Search
2022 Volume 2
Article Contents
ARTICLE   Open Access    

Effect of sterilization methods on the flavor of cold brew coffee

More Information
  • This research used ultra-fast E-nose, E-tongue and SCA analysis to explore the effects of different sterilization methods (pasteurization, back pressure sterilization, high temperature short-term sterilization, membrane filtration treatment and high pressure processing) on cold brew coffee. The results showed that non-heat sterilization can better maintain the sensory quality of coffee liquid. Back pressure sterilization could reduce the pH value of coffee liquid to 4.65, and decrease the aroma content significantly by 50.5% (p < 0.05), while the sourness and bitterness of coffee samples increased, which lowered the sensory quality of coffee. Among the heat sterilization treatments, high temperature short-term sterilization had relatively little effect on the sensory quality of the coffee beverage, and decreased the bitterness of the coffee. Taking sensory quality, nutrients and cost into consideration, it is suggested that high temperature short time sterilization is a prefered method. Thus, the results of this research provided a theoretical basis for the selection of sterilization method for cold brew coffee.
  • 加载中
  • [1] NCA National Coffee Association USA. The History of Coffee. www.ncausa.org/About-Coffee/History-of-Coffee
    [2] ICO – International Coffee Organization. 2021. Coffee prices underwent further increases in September 2021 but volatility lessened substantially while the market continues to be driven by weather in Brazil and by covid-related disruption affecting trade in Asia. Coffee Market Report – Setember 2021. www.ico.org/documents/cy2020-21/cmr-0921-e.pdf
    [3] Yu F, Dong W, Hu R, Long Y, Chen Z, et al. 2021. Effects of different roasting speeds on the volatile components of Xinglong coffee beans. Chinese Journal of Tropical Agriculture 42:3316−26

    Google Scholar

    [4] Zhi M, Xu W, Wu L, Pan H, Huang W, et al. 2021. Detection and evaluation of flavor substances of roasted coffee beans in different regions. Quality and Safety of Agro-Products 3:84−90

    Google Scholar

    [5] Zhu X. 2021. Analysis of Colombia coffee extracts' aromas at different extraction temperatures. Beverage Industry 24:12−20

    Google Scholar

    [6] Kulapichitr F, Borompichaichartkul C, Suppavorasatit I, Cadwallader KR. 2019. Impact of Drying Process on Chemical Composition and Key Aroma Components of Arabica Coffee. Food Chemistry 291:49−58 doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.03.152

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [7] Grand View Research. 2019. Cold brew coffee market size (2019−2025) − by distribution channel (supermarkets & hypermarkets, company owned outlets, convenience stores, online), by region, and segment forexasts. Share & trends analysis report. GVR-2-68038-937-1, Grand View Research. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/cold-brew-coffee-market
    [8] Xing Y, Weng J, Wu Y, Li M, Li N. 2021. Aroma analysis of cold brew coffee liquor with different extaction times. Beverage Industry 24:36−42

    Google Scholar

    [9] Seninde DR, Chambers E IV, Chambers D. 2020. Determining the impact of roasting degree, coffee to water ratio and brewing method on the sensory characteristics of cold brew Ugandan coffee. Food Research International 137:109667 doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109667

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [10] Bellumori M, Angeloni G, Guerrini L, Masella P, Calamai L, et al. 2021. Effects of different stabilization techniques on the shelf life of the Cold Brew coffee: chemical composition, flavor profile and microbiological analysis. LWT- Food Science and Technology 142:111043 doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2021.111043

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [11] Zhang P, Ruan Z, Li B. 2021. The flavor quality of pear juice fermented with Lactobacillus plantarum improved by ultra-high pressure pretreatment. Modern Food Science and Technology 37:230−239+300 doi: 10.13982/j.mfst.1673-9078.2021.12.0290

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [12] Cui S, Yan B, Lou Y, Ye T. 2019. Ultrasound sterilization on fruit and vegetable juice and quality change. Beverage Industry 22:15−20

    Google Scholar

    [13] Huang X, Wang Y, Liao X, Zhao L. 2021. Effects of Ultra-high pressure and high temperature short-time sterilization on the quality of NFC orange juice. Science and Technology of Food Industry 42:1−8+14 doi: 10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2020050265

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [14] Guerrini L, Zanoni B, Breschi C, Angeloni G, Masella P, et al. 2020. Understanding olive oil stability using filtration and high hydrostatic pressure. Molecules 25:420 doi: 10.3390/molecules25020420

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [15] Gloess AN, Schönbächler B, Klopprogge B, D'Ambrosio L, Chatelain K, et al. 2013. Comparison of nine common coffee extraction methods: instrumental and sensory analysis. European Food Research and Technology 236:607−27 doi: 10.1007/s00217-013-1917-x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [16] Hu H, Song H, Wang J, Lin T, Liu X, et al. 2018. Determination of six kinds of chlorogenic acid by high performance liquid chromatography. Journal of Food Safety & Quality 9:1634−43

    Google Scholar

    [17] GB5009.157-2016 National food safety standards, Determination of organic acids in foods.
    [18] Wang W, Jin L, Cheng C, Zhang J, Xing Z. 2020. Analysis of aroma changes during the processing of coffee freeze-dried powder by heracles NEO Ultra-fasted gas chromatography. Beverage Industry 23:12−16

    Google Scholar

    [19] Hu R, Kuang Q, Wang X, Solano W, Long Y, et al. 2021. Sensory characteristics of dry aroma and cupping quality of coffee from pu’er producing area. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops 42:535−45

    Google Scholar

    [20] Duan L, Qiu B, Dai L, Zhang S, Mei L, et al. 2018. Seven Organic Acids Contents in Catimor Coffee DEtected by HPLC. Chinese Journal of Tropical Agriculture 42:7−14

    Google Scholar

    [21] Liu X, Chen X, Du L, Lin T, Yin B, et al. 2021. The Interaction of Multi-Factor Leads to Chlorogenic Acid Rapid Degradation in Roasted Coffee. Food Science 42:7−14

    Google Scholar

    [22] He J, Geng L, Chen Q, Hu Z, Xiao Z. 2021. An initial research on quantifying coffee taste evaluation. Science and Technology of Food Industry 35:307−11 doi: 10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.2014.09.058

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [23] Hu R, Kuang Q, Qang X, William S, Long Y, et al. 2021. Sensory characteristics of dry aroma and cupping quality of coffee from Pu'er producing area. Chinese Journal of Tropical Agriculture 42:535−45

    Google Scholar

  • Cite this article

    Liu X, Wang W, Fei Y, Zhou Y, Jin L, et al. 2022. Effect of sterilization methods on the flavor of cold brew coffee. Beverage Plant Research 2: 6 doi: 10.48130/BPR-2022-0006
    Liu X, Wang W, Fei Y, Zhou Y, Jin L, et al. 2022. Effect of sterilization methods on the flavor of cold brew coffee. Beverage Plant Research 2: 6 doi: 10.48130/BPR-2022-0006

Figures(7)  /  Tables(4)

Article Metrics

Article views(5874) PDF downloads(2512)

ARTICLE   Open Access    

Effect of sterilization methods on the flavor of cold brew coffee

Beverage Plant Research  2 Article number: 6  (2022)  |  Cite this article

Abstract: This research used ultra-fast E-nose, E-tongue and SCA analysis to explore the effects of different sterilization methods (pasteurization, back pressure sterilization, high temperature short-term sterilization, membrane filtration treatment and high pressure processing) on cold brew coffee. The results showed that non-heat sterilization can better maintain the sensory quality of coffee liquid. Back pressure sterilization could reduce the pH value of coffee liquid to 4.65, and decrease the aroma content significantly by 50.5% (p < 0.05), while the sourness and bitterness of coffee samples increased, which lowered the sensory quality of coffee. Among the heat sterilization treatments, high temperature short-term sterilization had relatively little effect on the sensory quality of the coffee beverage, and decreased the bitterness of the coffee. Taking sensory quality, nutrients and cost into consideration, it is suggested that high temperature short time sterilization is a prefered method. Thus, the results of this research provided a theoretical basis for the selection of sterilization method for cold brew coffee.

    • Arabica coffee (Coffea arabica), hereinafter referred to as coffee, is an evergreen tree or shrub belonging to the Coffea genus in the Rubiaceae family, and originated from Ethiopia. It was introduced to Europe from Arabia in the 17th century and is now one of the three most popular drinks in the world[12]. Coffee is welcomed by consumers for its pleasant flavor, but its sensory qualities are easily affected by the varieties, producing area, processing technology and other factors. Recent research on coffee sensory quality mainly focus on roasting and brewing technology, and there are relatively few research on sterilization methods. Yu et al.[3] found that the roasting speed could affect the aroma and flavor of coffee. Zhi et al.[4] found that the amount of coffee flavor substance was affected by the production area, and the coffee in Panama has a unique flavor. Zhu[5] discussed the influence of brew temperature on the aroma of Colombian coffee, and concluded that low temperature brew coffee had more fruity notes. Kulapichitr et al.[6] studied the fact that heat pump drying helping preserve the overall flavor of Arabica coffee.

      Cold brew coffee, made by soaking coffee grind in unheated water for 12 h or more, had a sweeter taste and better flavor. The global cold brew coffee market size is expected to register a CAGR of 25.1% from 2019 to 2025 (valued at USD $339.7 million in 2018)[7]. The processing procedure inevitably causes loss of many flavor components of cold brew coffee[89]. Sterilization is a key step during the production of cold brew coffee, and different sterilization methods cause different influence on the flavor of beverages including coffee liquid[10]. Zhang et al.[11] found that ultra-high pressure sterilization can improve the flavor of fermented pear juice, and Cui et al.[12] found that ultrasonic sterilization can better maintain the taste of fruit and vegetable juice. By comparing sterilization methods, it is found that ultrasonic sterilization can better maintain the flavor of fruit and vegetable juice, with little damage to the nutrients. The sterilization methods commonly used can be divided into heat sterilization and non-heat sterilization. The usual heat sterilization technologies are pasteurization and ultra-high temperature sterilization. Pasteurization is commonly used for dairy products and ultra-high temperature sterilization is suitable for products that do not contain granular materials, due to its higher temperature requirements (130−150 °C). Non-heat sterilizations include ultrasonic sterilization, ultra-high pressure sterilization and ultraviolet sterilization[1315].

      This research used five methods to sterilize cold brew coffee, the sterilized coffee was then measured for pH value and concentration of organic acid. The sensory attributes were also analyzed through electronic nose (E-nose) and electronic tongue (E-tongue) combined with sensory evaluation. The results of the research can provide theoretical reference for the production and processing of coffee.

    • The sun-dried green bean of Arabica coffee from Yirgacheffe, Ethiopia was used and was purchased from Kunshan Yiguo International Trade Co., Ltd (Kunshan Development Zone, Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province). Methanol and acetonitrile were HPLC grade solvents and were acquired from TEDIA Co., Ltd (USA). Ultrapure water was used in all experiments.

    • Green coffee beans were roasted to a medium-light degree with a PROBAT roaster and stored at room time for 72 h. The equipment was adjusted to the 5th lever and the roast coffee bean were ground to a powder. Cold brew beverages were extracted by static immersion, using 0−10 °C water to brew for 8−10 h (powder : water = 1:5 − 1:6). The coffee liquid was collected when Brix reached 7.0 (± 0.2).

    • The coffee beverage was then sterilized. The methods used were pasteurization, back pressure sterilization, high pressure short-term sterilization, membrane filtration and high pressure processing. The sterilized coffee was the experimental sample used in this research. The specific process parameters of each sterilization method are shown in Table 1, and the acronyms of each sample will be used for convenience in the following paragraph. The control sample was cold brew beverage without sterilization and was hereinafter referred to as CK.

      Table 1.  Parameters of each sterilization method.

      Category of treatmentNo.MethodTemperaturePressureDurationNotesSample
      Heat sterilization1Pasteurization65 °C/30 min/PS
      2Back pressure sterilization121 °C1.5 bar30 min/BPS
      3High pressure short-term sterilization110 °C/5 s/HTS
      Non-heat sterilization4Membrane filtration25 °C//Ceramic membrane, 200 μmMF
      5High pressure processing25 °C5,000 bar5 min/HPP
    • The coffee was mixed evenly and the pH was measured using a pH meter (FE28, METTLER TOLEDO Co., Switzerland).

    • Organic acids were detected by HPLC with a ultraviolet detector (1260, Agilent Technologies Co., Ltd, USA) and were separated using a C18 chromatographic column (4.6 mm × 250 mm, 5 μm, OSAKA SODA CO., Ltd).

      (1) Chlorogenic acids compounds

      For sample pretreatment please refer to the method in Hu et al.[16]. One to two gram samples were weighed in a 50 mL brown volumetric flask. Thirty millilitres of 30 methanol-0.1% phosphoric acid (50:50, V/V) solution were added, followed by ultrasonic treatment for 20 min. Methanol-0.1% phosphoric acid (50:50, V/V) solution was then added to the volume scale, and filtered through 0.22 μm organic membrane. The samples were then stored at 4 °C in the dark.

      The chlorogenic acid concentration was then measured by HPLC, and the parameters are shown in Table 2.

      Table 2.  Chromatographic parameters for organic acid measurement.

      ParametersChlorogenic acidsTartaric acid, Citric acid, Malic acid,
      Succinic acid, Fumaric acid
      Speed1.0 mL/min0.3 mL/min
      Column temperature30 °C40 °C
      Wavelength327 nm210 nm
      Moving phaseMethanol (A) -0.1% phosphoric acid solution (B) Methanol (A) -0.1% phosphoric acid solution (B)
      Elution program0.00−20.00 min: 20%A−80%B
      20.01−45.00 min: 35%A−65%B
      45.01−55.00 min: 40%A−60%B
      55.01−60.00 min: 20%A−80%B
      0.00−20.00 min: 10%A−90%B
      20.01−25.00 min: 100%A
      25.01−35.00 min: 10%A−90%B

      (2) Tartaric acid, malic acid, citric acid, succinic acid, fumaric acid

      For sample pretreatment please refer to the method in GB5009.157-2016[17]. 1−2 g samples were weighed in a 50 mL volumetric flask. Thirty millilitres of 0.1% phosphoric acid solution was added, followed by ultrasonic treatment for 20 min. 0.1% phosphoric acid solution was added to the volume scale, then filtered through 0.22 μm organic membrane. The samples were stored at 4 °C in the dark.

      The acid concentrations were then measured by HPLC, and the parameters are shown in Table 2.

    • Two gram samples were weighed in a 20 mL headspace bottle, then determined by Ultra-fast E-nose (Heracles NEO, Alpha MOS Co., France)[18].

    • Ten millilitre samples were measured into sample cups, then assesed using the taste sensing system (E-tongue) (TS-5000Z, INSENT Co., Japan).

    • Refered to the SCA coffee cup-testing in Hu et al.[19]. The samples were then assesed from six aspects, such as aroma, flavor, acidity, aftertaste, body, balance and overall taste. The score range of each aspect is between 6−10 points, and each score unit is 0.25 points. Thus, 16 degrees in total.

    • The samples for each experiment was measured in triplicate. Raw data was preliminary processed by ExcelTM. Statistical difference was performed at p < 0.05 with Duncan Test in an one-way ANOVA using SPASS 23. Graphs were drawn using Origin 2017 and Photoshop CS5.

    • The results of pH value and organic acid concentration of the samples are shown in Table 3. In the quality evaluation of coffee, pH value is an important index[15]. Organic acids produced during coffee bean roasting, are the main compounds that affect the pH value[20]. The pH value quantifies the concentration of hydrogen ions and provides a metric description for deprotonated acid molecules in the sample. According to Table 3, BPS had lower pH value, and this may relate to the long time heat treatment.

      Table 3.  pH value and organic acid concentration (g/kg) of each sample.

      SampleCKPSBPSHTSMFHPP
      pH value4.92 ± 0.006cd4.89 ± 0b4.65 ± 0a4.91 ± 0.006bc4.93 ± 0.021d4.9 ± 0.006bc
      Neochlorogenic acid1.45 ± 0.07a1.49 ± 0.02ab2.13 ± 0.02c1.47 ± 0.01ab1.47 ± 0.04ab1.53 ± 0.02b
      Chlorogenic acid3.39 ± 0.18b3.46 ± 0.06b2.87 ± 0.04a3.42 ± 0.02b3.45 ± 0.09b3.48 ± 0.04b
      Cryptochlorogenic acid1.8 ± 0.09a1.84 ± 0.03a2.12 ± 0.03b1.82 ± 0.01a1.83 ± 0.04a1.87 ± 0.02a
      Isochlorogenic acid A0.04 ± 0a0.04 ± 0b0.04 ± 0b0.04 ± 0ab0.04 ± 0b0.04 ± 0b
      Isochlorogenic acid B0 ± 0a0.01 ± 0.01ab0.02 ± 0.01ab0 ± 0ab0.01 ± 0.01a0.02 ± 0b
      Isochlorogenic acid C0.04 ± 0ab0.04 ± 0c0.04 ± 0a0.04 ± 0bc0.05 ± 0c0.04 ± 0c
      Tartaric acid6.71 ± 0.35a6.88 ± 0.11a7.21 ± 0.09b6.78 ± 0.04a6.85 ± 0.18a6.98 ± 0.08ab
      Malic acid5.88 ± 0.56a5.85 ± 0.14a6.07 ± 0.33a5.88 ± 0.23a5.81 ± 0.09a5.85 ± 0.18a
      Citric acid1.08 ± 0.48a1.26 ± 0.04a1.29 ± 0.09a1.22 ± 0.03a1.21 ± 0.03a1.39 ± 0.15a
      Succinic acid4.26 ± 0.18a4.28 ± 0.46a7.57 ± 0.82b4.71 ± 0.12a4.6 ± 0.04a4.45 ± 0.18a
      Fumaric acid0.19 ± 0.16a0.2 ± 0.18a0.29 ± 0.25a0.19 ± 0.17a0.21 ± 0.18a0.18 ± 0.16a
      Total0.03 ± 0ab0.03 ± 0ab0.03 ± 0b0.03 ± 0a0.03 ± 0ab0.03 ± 0ab
      Different letters in the same row indicated significant difference (p < 0.05)

      The chromatogram of each organic acid compound standard is shown in Fig. 1a & b, which showed that each compound had been well separated. The regression equation of sample concentration X to peak area Y, and the correlation coefficient R2 (> 0.999) was obtained. CGA is an important nonvolatile substance in coffee, and significantly affects the taste and flavor of coffee. Chlorogenic acid can produce different derivatives and volatile components under different processing conditions, which can affect the sensory quality of coffee[21]. According to Table 3, chlorogenic acid, neochlorogenic acid and cryptochlorogenic acid were the main compounds in CK, and the concentration of isochlorogenic acid was relatively lower. Compared to CK, BPS had higher neochlorogenic acid and cryptochlorogenic acid concentration, but lower chlorogenic acid concentration. It might be that the conditions of back pressure sterilization were more likely to cause the degradation of chlorogenic acid and led to the conversion of chlorogenic acid compounds into isochlorogenic acid and cryptochlorogenic acid compounds. According to Table 3, the citric acid concentration was significantly decreased in BPS, while there was no significant difference in the concentrations of tartaric acid, malic acid, succinic acid and fumaric acid among all the samples.

      Figure 1.  High Performance Liquid Chromatogram of organic acid concentration.

      Thus, compared to other sterilization method, back pressure sterilization influenced the pH value and the organic acid concentration of coffee more obviously, and may lower the quality of coffee.

    • According to Fig. 2a, the retention time of each peak of the samples were similar, while the intensity of some peaks decreased, which indicated that different sterilization methods may not have a significant effect on the composition of VCs of coffee, but have a negative effect on the concentration of VCs. According to Fig. 2b, all the sterilization methods, except high pressure processing, had a negative influence on the total aroma amount of coffee, especially the back pressure sterilization and pasteurization (decreased by 50.5% and 12.5% respectively). The effect of high temperature sterilization on the total aroma amount of coffee was relatively low (decreased by 8.0%), which had no obvious difference from that of MF. Overall, non-heat sterilization had little effect, as its milder sterilization process conditions led to lower aroma loss.

      Figure 2.  (a) E-nose gas chromatogram; (b) total peak area.

    • Combined with the retention index of MXT-5 and MXT-1701 columns, the main VCs were retrieved by AroChemBase database of E-nose analysis software, and the possible compounds were obtained, as shown in Table 4. VCs were classified into different categories (aldehydes, pyrazines, ketones, alcohols, esters, acids, pyrrole, pyridine and other), then the total peak area of each category was summed up, as shown in Fig. 3. Among CK, PS, HTS, MF and HPP, there was no obvious difference among the distribution of each VCs category, and aldehydes, pyrazines, ketones and alcohols were the main compounds. In BPS, the content of aldehydes and pyrazines are obviously lower. Compared to that of CK, they were decreased by 43.7% and 50.9% respectively.

      Table 4.  Information of main possible VCs.

      No.Retention time (s) Retention indexPossible VCsSensory descriptionCategory
      115.2415AcetaldehydeFruit, pleasant, spicyAldehydes
      215.9430MethanolAlcohol, spicy, strongAlcohols
      316.5441EthanolAlcohol, spicy, strongAlcohols
      417.7468PropionaldehydeCocoa, nut, plastic, spicyAldehyde
      519.4502Ethyl formateFruit, green, spicy, roseEsters
      621.15372-methylpropionaldehydeBaked potatoes, fruit, malt, roastedAldehyde
      723.1580N-butyraldehydeCocoa, chocolate, green, malt, mustyAldehyde
      824.05972-butanoneButter, cheese, chocolate, pleasantKetones
      924.86052-methylfuranCharred, chocolate, metalOther
      1027.5627IsobutanolAlcohol, bitter, licorice, sweetAlcohols
      1129.3641Isopropyl acetateBananas, fruit, sweetEsters
      1230.56503-MethylbutyraldehydeAlmonds, cheese, chocolate, malt, peach, roastedAldehyde
      1331.86612-ethylfuranBurnt, acidic, sweet, rubber, maltOther
      1435.16862-pentanoneBananas, fruit, sweetKetones
      1536.16942,3-pentanedioneAlmond, apple, cream candy, caramel, cheese, cream, fruit, malt, nutKetones
      1638.57093-pentanolFruit, green, nutty, greasy, sweetAlcohols
      1741.5726GlutaraldehydeAlmonds, berries, fruits, green, nutty, malt, herbalAldehyde
      1843.6737PyrazineBitter, corn, hazelnut, nutty, sweet, spicy, strongPyrazine
      1944.8744Isoamyl alcoholAlcohol, sesame oil, bitterness, cheese, fruit, malt, spicy, whisky, charredAlcohols
      2046.0750pyridineBurnt, amine, spicyPyridine
      2148.17622-methylglutaraldehydeCheese, fruitAldehyde
      2249.6771N-pentanolAlcohol, fruit, sesame oil, fennel, sweet, spicyAlcohols
      2350.87771-hexene-3-alcoholFreshly cut grass, rumAlcohols
      2452.27842-hexanoneFruit, cinnamon, fungi, meat, spicyKetones
      2554.0794N-hexanalHerbal, dense, sweet, oak, butterAldehyde
      2655.08002-HexanolBroccoli, fruit, wineAlcohols
      2756.9808Propyl propionateApple, fruit, pineapple, fruity (sweet)Esters
      2858.7815Bread ketoneNuts, coffee, breadKetones
      2959.58192-hydroxy-3-pentanoneButter, nuts, peanuts, trufflesKetones
      3060.9824Ethyl isovalerateFennel, apple, fruit, sweetEsters
      3163.1833Furan formaldehydeAlmond, aromatic, roasted, sweet, woodyAldehyde
      3268.2855Isovaleric acidCheese, fruit, sourAcids
      3370.8865N-hexanolMedicinal, plant, branch, sweet, woody, barbecueAlcohols
      3476.38882,4-dimethylthiazoleCocoa, coffee, meat, beef flavorOther
      3579.99042-methoxypyrazineChocolate, cocoa, nuts, sweetPyrazine
      3682.7919Valeric acidSour, sweet, spicy, rottenAcids
      3786.09364,5-dimethylthiazoleRoasted, smoked, nutty, earthyOther
      3886.8940Isovaleraldehyde propylene glycol acetalCaramel, fruit, sweet, sourAldehyde
      3988.3948Propyl isovalerateApple, fruit, sweetEsters
      4089.79562-ethoxythiazoleNut (roasted), coffee, burningOther
      4191.0963Tetrahydrothiophene-3-oneRoasted, garlic, onion flavoredKetones
      4293.0973FilbertoneHazelnut, nutKetones
      4397.59972-AcetylthiazoleBread, burnt, caramel, grain, peanuts, hazelnuts, popcorn, roastedOther
      4499.01007Caproic acidCheese, goat, sour, sweet, rottenAcids
      45100.01015Heptadiene aldehydeCinnamon, greasy, nutty, rancidAldehyde
      46101.710282-acylpyrrolePopcorn, roastedPyrrole
      47103.210402-acetylpyridineBiscuits, bread, greasy, popcorn, tobaccoPyridine
      48105.11055Furanone methyl etherCaramel, fruit, mushroom, burningOther
      49105.810612-methyl-5-vinyl pyrazineRoasted, sweet, coffee, nutPyrazine
      50106.310652-acetylpyrroleNuts, walnuts, caramel, fennel, licoricePyrrole
      51107.110713-methylcyclopentane-1,2-dioneCaramel, coffee, sweet, mapleKetones
      52109.110862-acetylpyrazineCocoa, coffee, popcornPyrazine
      53111.211042-NonanolApple, banana (ripe), cherry, orange, fruityAlcohols
      54122.71194Ethyl octanoateFennel, roasted fruit, fruitEsters
      55132.41269Nonanoic acidCheese, dairy products, sourAcids

      Figure 3.  Comparison of total peak area of different category VCs.

    • Based on the sensory description in Table 4, the aroma of coffee can be classified to corny odor, sour/fermented odor, fruit/floral odor, caramel odor, nutty/cocoa odor and toasty odor. The main odors of CK were caramel odor, nutty/cocoa odor, toasty odor and corny odor. Compared to CK, BPS had a more sour/fermented odor but lower corny odor. Other samples were similar with CK, showing a little decrease in caramel odor and nutty/cocoa odor ( Fig. 4).

      Figure 4.  Radar chart of coffee aroma.

    • E-tongue simulates the taste perception mechanism of living organisms. Sourness, sweetness, bitterness, saltiness, umami, astringency and aftertaste of cold brew coffee were evaluated by detecting the change of membrane potential caused by electrostatic interaction or hydrophobic interaction between various flavor substances and artificial lipid film[22]. The data of CK was set as the reference (zero point), then other samples were compared with it, and shown in Fig. 5.

      Figure 5.  Comparison of coffee taste. (a) bitterness, astringency and the aftertaste of the two; (b) saltiness, umami and richness; (c) sourness.

      Bitterness and astringency are important taste indicators of coffee. From Fig. 5a, different sterilization methods had different degrees of influence on the bitterness of coffee. BPS and PS had higher bitterness and astringency values than other samples. HTS, MF and HPP had lower bitterness, astringency and aftertaste values, among which HTS had the lowest.

      Coffee samples also performed a significant response to saltiness, umami and richness (also known as umami aftertaste), and these three taste indicators were compared as shown in Fig. 5b. Back pressure processing had obvious negative influence on performance of the umami, saltiness and richness, while other methods had little influence on umami. Pasteurization and high pressure processing led to an increase in the richness value of coffee. For saltiness value, pasteurization increased it, while high temperature sterilization, membrane filtration and high pressure processing decreased it, and high temperature short-term sterilization decreased it the most.

      Sourness is a basic flavor of coffee. Compared to CK, BPS had higher sourness value, indicating that back pressure processing could lead to the increase in sourness, which corresponds to the results in pH value and organic acid concentration. Pasteurization and high pressure processing could decrease the sourness value of coffee while membrane filtration increased it.

    • Coffee cup-testing is an important method to evaluate the sensory attributes of coffee. Recently, coffee cup-testing has been gradually applied in scientific research[23]. In order to obtain accurate results, professional testers were invited to participate in the evaluation, the results are shown in Figs. 6 and 7. The scores of each sensory attribute of samples ranged from 6.75 to 8.15. There was no significant difference in the score of flavor, aftertaste, acidity and body among the samples. Slight differences were shown in aroma, balance and overall scores, and the scores of BPS were significantly lower than that of CK.

      Figure 6.  Analysis of coffee cup-testing.

      Figure 7.  Radar chart of coffee sensory results.

    • In this research, five sterilization methods were used to sterilize cold brew coffee, then E-nose, E-tongue and coffee cup-testing were used to analyze the difference of coffee sensory quality before, and after sterilization. The results indicated that, compared to heat sterilization, non-heat sterilization was more favorable to the sensory attributes of coffee, as they had less negative influence on the aroma and taste of coffee. Among heat sterilization, back pressure sterilization showed significant negative effect on coffee sensory quality, as total aroma decreased, and sourness, bitterness and astringency increased. While the coffee treated with high temperature short-term sterlization was relatively good overall, as the decrease of total aroma was not significant, and the bitterness of coffee decreased comparatively.

      According to this research, non-heat sterilization can better retain the aroma and taste of cold brew coffee, but due to its high cost and limited application, it is not as widely used as heat sterilization in coffee and other beverage products. Among heat sterilization, high temperature short-time sterilization is more suitable for the processing and production of cold brew coffee, as its cost is reasonable, and the sensory quality and nutrients of coffee can be better maintained. This research conclusion provides theoretical support for the selection of sterilization methods for cold brew coffee processing, but the optimization of sterilization procedures and the influence of processing conditions on the sensory quality of cold brew coffee requires further investigation.

      • The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
      • Copyright: © 2022 by the author(s). Exclusive Licensee Maximum Academic Press, Fayetteville, GA. This article is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
    Figure (7)  Table (4) References (23)
  • About this article
    Cite this article
    Liu X, Wang W, Fei Y, Zhou Y, Jin L, et al. 2022. Effect of sterilization methods on the flavor of cold brew coffee. Beverage Plant Research 2: 6 doi: 10.48130/BPR-2022-0006
    Liu X, Wang W, Fei Y, Zhou Y, Jin L, et al. 2022. Effect of sterilization methods on the flavor of cold brew coffee. Beverage Plant Research 2: 6 doi: 10.48130/BPR-2022-0006

Catalog

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return