- within at the approximately range 65 of minimal scald hazard (Brown Discrimination testing Descriptive analysis Coffee service ¨ onig (Agtron 48.8) (Agtron 32.0) was a light roast m). The coffee industry µ dark roast Vol. 0, Iss. 0, 2019 r m as “fine,” the intermediate grind with µ Journal of Food Science Roast level, brewing basket geometry, and grind distribution In the current study, the effect of basket geometry was examined feeder and thelacks R7 standardized lens names (18 forof specific to this grind 3,500 work, sizes. we Forsize refer the approximately to purpose 800 the smallest grind with median particle three grind settings wereHELOS/RODOS measured in laser triplicate analyzer usingZellerfel, a (Sympatec Germany) Sympatec equipped GmbH, with Clausthal- the Sympatec Vibir vibratory to be inserted directly into thebrew flat-bottom basket basket and geometry. thus All alter the coffeeGuatemala Lab was Grinder ground set using toparticle a either grind size Mahlk number distribution 3, (Figure 4, 2) or 5. for The each coffee at each of the ometries were compared: a flat-bottombasket basket, (Figure and 1). a A semi-conical Breville Precision brewercoffee, was since used it to was brew designed the to easily allow the semi-conical basket of each coffee was determined accordinggourmet to the scale AGTRON/SCAA (Staub, 1995).blend The of Latin Americanwas origin a blend and of the Colombian and Ethiopian origin. Two basket ge- were evaluated forcommercially each available specialty experimental coffees were phase used. The as roast level indicated. Two 2 Materials and Methods Coffee origin and preparation easily manipulate. These parameters alsoof affect the the overall coffee strength brew,(TDS). which was measured by total dissolved solids determine what differences coulddifferences could be impact quantified, consumer acceptance andthese of how experiments, drip those brew coffee. For basketwere varied, geometry, as grind, those are and three brewing roast factors level that consumers can while also consideringand the roast level. physical A coffeeusing series coffee parameters of prepared sensory of in experiments a grind were commercially performed available drip brewer to ical composition of coffeebrewing exhibits (Lee, complicated Kempthorne, dynamics & during Hardy,Mastdagh, 1992; Davidek, Ludwig Chaumonteuil, et Folmer, al., & 2012; Blank, 2014). method with these two basket geometries,physical the parameters, specifics of design, how the andaffect program the of these flavor dripGenerally of speaking, machines coffee many have researchers not have noted been that systematically the studied. chem- ent brew basket geometries;how one there geometry are compared with many theflavorful other anecdotal coffee. yields claims Despite stronger, more of the widespread use of the drip brewing axisymmetric; it is elongated in the direction oriented into the page. Figure 1). The coffeethe brewing quality community is of polarized drip regarding produced from the two differ- Figure 1–Schematic representation of (A)the the semi-conical basket flat (not bottom to basket scale). and Note (B) the semi-conical basket is not Basket geometry and drip coffee quality . . .

Sensory & Consumer Sciences eeoe vrtenx he riigssin.Floigthese, Following sessions. were training 1) three (Table next standards the 2016). over reference Guinard, developed and & Velez, terminology Sage, Spencer, Consensus 2016; al., et (Chambers exact the with showing along results testing 3–Discrimination Figure media the with plotted, are treatment per replicates Three settings. grinder different line. three dashed at the at coffee indicated each numerically size for particle distribution size 2–Particle Figure . . . quality coffee drip and geometry Basket n rvddtbe,pnlssfis ogdit h e aedata Jade Us- Red expectorate. the to into cup logged first empty unsalted panelists an tablet, two and provided with a water, along ing of served cup was a coffee crackers, Each lit lights. booths red were tasting Evaluations with individual temperature-controlled effects. over in block out carry Square tasted possible carried for Latin coffees control Williams six to randomized were design with a design sessions, following the the four session For in over per shown). coffees triplicate not eight in analy- (data the evaluated and data analysis, the testing descriptive of booth formal (ANOVA) in variance by of confirmed sis was alignment panel P vle h ifrnei en%D ewe w ofe sidctdby indicated is coffees two between %TDS mean in difference The -value. P vle n en%D.Sgicnebtentocfesi niae ihadul edarrow head double a with indicated is coffees two between Significance %TDS. mean and -values osmrpreference Consumer cl Pra igi,15) -on utaotrgtscale hedonic right were 9-point about coffees just Four the task. 5-point (CATA) check-all-that-apply a used a 1957), and (JAR), that Pilgrim, & questionnaire (Peryam scale a through tion 5c iesaewr hnepre sa10pitsaefrdata for scale 100-point a as the exported from then Measurements were analysis. displayed cm. scale 15 and line of line The length 1, cm scale. visual Table 15 a line had in unstructured tablet scoring. shown the cm in begin order 15 a to the using instructed in scored and evaluated LLC, served were Solutions, then Attributes Software were Sensory they Jade 2018); (Red system collection ihyfiecfe osmr rvddpeeec informa- preference provided consumers coffee Eighty-five . o.0 s.0 2019 0, Iss. 0, Vol. r ora fFo Science Food of Journal 3 n

Sensory & Consumer Sciences and with Judge -value were P Replicate , Judge , -score and -value. If the factors of the Z Grind P , 0.05 was used for all appropriate = Using the number of correct re- α Geometry , Roast Preparation Intensity ratings for each individual descriptive term as main effects. LSD Tukey’s values were then calculated. The percentage TDS was measured using a digital refractometer With the exception of the stepwise ANOVA, statistical analysis Discrimination testing. Descriptive analysis, ANOVA, and principal component (VST). A 75-mL sampleto of cool fresh to brewed hot roomrefractometer coffee temperature was zeroed was in with allowed aThe room covered cooled temperature 100 coffee milli-Q was mL then water. beaker. mixed The and analyzed. was performed using R,Team, 2018). version Significance 3.5.0 of “Joy inmethods. Playing” The (R stepwise ANOVA Core wasR2017b completed (The using Mathworks, MATLAB Inc., Natwick, MS, USA). sponses for acalculated given (Lawless triangle & Heymann, test, 2010). the analysis. were analyzed using a five-waythe fixed effect main ANOVA model, effects with of Percent total dissolved solids (%TDS) Data analysis terms, the evaluated term wasorder then nonsignificant retained, term and was thenificant evaluated. next interaction, In highest Tukey’s least the significant absencereported difference of for (LSD) main a was effects. sig- Mean separationdetermined among by interactions ANOVA using was the interaction alongReplicate with Principal component analysis (PCA) wastributes applied determined to by significant ANOVA. Each at- attributevariance was prior scaled to to unit applying PCA. their two-, three-, andprocedure four-way was interactions. applied Ascriptive to stepwise attribute. fitting find The the procedurefull best began model, fit with followed the modelnonsignificant by term, results for stepwise with of each the removal the model largest de- term of selected for the removal comprised highest lower order significant order Vol. 0, Iss. 0, 2019 r 5; “What style of coffee do you usually drink?” Drip, > Journal of Food Science sugar, artificial sweetener, milk, cream, non-dairy,ing; other, “What noth- style ofPress, Pour coffee Over, do Aeropress, Moka you Pot,Not prepare , at Drip, at Home. Other, home?” French to 5, Instant, Espresso, , , Moka“What Pot, do French you Press; normally add to coffee?” Brown sugar, white After all four coffeessurvey for were the evaluated, following variables: consumers “Age,” dividedble filled into categories; six an possi- “Ethnicity,” divided exit into“Gender,” six possible four categories; categories; “Cups per day,” 0 to 1, 2 to 3, 4 rus, Tobacco, Chocolate, Berry, Rubber, Wood, Raisin,Wood/Ash, Musty/Dusty, Floral, Burnt Smoke, Sweet, Earthy, Dried Fruit, Hay Like. intensity of the roast flavor?” A final check-all-that-apply (CATA) question: 5) “Whichwould word you use to best describefrom the a coffee? list Check of all the that following descriptors: apply” Sour, Bitter, Cocoa, Cit- Two JAR questions usingtoo a 5-point intense scale to ranging muchintensity too from of much weak: the 3) coffee “How flavor?” would 4) you rate “How the would you rate the Two questions using theDislike 9-point Extremely to hedonic Like scale Extremely:opinion ranging 1) of “What from this is coffee?” yourthe 2) overall overall “How flavor much (taste and do aroma) you of like this or coffee?” dislike r r r r 4 sessions. The ballot questions were as follows. five, with each consumercontrolled assigned tasting to booth. an Each individual coffeedescribed was temperature- in prepared section and “Coffee servedsession (as service”) of in five random consumers, series with for a each total of 85 consumers over 23 evaluated using a two-factor design,bination of with one each roast brewed as level(flat-bottom (dark a or or com- light) semi-conical). andfour Grind one coffees. geometry Consumers setting level were 3 scheduled was and served used in for groups of all Wood Flavor Popsicle sticks SmokeAromaSournessSweetnessTobacco Flavor I Drop, Wright’s Liquid Smoke Mesquite Camel cigarettes 0.05% (Turkish citric and 1.0% acid Domestic sucrose solution blend), solution 1 cigarette crushed Hazelnut FlavorMolasses FlavorMusty/Dusty FlavorRaisin FlavorRubber Flavor 1 Tbsp, La Kretschmer Tourangelle Wheat Artisan Germ Oils 1/4 Roasted Cup Hazelnut mixed Oil into 3/4 cup MQ water, Grandma’s Original Molasses (unsulphured) 1/4 Cup Sun-Maid Rubber raisins, bands all choped and microwaved on high for 30 seconds with 1/4 cup MQ water Earthy FlavorFloralAromaGrain/Malt FlavorHay Like Flavor Miracle-Gro Potting Equal Mix parts: soil General Mills Dried Rice chamomile Chex, flowers General Mills Wheaties McCormick and Parsley Quaker Flakes Quick Oats cereals Citrus FlavorCocoa FlavorDark Green FlavorDried Fruit Flavor Fresh Equal lemon parts juice juice diluted 1/4 from: 1:1 Cup Green mixed Sun-Maid Giant into prune cut 3/4 green jucie cup bean, MQ Del water, Monte Hershey’s Cocoa spinach, Powder Del Natural Monte Unsweetened asparagus spears BitternessBrown Roast FlavorBrown Spice FlavorBurnt Wood/Ash FlavorChocolate Flavor 1 Tbps, Paper C&H ashes, Pure wood Cane ash, 1 Sugar, 1 Tsp Golden tbsp each: Brown water ground cinamon, 0.05% ground nutmeg, clove, McCormick brand Nestle Toll House Semi-Sweet Chocolate Morsels Almond FlavorAstringencyBerry Flavor Raw almond slices, Diamond brand 0.05% Alum solution, McCormick 1 brand Tbsp, Private Selection Triple Berry Preserves Table 1–Concensus attribute descriptions and preperation methodStandard for descriptive analysis standards. Basket geometry and drip coffee quality . . .

Sensory & Consumer Sciences o aho h i trbts ln ihps-o en separation means letter. post-hoc by with indicated along (LSD) attributes, six the of each for ometry neatoswr lofudfor found also were interactions ( roast. light the flavor raisin aroma flavor cocoa he.Cfesbee ihtedr ose ofe irrespective coffee, roasted dark the of with brewed Coffees three. grind in indicated attributes by Differences significant bold. with factors experimental mary performance panel analysis. descriptive that this conclude for We adequate was attributes. of majority the interactions the geometry) the examining (roast/grind/basket and by coffee by assessed judge were the panel for judges the repro- the of and alignment of ability Concept the ducibility coffees. to the among speak discriminate also to number These a attributes. for geometry) sensory basked of and grind, roast, by (and examination nificantly An assessment C. Information performance Supporting of panel the of in shown purpose is only, the for (8) performed in which the we interactions, two-way only shown their with and are ANOVA replications, three-way judges, method coffees, additional fitting an And iterative 2. the Table Cal- evaluated. from be F-ratios could factors culated among interactions the and factor ( grind fine coarse semi-conical, flat-bottom, the the with between compared shown grind also was ( ( semi-conical discrimination the recorded for were correct responses 15 Using and correct 0.292) 3). 18 Figure basket, coarse; flat-bottom with compared the (fine the modified but was constant, remained grind geometry brewing the when medium found the not at found and was correct and 25 result with grind, semi-conical similar the A baskets. between flat-bottom brewed the coffee the ( participants discriminate 45 of equivalent to 23 an grind, at fine the geometries At brewing grind. two the between discrimination shown significant was coffees, four the Among participants. 45 in drop 2013). mean Carr, & the Castura, checked” calculate (Meyners, to “not liking used and hedonic were “checked” results be- JAR of difference descriptors. the means as Q hedonic calculated Cochran overall was tween lift the Penalty of applying significant, by If Significant effects test. ANOVA. determined by were Significant determined attributes CATA were clustering. fol- cluster calculated, hierarchal and was Ward’s treatment opinion by overall for lowed ratings hedonic sumers’ ecitv analysis Descriptive testing Discrimination Results . . . quality coffee drip and geometry Basket n h a-otm n rn oprdwt h semi-conical, the with ( compared grind grind coarse fine flat-bottom, the and mk ao,sweetness flavor, smoke G al ipastema trbt neste o aho h pri- the of each for intensities attribute mean the displays 3 Table main each that such designed was experiment five-factor The by evaluated sets triangle six the of results the displays 3 Figure testing. Consumer F geometry rto nete NV hw httecfesdfee sig- differed coffees the that shows ANOVA either in -ratios eometry , a infiatfrsxatiue,adbrewing and attributes, six for significant was iue4dsly the displays 4 Figure . oac flavor tobacco F rto o h elctos hywr o infiatfor significant not were They replications. the for -ratios , ,and a-ieflavor hay-like or hwdsgicn ifrne o he attributes three for differences significant showed P grind, = sweetness ,and 0.048). roast eedsrbdb increased by described were ,and odflavor, wood , h ulda itnebtencon- between distance Euclidean The eesonfr1 ecitv attributes, descriptive 11 for shown were itres un odahflavor wood/ash burnt Bitterness, ecie h orcfesbee with brewed coffees four the described aentflavor hazelnut P oac flavor tobacco = roast .0.Sgicn ifrne were differences Significant 0.004. roast × hl increased while geometry by , al ) u significant but 3), Table , geometry ut/dsyflavor dusty musty/ P = P neato a plot bar interaction = .9) Significant 0.394). ,and .2)wr able were 0.024) hclt flavor chocolate oassflavor molasses geometry P grind ,and < F , 0.001) -ratios by smoke earthy P for ge- = , , os,btwe oprn h w emtiswti h dark the within geometries two brews, the roast comparing when but roast, flavor rwn akt h ih ose ofeddntso neffect an show not perceived did flat-bottom for coffee the geometry roasted than of light semi-conical The the basket. in brewing higher be to perceived pno ftecfe n iigo h ofeflvrwsfound was flavor coffee the of between liking correlation strong and a coffee ( coffee but the the flavor, of coffee of opinion the opinion overall of extended regarding liking This questions and evaluated geometry). liking specific brewing both a a or consumers, to for level, 85 roast shown the (coffee, not Within factor was (57.6%). to liking day zero overall per consuming significant coffee (43.5%), of descent (80.0%), cup Islander years one Pacific 24 to or majority 18 Asian The aged of 4. (62.4%), Table women in were shown consumers are of consumers 85 the of graphics eut steANOVA. the as results component. second the of Dr-Fb-Coarse direction with negative the together in positioned found are Dr-Co-Coarse and light the as discrimination osmracceptance Consumer However, oeitnewe rwdi h eicnclbasket. flavor semi-conical citrus the in brewed when intense more eatiue othe to attributed light be the coffees. of Lr-Co-Coarse and separation Lr-Co-Fine The of position is the which by geometry, and echoed roast between interaction an have to shown ybse emtyfrperceived for affected geometry not basket was by coffee than roasted dark intense The more geometry. as flat-bottom perceived the being semi-conical the with coffee trbtssoe infiatitrcinbetween interaction significant showed attributes tributes, re flavor green and The trbt nest nrae ttefine the coarse at increased intensity attribute hwdn ifrneby difference no showed perceived he ramns( treatments three various showing samples Bitterness aroma higher having as aroma perceived was grind he-a neato of interaction three-way but nlssdtst ln h rtpicplcmoet h coffees the descriptive component, the by principal within discriminated first variation are in the of Along plotted 85.5% dataset. components, analysis for two account first 5, The Figure coffees. brewed eight the ih n h orlight four the and right ihtefiegidcoe otepo rgn diinly light Additionally, origin. plot brewing the by to separates closer roast grind fine the with roast opnn.Tefu dark four The component. r = h eainhpbtenPAsoe n odnssossimilar shows loadings and scores PCA between relationship The eoi aig n lse analysis. cluster and ratings Hedonic rn a infiatsuc fvrainfrsxsnoyat- sensory six for variation of source significant a was Grind rnia opnn nlsssosa vrl iwo the of view overall an shows analysis component Principal oa aroma floral atyflavor earthy roast 0.90, ahwr infiatyhge ncfesbee ihdark with brewed coffees in higher significantly were each , coffees, hwdasignificant a showed o h ihe os ofe Additionally, coffee. roast lighter the for grind rw os flavor roast brown erae ttecoarse the at decreased × re ri flavor fruit dried , ,and bitterness df a-ieflavor hay-like . geometry bitterness = Grind grind ipasadsria neato.Fgr hw the shows 4 Figure interaction. disordinal a displays 338). sourness sas hw ntePCA. the in shown also is roast ihntelgtratbes a significantly was brews, roast light the within , eaae ln h rtpicplcomponent principal first the along separates hwdasgicn neato with interaction significant a showed o.0 s.0 2019 0, Iss. 0, Vol. re ri flavor fruit dried neato for interaction , roast , un odahflavor wood/ash burnt grind er flavor Berry eeec oeitnei h ih roast light the in intense more each were ,and roast ubrflavor, rubber and ubrflavor rubber ihtefu akratcfest the to coffees roast dark four the with , , roast roast geometry un odahflavor wood/ash burnt un odahflavor wood/ash burnt ,and roast geometry oa aroma floral roast ofe otelf.Wti h light the Within left. the to coffees mk aroma smoke ofe.D-oFn,Dr-Fb-Fine, Dr-Co-Fine, coffees. ttefiegid u h coarse the but grind, fine the at grind ygidaogtefis Ccan PC first the along grind by sourness geometry ofe ontso similar a show not do coffees , × bitterness and irsflavor citrus ihec fteegtcoffee eight the of each with intensities. r ln h eodprincipal second the along o ahbeiggeometry, brewing each for grind ora fFo Science Food of Journal re ri flavor fruit dried oa aroma floral Fgr ) ahattribute Each 4). (Figure grind and nrlto oec of each to relation in ) Tbe3.I ahcase, each In 3). (Table ,and neato Fgr 4). (Figure interaction , h olce demo- collected The un odahflavor wood/ash burnt oprdwt the with compared irsflavor citrus ,and ,and bitterness , atyflavor earthy oo flavor cocoa aho these of Each . roast sourness atyflavor earthy er flavor, Berry and and . and roast , grind were were floral floral dark for 5 . , .

Sensory & Consumer Sciences

(Continued)

Rep Judge Grind Roast 1.99 2.44 1.87 22

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗

Rep Judge Geometry Roast 23.32 22

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗

Rep Grind Geometry Roast 2 3.18

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗

Judge Grind Geometry Roast 3.58 2.36 11 2.62

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗

Rep Judge Grind Geometry 22.12 22 1.72 2.56

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗

4

Rep Judge Roast 0.96 1.78 1.63 2.64 22 2.76

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗

Rep Grind Roast 1.28 0.51 0.67 3.74 4.15 2 3.08

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗

Judge Grind Roast .413 1.5 1.37 0.74 11 2.77

∗ ∗ ∗

Rep Geometry 0.16 0.02 Roast 2 3.27

∗ ∗ ∗

Judge Geometry .41.41 1.14 1.50 Roast 11

∗ ∗

Roast Grind Geometry .22.82 0.02 2.10 1

∗ ∗

Rep Judge .31.19 1.43 .51.50 1.05 Grind 4.37 1.74 22

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗

Rep Judge .70.89 1.27 .11.35 1.61 Geometry 1.66 22

∗ ∗ ∗

Rep Grind Geometry .10.54 0.41 24.59

∗ ∗ ∗

Judge Grind 0.59 .31.75 0.33 Geometry 1.99 2.33 11 2.12

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗

3

Rep Roast .411 .31.63 1.23 1.17 0.44 .31.46 1.43 2 3.79 4.41

∗ ∗ ∗

Judge 1.30 Roast 13.6 6.72 4.11 2.16 4.00 11 2.29 3.04 2.50 3.33 4.02 3.44

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗

Grind Roast .436 .611 0.09 1.15 0.36 3.64 0.24 1.19 1 5.18

∗ ∗

Geometry Roast 0.57 .61.70 0.46 9.68 6.45 1 5.89 15.25 5.00

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗

Rep Judge 1.29 1.18 1.00 2.38 2.05 2.5 2.76 22 1.94 2.47 1.61

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗

.611 .313 .40.51 1.44 1.36 1.03 1.10 0.86 Rep 0.09 Grind 2 3.32 3.71

∗ ∗ ∗

0.69 Judge 0.30 0.77 0.61 Grind 11 2.76 2.55 3.62 2.26

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗

Geometry Rep .104 .911 .41.30 0.74 1.16 0.39 0.41 1.41 2

∗

Judge 0.96 1.94 .51.93 0.85 Geometry 11 2.29 2.63 2.19

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗

Geometry Grind .30.32 1.53 .400 0.74 0.04 1.04 1 4.17

∗ ∗

2

Roast .02.98 0.10 0.05 1.41 1 93.64 263 21.15 122.76 26.31 10.57 94.27 69.23

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗

Rep .404 0.90 0.47 0.74 .01.22 2.80 .700 2.35 0.06 1.37 .60.62 0.66 2 7.27 6.59 3.58

∗ ∗ ∗

Judge 34.97 8.99 35.94 11.37 15.11 10.35 26.38 13.94 28.55 27.70 21.63 16.26 19.86 11

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗

.20.08 2.52 .63.27 0.26 Grind .72.65 2.37 17.34 6.93 5.29 6.07 1 33.73

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗

Geometry 0.08 0.30 0.05 .437 3.36 3.76 1.44 1 5.49 56.46 7.43 12.76

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗

1 d.f.

Vol. 0, Iss. 0, 2019

r

Flavor Flavor Taste Flavor Mouthfeel Flavor Flavor Ash Flavor Flavor Flavor Flavor Flavor Flavor

Almond rw Roast Brown Bitter Berry Astringent Chocolate Wood/ Burnt Spice Brown re Fruit Dried Green Dark Cocoa Citrus Earthy

al –al of 2–Table Table rto,sgicne( significance -ratios, F .5 niae with“ indicated 0.05) P ”. < ∗ Journal of Food Science 6 Basket geometry and drip coffee quality . . .

Sensory & Consumer Sciences aktgoer n rpcfe ult . . . quality coffee drip and geometry Basket

Table 2–Continued.

Floral Gain/Malt Hay-Like Hazelnut Molasses Musty/ Raisin Rubber Smoke Sweet Tobacco Wood Aroma Flavor Flavor Flavor Flavor Dusty Flavor Flavor Flavor Aroma Sour Taste Taste Flavor Flavor 1 d.f. Geometry 1 0.01 0.73 3.47 2.73 5.90∗ 3.94∗ 29.26∗ 5.46∗ 19.00∗ Grind 1 2.79 4.78∗ 0.43 0.43 7.13∗ 0.03 1.96 Judge 11 19.40∗ 10.22∗ 21.14∗ 19.09∗ 25.86∗ 3.74∗ 16.10∗ 16.74∗ 9.42∗ 13.22∗ 18.23∗ 18.29∗ 17.15∗ Rep 2 2.14 1.42 5.01∗ 0.22 0.03 4.79∗ 4.77∗ 6.93∗ Roast 119.32∗ 1.37 16.59∗ 4.11∗ 8.51∗ 37.19∗ 18.50∗ 52.07∗ 69.28∗ 103.12∗ 36.32∗ 45.59∗ 36.76∗ 2 Geometry∗Grind 111.66∗ 0.53 1.96 2.94 1.80 0.28 Geometry∗Judge 11 1.52 2.01∗ 1.69 0.96 3.38∗ 1.23 2.33∗ 1.13 Geometry∗Rep 2 0.06 0.69 2.30 Grind∗Judge 11 0.77 1.86 1.20 1.07 2.79∗ 1.37 0.90 Grind∗Rep 2 2.54 0.86 1.59 1.81 0.27 Judge∗Rep 22 1.92∗ 0.46 1.55 1.75∗ 1.73∗ 2.09∗ 1.84∗ Roast∗Geometry 1 0.40 0.36 2.64 9.74∗ 3.46 Roast∗Grind 14.12∗ 1.00 0.01 0.03 2.46 Roast∗Judge 11 3.03∗ 2.62∗ 2.16∗ 2.60∗ 3.27∗ 1.83∗ 2.91∗ 6.21∗ 4.89∗ 2.14∗ 8.05∗ 3.77∗ Roast∗Rep 2 1.85 0.30 0.26 5.08∗ 3 Geometry∗Grind∗Judge 11 0.68 2.59∗ 2.29∗ 1.94∗ 2.05∗ Geometry∗Grind∗Rep 2 0.28 3.15∗ Geometry∗Judge∗Rep 22 0.69 1.89∗ 1.97∗ Grind∗Judge∗Rep 22 1.59 1.37 0.96 2.29∗ Roast∗Geometry∗Grind 1 0.87 7.17∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ o.0 s.0 2019 0, Iss. 0, Vol. Roast Geometry Judge 11 1.86 2.26 1.93 2.93 Roast∗Geometry∗Rep 23.24∗ Roast∗Grind∗Judge 11 1.30 1.82 Roast∗Grind∗Rep 24.66∗ 4.87∗ Roast∗Judge∗Rep 22 1.00 4 Geometry∗Grind∗Judge∗Rep 22 1.64∗ 1.67∗ Roast∗Geometry∗Grind∗Judge 11 2.46∗ r ∗ ∗ ∗ ora fFo Science Food of Journal Roast Geometry Grind Rep 2 Roast∗Geometry∗Judge∗Rep 22 Roast∗Grind∗Judge∗Rep 22 2.26∗ 7

Sensory & Consumer Sciences flo- smoke for the , dried fruit citrus flavor. ,or 28.3627.40 2.59 3.80 19.8622.86 2.99 2.67 19.63 2.52 36.75 3.33 ,and berry and –3.44 points in , moderate dislike . ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ burnt wood/ash flavor berry flavor bitter , 32.47 25.94 33.82 23.60 22.41 41.25 sweetness , and –3.23 points drop against , ,or floral bitterness bitterness 3.33 2.85 21.13 19.10 , . Overall, cluster 1 did not prefer the dark . Cluster 1 also showed a similar response to musty/dusty . This result was in contrast to the light roast , sourness overall liking of the coffee flavor ∗ ∗ 22.05 2.72 24.06 23.27 40.67 23.26 ”. If an interaction was determined to be significant, ∗ wood aroma overall liking of the coffee flavor burnt wood/ash , ,and was checked, a 1-point mean increase in overall opinion was JAR: Mean drop by cluster and cluster descriptions. CATA-lift analysis was applied to evaluate changes in hedonic ∗ the dark roast flat-bottom brew, reporting drops of –2.01 and –1.50 Mean drop analysis wasceived the applied intensity to of the evaluate coffee flavor howflavor and the within consumers intensity the of per- context the roast ofplays the the mean two liking liking drop questions. for eachally, Table the JAR 5 analysis attribute dis- was rating. applied Addition- by cluster,ence to behavior. determine Cluster 1 cluster showed prefer- a significant dark roast semi-conical brewroast (Figure flavor (JAR), 6). 81.3% When of cluster askedsemi-conical 1 to brew responded was rate that too the the strong dark inof roast roast –2.62 flavor points with in a meanoverall opinion drop of the coffee when asked to rate thesity roast of flavor. coffee When flavor, asked a to similarfor rate response the the was dark seen inten- roast as semi-conical,The with but coffee not roast flavor flavor the of the dark dark roast roastas flat-bottom. semi-conical too brew was strong perceived by 68.8%against of cluster 1, with aoverall opinion penalty of of the –2.89 coffee points roast coffee, especially when brewed in the semi-conical basket, were indicated, while liking decreased whenrubber consumers perceived coffee described by ratings (9-point scale) whenceived compared a with specific not CATAhedonic perceived. attribute difference Figure was for 8 per- each displays offor the the each mean 15 of significant CATAral the attributes two hedonic questions.found. Liking For increased example, when when as dark roast was described by aroma 25.28 roast cocoa smoke , with each 2.412.50 20.06 16.502.72 22.32 18.60 21.17 17.97 21.21 17.13 earthy flavor sourness ∗ ∗ ∗ ,and 17.4819.32 2.78 3.3731.99 19.89 3.3315.24 24.1618.70 2.85 37.33 17.93 2.90 24.92 16.97 22.74 19.62 23.60 25.06 18.20 24.01 24.40 21.94 20.6019.26 3.39 2.99 24.3618.42 21.49 2.52 24.74 21.97 20.47 21.56 25.91 23.19 22.96 20.28 27.83 Roast Geometry Grind Consumers indicated their ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ Vol. 0, Iss. 0, 2019 earthy flavor for the dark roast flat bottom coffee). r , Dark Light LSD Flat Bottom Semi-Conical LSD Fine Coarse LSD 29.76 20.34 28.49 23.61 24.99 46.01 27.64 24.20 varied significantly across the evaluated bitterness chocolate flavor was the most used term for all coffees, followed by burnt wood/ash flavor , ,and Journal of Food Science Check-all-that-apply (CATA). In order to investigate if preference among sub-segments of main effect significance was not reported. SournessSweetness 22.40 19.50 40.03 26.52 35.91 31.06 31.37 Gain/Malt FlavorHay Like Flavor Hazelnut Flavor 24.96 23.18 25.35 22.79 23.90 24.24 Dark Green FlavorDried Fruit FlavorEarthy FlavorFloral Aroma 25.19 16.95 23.60 35.19 23.69 31.23 21.76 39.20 23.60 21.60 26.99 35.32 25.20 19.05 29.95 35.11 19.99 29.93 20.66 33.70 27.01 36.73 Brown Spice FlavorBurnt Wood/Ash FlavorChocolate Flavor 40.62 16.93 19.25 16.65 27.31 16.27 32.56 17.31 16.83 16.75 Tobacco Flavor Wood Flavor Musty/Dusty Flavor Rubber FlavorSmoke Aroma 26.29 15.38 19.00 22.67 21.33 20.34 Raisin Flavor 14.82 Molasses Flavor 19.42 Cocoa Flavor Citrus Flavor 15.02 29.22 19.51 24.73 22.32 21.92 was selected 175 times (51.5%). Each barusage is percentage further labeled for with the aof given the coffee, 85 calculated consumersconsumers as for checked the a percentage specific coffee (for example, 62.4% of cates the total usage percentagebitterness of a was given used descriptor, for 5%consumers example, of each evaluated the four time.instances coffees, This where for was bitterness a determined, total could of as be 340 checked, 85 possible of which bitterness flavor coffees. Overall panelist usagein of Figure the 7 18 as listed a stacked attributes bar is plot. shown The total height of each bar indi- list was generatedscriptive using analysis 18 (Table 3). significant Significancedetermined descriptors among by CATA from terms applying the was The the de- selection of Cochran all Q terms with test the to exception of each attribute. the light roast flat-bottom. sensory perceptions of each coffee through CATA. An attribute Each cluster shows acoffees, general and acceptance dislike for for the three fourthroast out coffee. Cluster semi-conical, of 1 disliked cluster the the four 2 dark cluster disliked 3 the disliked light the dark roast roast semi-conical, flat-bottom, and cluster 4 disliked display hedonic ratings by eachset cluster of for each panels coffee.coffees’ The corresponds upper flavor, to and lower the set shows distribution overall of opinion of opinions the of coffees. the consumers could be identified,matrix cluster analysis of was applied hedonicresulting to ratings dendrogram the is (overall shown opinionshaded in by the of the four upper clusters. the portion The violin coffee). of plots below Figure The the dendrogram 6, 8 Table 3–Mean attribute intensities for each factor. Significance indicated by “ Basket geometry and drip coffee quality . . . AstringencyBerry FlavorBitternessBrown Roast Flavor 40.21 31.11 16.61 53.87 37.27 31.07 28.94 27.73 38.49 30.73 21.28 34.74 38.99 31.45 24.27 46.85 40.13 22.81 45.48 37.35 22.74 36.12 Almond Flavor 16.76 16.36 16.59 16.53 17.53 15.58 Bitterness aroma used approximately 35% of the time. Term usage differed by

Sensory & Consumer Sciences n at tl ofe Tbe4,bttn ontpeaecfe at coffee prepare not to tend but press, 4), French (Table was home. coffee, coffees 1 Cluster style drip “JAR.” latte enjoyed be and who to consumers coffees not of roast are letter light composed two same the the share found that but attribute given a within Values attributes. descriptive for interaction significant different. significantly by intensities 4–Mean Figure . . . quality coffee drip and geometry Basket lses1ad3cnb otatdwt lse ,a lse 4 cluster as and 4, flavor roast cluster weak with have flavor. to coffee contrasted flat-bottom weak be roast light can the 3 reported (40.0%). and latte lowest and 1 the (16.0%) Clusters but consumers as cappuccino (52.0%), of reported consume espresso dark who brews percentage and percentage roast (72.0%) the highest drip light the for consume the dislike reports who with 3 similar 1, Cluster a cluster from“JAR.” shows as range 3 brews that Cluster in drops roast –3.62. acceptance consumers to reports by cluster –1.89 brews This semi-conical 3. and cluster flat-bottom the both the semi-conical. to roast responding dark also the are but of 2 semi-conical, flavor roast roast cluster significant light a of showing the coffee, Consumers for the the 5). dislike but of (Table flavor, %TDS the coffee sharp to a as responding likely of not strong is have too drop and to flavor mean semi-conical roast roast a dark strong the too in found 2 strong against cluster too points Additionally, was –2.75 flavor brew of coffee the penalty the that a that showed with indicated flavor analysis cluster roast drop the Mean of 6). 48.0% (Figure brew semi-conical lse hwdasignificant a showed 2 Cluster h akratwsfudt aetosrn os ao for flavor roast a strong too have to found was roast dark The n 28 onsagainst points –2.88 and lgtdislike slight vrl pno ftecoffee the of opinion overall o h ih roast light the for vrl iigof liking overall . ecn oa isle solids dissolved total Percent a-otmbe akta h n rn.I re obs compare best to order In three-way the grind. for the fine reported the was at values basket brew of flat-bottom semi- distribution wide the A geometry. in cific brewed concentration. coffees %TDS mean fine four higher The a the show each as is geometry 8, result conical This Figure basket. in flat-bottom visualized the over higher significantly concentrations with %TDS coffees produced basket brewing conical ( interaction effects Main A). Information of Supporting (see analysis descriptive Grind (for 1.3% higher to yielded 1.2% basket as conical strengths. small the brew as general, 1.0% In to to grind). 0.65% grind) conical/fine as bottom/fine large flat as even the ranges brew (for with to brew conditions, from same varied the %TDS under the that recur- is A all observation A). across ring brewed Information (Supporting coffees evaluation different sensory 10 of phases the among differ- indicated %TDS significantly mean showed mean ANOVA the one-way ent A with square. coffee bold show a specific boxplots by each Overlaid for 9. distribution Figure in the displayed are testing sensory NV tlzn aho h ih ofe a ple,followed applied, was coffees eight the of each utilizing ANOVA he-atraayi fvrac with variance of analysis three-factor A of phases three the from (%TDS) solids dissolved total Measured grind a ple ote%D esrscletddrn the during collected measures %TDS the to applied was and grind roast geometry rdcdtehgetma TSwti ahspe- each within %TDS mean highest the produced Roast × geometry o.0 s.0 2019 0, Iss. 0, Vol. × eesgicn,aogwt h three-way the with along significant, were Geometry × grind × Grind .Within ). r ora fFo Science Food of Journal neato,aone-way a interaction, Roast geometry , Geometry, h semi- the , and 9

Sensory & Consumer Sciences semi-conical: for the semi-conical treatmentslight roast, at coarse the and coarse dark%TDS roast, differences grind coarse). were not Additionally, ( significant measuredthe between the dark two roast grinds coffee for (darkgrind). roast, fine grind and dark roast, coarse was shown roast Light roast, fine grind and Vol. 0, Iss. 0, 2019 r semi-conical: ( , no significant %TDS difference was shown roasts geometry Journal of Food Science between the two Dark roast, fine grind), although a difference by 10 semi-conical membership: Cluster 1, 16 consumers; Cluster 2, 25 consumers; Cluster 3, 25 consumers; Clusterby 4, 19 post consumers. hoc Least Tukey’s Significantaration. Difference (LSD) Evaluating mean coffees sep- brewed at the fine grind within the Figure 6–Violin plot showingindicated the distribution by of a overall solid opinion black of dot. the coffee The flavor violin and plots overall are coffee capped flavor by liking. Mean a values dendrogram for with each cluster coffee segmentation are shown by transparent red shading. Cluster Figure 5–Principal component biplot showinglight roast; coffees Dr, (A) dark and roast; significant Fb, flat descriptive bottom; attributes Co, (B). semi-conical; Treatments 3, codes grind setting in 3; panel 5, A grind are setting 5. indicated as Lr, Basket geometry and drip coffee quality . . .

Sensory & Consumer Sciences l ifrn ofe”Cfe rwduigtesm-oia and percepti- semi-conical a the produce using basket brewed brewing Coffee coffee?” the different of bly does shape simple parameters, The the brewing coffee. equivalent changing brewed geome- “with drip brewing was of tested of perception hypothesis relevance sensory discrimination the the initial on establish an try The to at aimed temperature. water was and brewing testing home rate dispense automatic flow to identical programed identical of each set a with using brewers grinding. brewed of were degree and coffees geome- level roast All basket coffee brew with different conjunction two in tries using brewed coffee of quality Supporting (see variance of analysis discrimination factor shown by A). one were evaluated Information a values treatments using coffee means testing four different the Significantly among 8. Figure in 94.%3.%3.%2.%4.%1.%47.4% 40.0% 32.0% 43.5% 62.5% 10.5% 8.0% 8.0% 10.6% 18.8% 64.0% 47.4% 52.6% 40.0% 49.4% 37.5% 50.6% 8.0% 52.0% 40.0% 10.5% 68.8% 9.4% 6.3% 26.3% 12.0% 4.0% 16.0% 21.1% 24.7% 28.0% 11.8% 31.3% 0.0% 20.0% 15.8% 28.0% 31.6% 5.3% 30.6% 52.0% 37.6% 40.0% 12.0% 42.1% 37.5% 28.0% 24.0% 37.6% 16.0% 43.8% Discussion 14.1% 25.0% 52.0% 25.0% 31.6% 31.6% 21.2% 20.0% 16.0% 24.0% 10.5% 32.0% 4.0% 21.2% 6.3% 31.6% 8.2% 47.4% 0.0% 16.0% 0.0% 58.8% 72.0% 16.0% 28.2% 0.0% 36.0% 4.0% 10.5% 60.0% 0.0% 31.3% 1.2% 19 8.0% 50.0% 0.0% 8.2% 85 25 4.0% 0.0% 21.1% 25 0.0% 27.1% 12.5% 24.0% 5.3% 16 4.0% 1.2% 36.0% 0.0% 4.0% 25.0% 42.1% 5.9% Total 8.0% 40.0% 4 10.5% 8.0% 6.3% 40.0% 40.0% 10.5% 3 9.4% 0.0% 0.0% 5.9% 37.5% 0.0% 2 57.9% 16.0% 24.0% 6.3% 12.9% 1 56.0% 0.0% 57.6% 12.0% 56.0% Cluster 25.0% 0.0% 62.5% 0.0% 19 10.5% 85 1.2% 25 24.7% 40.0% 4.0% 5.3% 25 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16 25.0% 2.4% 0.0% 42.1% 42.1% Total 6.3% 35.3% 8.0% 36.0% 4 20.0% 28.0% 20.0% 3 37.5% 0.0% 12.5% 2 0.0% 1 1.2% 21.1% 19 4.0% 85 32.0% 29.4% 25 Cluster 0.0% 28.0% 25 73.7% 37.5% 16 62.4% 48.0% 72.0% Total 56.3% 26.3% 21.1% 4 43.5% 34.1% 52.0% 52.0% 3 48.0% 24.0% 2 43.8% 37.5% 1 19 85 25 Cluster 15.8% 20.0% 25 12.0% 16 28.0% 25.0% Total 84.2% 80.0% 4 88.0% 3 72.0% 2 75.0% 1 19 85 25 Cluster 25 16 total 4 3 2 1 Cluster totaled. results study overall with cluster, the by divided is category Each demographics. 4–Consumer Table . . . quality coffee drip and geometry Basket h xeiet eotdhr ie oeaut h sensory the evaluate to aimed here reported experiments The shown are testing consumer during collected values %TDS The N N N N N rpIsatEpes apcioLteMkaPtFec Press French Pot Mokka Latte Cappuccino Espresso Instant Drip rw ua ht ua riclSetesMl ra o-ar te Nothing Other Non-Dairy Cream Milk Sweetners Artifical Sugar White Sugar Brown rnhPesPu vrAr rs ok o srsoDi te o tHome at Not Other Drip Espresso Pot Mokka Press Aero Over Pour Press French 8t 42 o34 to 25 24 to 18 aeFml te eln oSae0t o34t 5 to 4 3 to 2 1 to 0 State to Decline Other Female Male edrCp Coffee/Day Cups Gender g Ethnicity Age sa rPacific or Asian Islander htsyeo ofed o rpr thome? at prepare you do coffee of style What htsyeo ofed o ssl drink? ususlly you do coffee of style What htd o omlyadt coffee? to add normally you do What iey h nraei TS sarsl fafie rn,was triangle grind, by finer difference a discriminable of a result produce a to as sufficient %TDS, respec- not in 21%, and increase 15% The These of tively. 3). increases (Figure strength relative basket brewing to flat-bottom and correspond semi-conical the the for in %TDS %TDS 0.16 0.15 of terms) absolute (in increase was grind medium and fine sig- the 266.0 a at size produced particle median grind the brewing finer between each the for as %TDS higher TDS nificantly modified also grind ally, oprdt h a bottom as flat coffee strength the semi- mean to the higher compared a using produced brewed basket brewing Coffee conical results. with discrimination grind observed medium and fine constant. between held when shown geometry changed brewing not was was size discrimination at contrast, geometries grind In brewing Dis- grind. two grinds. same the different the between two shown at was compared crimination were baskets bottom flat h olce TSadpril iemaue upr these support measures size particle and %TDS collected The ± Caucasian 23.7 ht or White µ S) hsdfeec rvddframa TDS mean a for provided difference This (SD). m o.0 s.0 2019 0, Iss. 0, Vol. rLatino or Hispanic geometry r ora fFo Science Food of Journal Fgr n ) Addition- 9). and 3 (Figure fia-mrcnOther African-American geometry lc or Black h difference The . ࣙ 11 5

Sensory & Consumer Sciences 2.40 1.22 2.01 1.50 2.62 3.44 2.89 3.23 0.47 0.83 1.92 3.24 3.38 3.23 1.89 0.30 2.75 1.02 1.02 0.16 3.62 1.02 2.43 2.88 0.87 1.44 0.74 2.56 0.65 0.33 0.59 0.59 2.06 0.84 0.51 0.89 2.53 0.85 2.14 1.62 2.67 0.66 0.35 0.56 1.59 − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − (continued) cluster (%) Drop Percentage of 3.23 68.8% 2.16 68.8% 1.26 18.8% 0.34 12.5% 0.66 1.881.01 40.0% 21.1% 0.12 1.510.86 40.0% 21.1% 0.26 1.161.16 48.0% 40.0% 1.37 40.0% 0.290.842.97 20.0% 2.27 20.0% 15.8% 1.59 36.0% 31.6% 2.24 81.3% 0.16 37.5%3.67 0.00 81.3% 0.83 37.5% 0.47 37.5% 1.672.33 68.0% 68.0% 0.503.142.58 24.0%1.30 31.6% 1.55 48.0% 28.0% 0.00 36.8% 2.181.60 68.0% 1.57 31.6% 68.0% 0.643.112.59 24.0% 0.66 31.6% 1.16 48.0% 0.12 28.0% 2.62 36.8% 1.99 44.0% 68.0% 31.6% − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − weak coffee flavor strong coffee flavor Weak roast flavor Strong roast flavor cluster (%) Drop Percentage of 234 12.0% 36.0% 42.1% 0.45 36.0% 0.45 234 12.0% 36.0% 42.1% 1.26 36.0% 0.82 2 8.0% 0.27 48.0% 28.0% 34 28.0% 26.3% 0.84 31.6% 3 28.0% 23423 40.0% 4 16.0% 68.4% 28.0% 20.0% 21.1% 0.76 24.0% 24.0% 34234 12.0% 15.8%238.0% 36.0%4 24.0% 57.9% 0.67 28.0% 0.28 21.1% 47.4% 24.0% 23423 8.0%4 24.0% 42.1% 23 4.0%4 12.0% 1.15 15.8%238.0% 36.0%4 24.0% 44.0% 0.76 57.9% 0.4328.0% 28.0% 3 0.09 68.0% 4 0.38 21.1% 47.4% 24.0% 24.0% 42.1% 0.20 How would you rate the intensity of the roast flavor? How would you rate the intensity of the coffee flavor? Coffee Cluster % of cluster Drop % of cluster Drop Coffee Cluster Dark Roast Flat Bottom 1 31.3% 0.46 18.8% Dark Roast Flat Bottom 1 31.3% 0.12 18.8% Light Roast Flat Bottom 1 18.8% Light Roast Semi-Conical 1 12.5% Dark Roast Flat Bottom 1 0.0% 0.00 56.3% Dark Roast Flat Bottom 1 0.0% 0.00 56.3% Light Roast Flat Bottom 1 18.8% Light Roast Flat Bottom 1 18.8% Dark Roast - Semi-Conical 1 6.3% Dark Roast - Semi-Conical 1 6.3% Light Roast Semi-Conical 1 18.8% 0.04 37.5% 0.20 Light Roast Semi-Conical 1 18.8% Dark Roast - Semi-Conical 1 6.3% Dark Roast - Semi-Conical 1 6.3% Vol. 0, Iss. 0, 2019 r Journal of Food Science 12 Overall opinion of the coffee? Overall liking of the coffee flavor? Overall opinion of the coffee? Overall liking of the coffee flavor? Table 5–Mean drop for each “Just About Right” rating and hedonic rating conbination, by cluster. Basket geometry and drip coffee quality . . .

Sensory & Consumer Sciences infiatydfe ncnue usage. consumer of in usage differ significantly showing plot bar 7–Stacked Figure the in found is coffee brewed in TDS a dis- for regarding the information threshold in Little role difference key sample. a each playing between likely crimination dur- are evaluated strength. testing coffees in four discrimination increase the ing among relative bot- strength 28% in flat a differences The to the corresponding between TDS 3), pro- 0.24% at (Figure shown did grind semi-conical/medium ge- the was that and basket grind difference tom/fine coffees either %TDS discriminable with absolute duce brewing smallest when The ometry. grinds between testing 5–Continued. Table . . . quality coffee drip and geometry Basket ih os eiCncl11.%11 25 1.11 12.5% 1.11 12.5% 1 Semi-Conical Roast Light ih os ltBto 18.8% 1 Bottom Flat Roast Light ofeCutr%o lse rp%o lse Drop cluster of % Drop cluster of % Cluster Coffee Check-all-that-apply o ol o aeteitniyo h ofeflavor? coffee the of intensity the rate you would How 00 .124.0% 1.11 21.1% 20.0% 4 3 28.0% 2 68.4% 4 16.0% 3 40.0% 2 63 .731.6% 0.77 26.3% 4 trbts ahcfe sidctdb oiinadclr trdatiue i not did attributes Stared color. and position by indicated is coffee Each attributes. o-elmxdcnatbtentegid n h ae.In and water. transiently the grinds the and through moves grinds water involves the the words, intrinsically between other coffee contact brew drip mixed mixed, unlike not-well grinds well the variability; are where the techniques water drove immersion and what full other unclear or is press French It %TDS. in ability potentially is threshold difference this dif- lower. but absolute TDS, minimum 0.24% a at suggest ference results presented The literature. ekcfe ao togcfe flavor coffee strong flavor coffee weak oetal ofudn atri h rwt-rwvari- brew-to-brew the is factor confounding potentially A o.0 s.0 2019 0, Iss. 0, Vol. − − − − − − .431.6% 1.14 .136.0% 2.31 .215.8% 2.82 .120.0% 0.01 .120.0% 0.11 .818.8% 1.18 r ora fFo Science Food of Journal − − − − − − − − 0.23 1.22 0.55 2.22 2.18 0.51 1.11 1.85 13

Sensory & Consumer Sciences g overall liking of the coffee flavor and (B) overall opinion of the coffee Under the presentedrameters experimental for conditions, one the brewing(resonance brewing time, geometry flow pa- rate, would brewing require waterto temperature, modification and produce so an on) equalstrate the measured impact %TDS. of These brewing geometrywith results to equivalent produce brewing do conditions different demon- coffees (water, temperature,so flow, and on). 23). = N but altered so as to ob- , it remains to be determined geometry 9), and consumer preference ( Vol. 0, Iss. 0, 2019 r = geometry N 42), descriptive analysis ( Journal of Food Science = Although these results do show significant discrimination be- N for which the respective attribute was checked, compared to observations when that attribute was not checked. 14 tween coffees brewed by each if two coffees brewed fromtain each equal %TDS would still be significantly different in flavor. tends to follow the pathbrew-to-brew of least variability resistance. is One hypothesismore that for extent the channeling for each occurred brew. to less or Figure 9–TDS measures for all coffee served( during each phase of sensory testing. Treatment means are plotted as a bold square. Discrimination testin Figure 8–Results of the CATA lift analysis. The values indicate the change in (A) Basket geometry and drip coffee quality . . .

Sensory & Consumer Sciences facpac ntecnue study. consumer the in acceptance of question. liking wood/ash each burnt for as- was decrease 7), point. (Figure wood/ash 1 consumers a the with of sociated 51.5% by example, picked For was dislike. which with associated were and 7) (Figure iciiainwssonwe oprn ewe geometries. but between geometry, comparing brewing dis- when given not shown a was was discrimination size within brewing evaluated particle each median when within in cernable factors difference these 25% of A varied geometry. interaction were roast the and evaluate Grind to evalu- semi-conical). were and shapes (flat-bottom basket ated brew basic Two coffee. drip-brewed on with significantly interact did grind but Independently, factors differences. dis- flavor few particle impacted turn, behaved different in a dark) showed and with each tribution compared as (light ground, coffees when differently two This coffee. the brewed the that in shows concentration TDS in difference mean (325.6 size particle median the in difference grind grind relationship the evaluate brewing further conditions. between to brewing designed various was the experiment by The induced coffee each of profile aktgoer n rpcfe ult . . . quality coffee drip and geometry Basket Conclusions os lses2ad4soe ilk for dislike a showed 4 and 2 Clusters vors. an showed attributes flavor Six brew. between coffee interaction the of profile flavor me- (404.8 roast difference light size the particle while for dian basket, concentration semi-conical TDS coarse) the in in and brewed difference (fine coffee significant grinds a two produce the not between did coffee roast dark the for between comparisons confound would not variation and and size minimal particle be small likely the from resulting differences 799 799 example, (for small was setting 798 the grind with between same 2) compared the (Figure size at noted roasts particle be should median two It in aroma. difference and the taste of that alter factors to the ability the of the showed but also 11 used, for were This coffees differences 3). different significant (Table with attributes coffees, 26 eight results the in The difference for testing. the discrimination widening for showed thus protocol either the grind, using to prepared coarse compared were or coffees fine evaluated the The factor. third a aos ihntecnue td,teefu em ( terms four these study, consumer the Within were flavors. consumers the the case, to each negatively flavor. In brewed responding roast coffee basket. likely roast in flat-bottom dark strong the the for semi- too dislike with the similar was a in showed it brewed 3 that coffee Cluster roast indicating dark basket, the conical for showed dislike 1 moderate Cluster characterized. a be can clusters consumer the sults, consumers. for drivers preference as found then were attributes example, (for setting grind the changing of results un odahflavor wood/ash burnt hssuyamdt vlaeteefc fbeiggeometry brewing of effect the evaluate to aimed study This to related differences sensory significant the examining When flavor the in differences capture to used was analysis Descriptive sn h ecitv esr n h osmrpeeec re- preference consumer the and sensory descriptive the Using grind. µ hs neatosso h motneof importance the show interactions These . finer the at increased attributes significant six the of each , Tbe3.Ti nraei nyprilyrltdt D.The TDS. to related partially only is increase This 3). (Table oprdwith compared m roast hw iia rn ih3.%slcin Together, selection. 37.1% with trend similar a shows a h otipcflfco ntseadaroma and taste on factor impactful most the was and geometry bitterness , geometry µ irsflavor citrus matthe coarse and eetesrnet(eaie drivers (negative) strongest the were dr os 1115 roast -dark and roast grind ,and fine roast ± ihteadto of addition the with , fetwsepce,a two as expected, was effect bitter 23.7 etn)a oprdt the to compared as setting) sourness Fgr ) v fteesix these of five 4), (Figure µ and S) i rdc a produce did (SD)) m eehaiyused heavily were ) µ un wood/ash burnt ± geometry sourness ) hs sensory Thus, m). 68.8 geometry fine lgtroast -light µ and and bitterness bitterness roast m(SD)) geometry roast nthe on Burnt grind grind citrus roast and fla- as , , fet h ao rfieadcnue cetneo rpbrewed drip of acceptance consumer coffee. and strongly profile geometry flavor basket the that affects demonstrate clearly here results the presented Nonetheless, brews. discriminable similarly produce not safco hudb otold rw feuvln TSpro- %TDS equivalent of Brews controlled. be should %TDS factor methods, a market brewing as specific evaluating work for critical employ future is With to in result segments. method difference brewing This large what interactions. assessing a unique for showed and driver still levels a size, roast significant grind different as very not to although extraction compared Geometry, between size. relationship particle the and evaluating need the studies to future leading acted attributes, for Grind specific intensity. these in decrease all or increased size, increase attributes to particle significant median six smaller effect the with The of unidirectional; attributes. was six grind influenced of grind while altered attributes, factors, two three other the of geometry independent Geometry, brewing grind. of and independent sig- attributes variation, 11 of source altering attributes. nificantly primary the sensory as unique roast showed 26 analysis for Factor geometry brewing each for roast (for %TDS water). equalizing hot with of dilution brewing means example, different artificial using by is at followed aimed threshold parameters methods test- difference from future benefit the so might variability, of brew-to-brew ing the accuracy to The related found. potentially threshold was difference %TDS 0.24 a four of all testing, Among triangle discrimination. by of evaluated driver coffees key hypothe- a we was and %TDS significantly basket, that brew a size flat-bottom of the coffee then %TDS produced higher basket brew semi-conical The etad . olne,R,Dset . ier,F,Brho,L,Dsri,F,&Jo & F., Descroix, L., Berthiot, F., Ribeyre, S., Dussert, R., Boulanger, B., revealed a Bertrand, price? about care consumers ethical Do (2006). B. S. Cash, & C., P. Boxall, C., Arnot, (1972). E. Abel, References Interest of Conflict Contributions Author Acknowledgments by prepared perhaps rate basket, flow conical altering and flat-bottom a from duced newiigb rvleCorporation. Breville by underwriting results, the interpreted design, prepara- andeditedthemanuscript. study manuscript in final assisted and Guinard J.-X. secured design tion. study Ristenpart D. in W. assisted manuscript. and the funding drafted and results, the statistical for we Tech Additionally, AgroParis consultation. Guyon. at Reece Blumenthal David and Professor Lim, Ka thank Xian Liang, Jake Lik Jiexin Docto, Chan, Batali, Gabriel Chun Mackenzie Diego Richards, collection: Melissa data Dykeman, with Cen- Coffee helped Davis authors UC who The the ter in Corporation. students acknowledge Breville to like the would from underwriting with ih,N . Leit C., N. Bicho, rfrneaayi ffi rd ofepurchases. coffee trade fair 54 of analysis preference .(02.Ciai atr ietyipc h oaieognccmon nepitin fingerprint quality. compound beverage coffee organic as volatile well the as bean impact coffee directly Arabica factors green Climatic (2012). T. fratn ieo h esr rfieo rbc n out coffee. Robusta and Arabica of profile sensory the Nutrition on time roasting of 2583.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.06.060 ecitv nlssepoe h eainhpbtengidand grind between relationship the explored analysis Descriptive udn a rvddb h pcat ofeAscainwith Association Coffee Specialty the by provided was Funding interpreted data, the collected study, the designed Frost C. S. Association Coffee Specialty the by funded was research This 4,555–565. (4), , 52 2,1317 http://doi.org/10.1080/03670244.2012.706061 163–177. (2), SPtn o 3,693,535 No. Patent US o .E,Rmlo .C,d laeg,N . io,F .(03.Impact (2013). C. F. Lidon, & B., N. Alvarenga, de C., J. Ramalho, E., A. ao, ˜ nsitu in o.0 s.0 2019 0, Iss. 0, Vol. rvia or ahntn C SPtn n rdmr Office. Trademark and Patent US DC: Washington, . otfacto post r aainJunlo giutrlEconomics Agricultural of Journal Canadian ora fFo Science Food of Journal iuin oetal would potentially dilution, odChemistry Food clg fFo and Food of Ecology , 135 4,2575– (4), 15 et, ¨ ,

Sensory & Consumer Sciences ) Food , 32–38. 82 , arabica Journal of Food . Vienna, Austria: Journal of Agricultural and . LWT - Food Science and Technology . Analysis. Retrieved from http://www.fas.usda. National coffee Data trends 2018 markets and trade Total Dissolved Solids (% TDS), F-ratios. ANOVA by specific coffee. Percent Extraction, alternative to Figure 9. , 1–8. http://doi.org/10.1038/srep24483 6 (1), 11–19. http://doi.org/10.1016/0950-3293(88)90003-1 , 1 , R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (4), 32. (21), 9923–9931. ttp://doi.org/10.1021/jf901683v 11 57 , , (12), S2997–S3005. http://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.13555 81 Scientific Reports , Quality and Preference Food Technology http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2017.04.008 multivariate exploratory methods toScience design a new coffee taster’s flavor wheel. Coffee Associaiton of America. S., . . .coffee. Hendon, C. H. (2016). The effect of bean origin and temperature on grinding roasted precursors in coffeeFood flavor Chemistry formation using in-bean experiments. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www.r-project.org/ M., . . .using starter Schwan, R. cultures: A F. (2017). sensory Controlled perspective. fermentation of semi-dry coffee ( gov/psdonline/circulars/coffee.pdf Supporting Information section at the end ofSupplemental the A. article. Supplemental B. Supplemental C. Supporting Information Additional supporting information may be found online in the National Coffee Assocation. (2018). Pangborn, R. M., Guinard, J. X., &Peryam, D. Davis, R., R. & G. Pilgrim, (1988). F. (1957). Regional The hedonic aroma scale preferences. method of measuring food Preference. Spencer, M., Sage, E., Velez, M., & Guinard,Staub, J. C. (1995). X. Agtron/SCAA roast (2016). classification. Color Using disk system. single .Uman, free Chicago, E., IL: Colonna-Dashwood, sorting Speciality M., and Colonna-Dashwood, L., Perger, M., Klatt, C., Leighton, USDA. (2018). Coffee: World Poisson, L., Schmalzried, F., Davidek, T., Blank, I., & Kerler, J. (2009). Study on the role of Ribeiro, L. S., Ribeiro, D. E., Evangelista, S. R., Miguel, M. G., da, C. P., Pinheiro, A. C. R Core Team. (2018). , (3), (2nd 4 , (1), 1–9. 7 Field Crops , Food Research (4), 607–627. (1), 229–242. Beverages 18 (6), 3720–3728. 236 , 58 , , Food Research International Scientific Reports ˜ na, M., & Cid, C. (2012). Ex- , 271–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/ , 1417–1419. https://doi.org/10.1111/ (2), 309–319. http://doi.org/10.1016/ 63 , 57 30 , , Vol. 0, Iss. 0, 2019 r Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology Sensory Evaluation of Food. Principles and Practices European Food Research and Technology (5), 1574–1581. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry Journal of Food Science 80 (6), 465–480. http://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12237 , Food Research International 31 , Food Quality and Preference ¨ achler, B., Klopprogge, B., D’Ambrosio, L., Chatelain, K., Bongartz, ¨ ur, T., Cook, S., Iza, E strada, M., Pohlan, J., Fisher, M., & Rosales Lechuga, ¨ onb , 152–160. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2014.01.020 coffee evaluated by coffee consumers and HS-SPME-GC-MS. (3), 321–329. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2010.10.006 61 , , 648–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2007.09.012 120 , Analytical Chemistry 34 Arabica , Journal of Food Science (1), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2012.02.023 j.foodres.2014.03.011 ysis of CATA data. the bean roastingcompounds parameters in and coffee hot brew. water percolation on the concentrations of bitter j.foodqual.2013.06.010 bean International (2016). Development of aJournal “living” of lexicon Sensory for Studies descriptive sensory analysis of brewed coffee. http://doi.org/10.1021/jf9044606 Burns brew chemical analysis in comparison to espresso, moka and American brews. 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages4030068 caffeine and chlorogenic acid concentrationshttp://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-18247-4 in cold brew coffee. A., . . .Instrumental and Yeretzian, sensory C. analysis. (2013). Comparison of nine common coffee extraction methods: http://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-013-1917-x R. (2011). Systematic agronomicResearch farm management for improved coffee quality. j.1365-2621.1992.tb06872.x D. (2006). Genetics of coffee quality. ed.) New York, NY: Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6488-5 a function of brewing time, When machine tastes coffee: Instrumentalcoffee. approach to predict the sensory profile of espresso http://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-04202006000100016 coffee aroma extraction. traction of coffee antioxidants: Impact of18 brewing time and method. ¨ aderach, P., Oberth Meyners, M., Castura, J. C., & Carr, B. T. (2013). Existing and new approaches for the anal- 16 Blumberg, S., Frank, O., & Hofmann, T. (2010). Quantitative studies on the influence of Basket geometry and drip coffee quality . . . Chambers, E., Sanchez, K., Phan, U. X. T., Miller, R., Civille, G.Cotter, V., & A. Di R., Donfrancesco, & Hopfer, B. H. (2018). The effect of storage temperature on the aroma of whole Brown, F., & Diller, K. (2008). Calculating the optimun temperatureCaporaso, N., for Genovese, A., serving Canela, hot M. beverages. D., Civitella, A., & Sacchi, R. (2014). Neapolitan coffee Gloess, A. N., Sch Fuller, M., & Rao, N. Z. (2017). The effect of time, roasting temperature, and grind size on L Leroy, T., Ribeyre, F., Bertrand, B., Charmetant, P., Dufour, M., Montagnon, C., . . . Pot, Lawless, H. T., & Heymann, H. (2010). Lee, T. A., Kempthorne, R., & Hardy, J. K. (1992). Compositional changes in brewed coffee as Lindinger, C., Labbe, D., Pollien, P.,Rytz, A., Juilleret, M. A., Yeretzian, C., & Blank, I. (2008). Mastdagh, F., Davidek, T., Chaumonteuil, M., Folmer, B., & Blank, I. (2014). The kinetics of Ludwig, I. A., Sanchez, L., Caemmerer, B., Kroh, L. W., Paz De Pe

Sensory & Consumer Sciences