Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

Journal of Food Engineering 146 (2015) 204208

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Food Engineering

journal homepage:

A new espresso brewing method

Piernicola Masella a, Lorenzo Guerrini a,, Silvia Spinelli a, Luca Calamai b, Paolo Spugnoli a, Francesco Illy c,
Alessandro Parenti a

Dipartimento di Gestione dei Sistemi Agrari, Alimentari e Forestali (GESAAF), Universit degli Studi di Firenze, Piazzale delle Cascine 15, 50144 Firenze, Italy
Dipartimento di Scienze delle Produzioni Agroalimentari e dellAmbiente (DISPAA), Universit degli Studi di Firenze, Piazzale delle Cascine 18, 50144 Firenze, Italy
Amici Caff AG, Hinterbergstrasse 22, CH-6330 Cham, Switzerland

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 7 May 2014
Received in revised form 7 August 2014
Accepted 1 September 2014
Available online 19 September 2014
Coffee brewing
Extraction setting
Food quality
Volatile compounds

a b s t r a c t
A new espresso brewing method has recently been developed. The main steps are: introduction and
tamping of ground coffee in a sealed chamber, introduction of pressurized air into the chamber, the introduction of hot water and a pre-infusion phase. It is substantially different to the usual brewing method
used in bars: the driving force for the ow is the pressure difference between the interior and the exterior
of the chamber (rather than pressurized hot water provided by a motor-driven pump); the extraction
process is partially static; the pressure is higher than the traditional method; and the temperature of
the extraction chamber can be controlled (in addition to the water temperature control found in the traditional method). The method has been tested with three chamber temperatures and two pressures. At all
settings, espressos produced using this method have particularly high and persistent foam. Furthermore,
changes in pressure cause changes in some physical parameters and the amount of key odorants in the
headspace above the coffee. A benchmark comparison with the capsule method gives differences in several aromatic compounds and in almost all the physical parameters. In conclusion, the beverage produced
by the CF method is clearly recognizable by a thick and very persistent foam layer, while the method
appears more exible than the traditional one as the characteristics of the EC can be adjusted as a function of brewing conditions.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
A very large number of espressos coffees (EC) are brewed every
day in the world. It has been estimated that over than 50 million
cups per days are consumed (Illy and Navarini, 2011). Consequently, many coffee brewing apparatuses have been developed
(Klopprogge et al., 2013) and it is known that different brewing
techniques produce different espressos in term of quality (Parenti
et al., 2014). The category includes all devices that are able to percolate pressurized hot water through a tamped cake of ground coffee, allowing brewing to occur (Illy et al., 2005). Specically, there
are three widespread technologies for brewing espresso: the bar
machine (the traditional method), and the capsule and pod
machines (simpler preparation methods). These two latter methodologies use a single dose of pre-packaged coffee powder, which
requires less skill to brew the coffee. Capsules in particular provide
good quality espresso; they reduce coffee powder aging, limit
moisture effects on granulometry, and uncontrolled variability in
other parameters, such as coffee dosing, torque applied to the cake,
Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 553288352.
E-mail address: (L. Guerrini).
0260-8774/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

and water distribution on the powder (Illy et al., 2005; Parenti

et al., 2014; Vanni, 2009).
Recently, a new espresso brewing method, namely Caff Firenze
(CF) (EU Patent 06 023 798.9; US 2010/0034942 A1) has been
developed. This article describes this new brewing method, which
uses a sealed chamber and pressurized air. It tests the effects of different brewing settings (i.e. pressure and temperature) on the
physical and chemical parameters of EC, as parameters such as
water temperature and pressure are recognized as being particularly important for the quality of traditional espresso coffee
(Andueza et al., 2002, 2003). Furthermore, the method is compared
to a capsule method in order to highlight differences in physical
and chemical parameters between the new method and a
commercial method.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. The new extraction device for Caff Firenze brewing
To test the new Caff Firenze (CF) brewing method, an extraction device has been developed, and consists of the following parts
(Fig. 1):

P. Masella et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 146 (2015) 204208

- An extraction chamber where coffee extraction takes place

under sealed conditions, high pressure and controlled
- An electric compressor to feed pressurized air into the extraction chamber.
- An electric pump to feed pressurized water into the extraction
- An electric boiler to heat the water used for brewing.
- An electric resistance to heat the extraction chamber.
- A portalter where the ground coffee is tamped, equipped with
a manual valve allowing closure of the extraction chamber.
- Pressure and temperature transducers inside the extraction


pressures of 10 or 15 bar respectively, with further water compression of 5 bar. The EC produced was compared on the basis of
several chemical and physical parameters. All the boundary conditions other than temperatures and pressure were the same in all
the trials.
Furthermore, a benchmark comparison was made with the capsule method as this system produces more consistent EC than the
conventional bar method (Parenti et al., 2014). The data published
in Parenti et al. (2014) was used for this purpose. It was possible to
make a reliable comparison with the new method because the
same coffee batch was used and all tests were performed on the
same days.
2.3. Espresso coffee preparation

2.2. Experimental procedure

The extraction temperature and pressure are the main operating parameters of the new brewing method. In our initial tests
we brewed EC at pressures well above the standard pressure of
9 bar; these pressures were reached by means of compressed gas.
Consequently, a series of preliminary trials were conducted that
aimed to establish threshold temperature and pressure values
which produced good-quality EC. Several tests were carried out
at different temperatures and pressures, the latter achieved with
different water-to-air ratios in the extraction chamber. The preliminary trials were assessed through, on the one hand, a sensory
evaluation of the EC produced, and on the other, its refractive
index, density and viscosity. The empirical results of these preliminary trials indicated the following minimum operating condition requirements:
- a minimum chamber extraction temperature of 75 C;
- gas pressure inside the extraction chamber equal to or higher
than 10 bar;
- a constant pressure increment of 5 bar in the water owing into
the extraction chamber;
- an infusion time of about 12 s.
On the basis of these empirical results, a series of experiments
were performed at three temperatures (75, 80, and 85 C) and
two extraction pressures (15 or 20 bar) obtained through gas

Each combination of settings (3 temperatures  2 pressures) of

the CF device was tested. Eighteen ECs per day were prepared over
a period of three days, consisting of 9 independent replicates for
each treatment, and making a total of 54 ECs to be analysed. On each
day the order of preparation was randomized. According to Navarini
and Rivetti (2010), water quality plays a key role in EC quality. Consequently, all tests were performed using the same commercial
brand of mineral water, whose chemical and physical analysis can
be found in Parenti et al. (2014). All ECs were prepared from the
same batch of roasted coffee beans, provided by illycaff S.p.A.
(Italy). The beans were ground immediately before preparation,
using a professional coffee grinder (KE640 model manufactured
by Ditting Maschinen AG, Switzerland). The resulting particle
size distribution was: 29% > 500 lm; 250 lm < 47.4% < 500 lm;
125 lm < 22.2% < 250 lm; and 1.4% < 125 lm, as determined by
an automatic sieve shaker model Filter FTL 150200 (Seneco Srl,
Italy), equipped with four sieve (height 50 mm, diameter 200 mm).
2.4. Measurements and analyses
Coffee samples were collected according to the procedure
reported in Parenti et al. (2014). Briey, for all EC samples, about
25 g of percolated liquid was collected in a purpose-designed
weighing bottle (75 ml volume, 53 mm internal diameter, 34 mm
high). The temperature of the liquid was measured in real-time.
The following parameters were analysed and evaluated for all

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the Caff Firenze brewing device.


P. Masella et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 146 (2015) 204208

samples: foam index and persistency, density, pH, viscosity, refractive index, total solids and extraction, lipids, caffeine, trigonelline
and chlorogenic acids, and volatile compounds. A detailed description of the methods applied to assess these parameters can be
found in Parenti et al. (2014).
The determination of volatile compounds merits particular
attention owing to its methodological peculiarity; it is briey
described again here. In view of the evidence that the perception
of EC aroma strictly depends on the temperature of the beverage
and the amount of foam, all the EC samples were collected just
after preparation in a thermostated (thermostatic bath at 60 C)
sampling vessel purposely designed for this experiment, being
equipped with a hermetical closure and two valves for headspace
gases suction in a collecting syringe (60 ml) tted with a Tenax cartridge trap for TDU sampling (Thermal Desorption Unit, manufactured by Gerstel, Germany). After headspace vapour were
aspirated (50 ml in 30 s), cartridges were stored in sealed plastic
tubes and analysed the same day using the thermal desorption
unit/gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (TDU/GC/MS) technique. Details on the instrumentation and method can be found
in Parenti et al. (2014). Compounds were identied by cross-checking their mass spectra and their retention indices by what reported
in Nist05 and Wyley07 spectral libraries, based on dynamic background compensation with Target view software (ALMSCO, United
2.4.1. Statistical analysis
A conventional variance analysis (two-way ANOVA) was performed to evaluate the effects of temperature and pressure on
ECs. Where the F-test was signicant at the p 6 0.05, multiple comparison tests of pairs of means were checked for signicance using
the Tukey Honest Signicance Difference (HSD) post hoc test
(p < 0.05). The same approach was taken for the comparison of
the CF and capsule method, where the t-test was applied.

3. Results and discussion

The CF preparation method for has been described and can be
summarized by the following four main steps:
1. Seven grams of ground coffee are placed and mechanically
tamped in the portalter at about 20 kgf, creating the conventional coffee cake described by Illy et al. (2005). Then the portalter is closed (using the appropriate valve) and attached to the
extraction chamber.
2. Pressurized air is introduced into the system until a nal value
of 1015 bar is reached inside the extraction chamber.
3. Hot water is introduced into the chamber. The water further
compresses the gas, resulting in a constant pressure increment
of 5 bar, and a nal extraction pressure of 1520 bar.
4. After an infusion phase of 12 s (static extraction), the portalter
valve is opened and the coffee ows out (dynamic extraction by
Although the method has some features in common with the
traditional bar method (such as the use of tamped ground coffee
and the nal percolation extraction) the new method has other
unique characteristics:
1. The ow driving force is the difference between the pressure
inside the extraction chamber and the outer environment,
rather than the conventional pressure change due to hot water
that enters the coffee cake and is provided by a pump.
2. The extraction process is partially static (infusion) inside the
hermetically sealed extraction chamber under high pressure,

whereas in the conventional process extraction takes place

under dynamic conditions during percolation.
3. The process takes place under a range of pressures that are far
above conventional values (i.e. higher than 15 bar vs. 9 bar in
the conventional process) (Andueza et al., 2002).
4. The extraction temperature is regulated by the temperature of
the incoming water (which is heated outside the extraction
chamber) and the temperature of the chamber itself (which
has a separate thermostat) whereas in the conventional method
it depends solely on the temperature of the percolating water.
Compared with brewing techniques that are based on a single
dose of pre-packaged coffee (such as capsule systems), point 2
listed above is one of the most signicant differences. The partially
static extraction method used in the new system allows the operator to choose the time the coffee powder and water are in contact.
In capsule-based methods, extraction is fully dynamic, and the
duration of solidliquid contact is mainly adjusted by the water
ow rate. Moreover, the gas volume in the CF extraction chamber
is much higher than in the capsule method and drives the espresso
outow. Also, the new system is able to operate under different
extraction conditions, i.e. pressures, temperatures, pressing gases
(air, nitrogen, etc.), pre-infusion time, and amount of coffee powder. In other words, the new system is more exible, which may
result in ECs with different characteristics.
Differences in the physico-chemical parameters for the three
extraction temperatures (75, 80 and 85 C) and two pressures (15
and 20 bar) are shown in Table 1. It is important to note that in
no case was the interaction between temperature and pressure statistically signicant. Table 1 shows that changes in pressure correspond to signicant differences in pH, density, refractive index,
foam index, total solids and extraction. Foam, and its related
parameters can be considered the distinctive feature of this new
extraction method. In fact, foam indexes (regardless of extraction
conditions) are about 100%, i.e. an order of magnitude greater than
the reference value of 10% for high-quality EC (Illy et al., 2005).
Both pressure and temperature signicantly affect the foam index.
In general, higher pressures and lower temperatures tend to produce more foam. Furthermore, the emulsion is very stable; the
foam surface remained intact even after eight hours of storage. This
is an important feature of the new method as the large amount of
foam and its persistency have a high impact on physic, chemical
and sensorial features.
pH values are in the range 5.25.8 and consistent with those
reported in literature. Andueza et al. (2002), and Dalla Rosa et al.
(1986) studied the effect of the water pressure (711 bar), and cake
compression on pH values. In these studies, increased pressure
decreased pH. In contrast, our data showed that higher pressures
led to higher pH values.
Brew density was also signicantly affected by pressure. Significantly higher density values were recorded at 20 bar and all ECs
had values of 1.0221.071 g/ml, which is higher than those
reported by Illy et al. (2005). This could be related to the low lipid
content of the EC: the value for traditional espresso ranges from 4
to 5 mg/ml (Illy et al., 2005), while with the CF method values
between 0.71 mg/ml and 1.29 mg/ml were observed. It may be that
fewer lipids were detected in the liquid phase, as they were mainly
in the emulsion. This is consistent with the higher foam index
found at higher pressures. However, higher temperatures have
been shown to lead to higher lipid content in the liquid phases.
According to Navarini et al. (2004), viscosity (together with
density and total solids) is related to the body of EC, i.e. its tactile
sensation in mouth. The CF method produces a brew with higher
viscosity than traditional espresso (Illy et al., 2005) and viscosity
seems to be signicantly affected both by pressure and temperature. This conrms data found in the literature (Andueza et al.,


P. Masella et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 146 (2015) 204208

Table 1
Mean and standard deviation of physico-chemical parameters. The letters a, b and c (for temperature) and x and y (for pressure) indicate statistically signicant differences
(p > 0.05 Tukeys Test).

Output temperature (C)

Density at 20 C (g/ml)
Viscosity (mN m 2 s)
Refractive index (nD)
Foam index (%)
Foam persistency (h)
Total solids (mg/g)
Extraction (%)
Total lipids (mg/ml)
Caffeine (mg/ml)
Trigonelline (mg/ml)
4-Caffeoilquinic acid (mg/ml)
3-Caffeoilquinic acid + 5-caffeoilquinic acid (mg/ml)
3,4-Dicaffeoilquinic acid (mg/ml)
4,5-Dicaffeoilquinic acid (mg/ml)
Total caffeoilquinic acids (mg/ml)
Total dicaffeoilquinic acids (mg/ml)

75 C 15 bar

75 C 20 bar

80 C 15 bar

80 C 20 bar

85 C 15 bar

85 C 20 bar

66.9 4.6 cx
5.3 0.2 ax
1.022 0.041 ax
1.40 0.17 ax
1.345 0.053 ax
113.4 15.0 bx
60.46 3.49 ax
21.6 1.3 ax
0.92 0.47 ax
2.23 0.29
1.19 0.17
0.92 0.14
2.52 0.35
0.10 0.01
0.08 0.01
3.44 0.49
0.17 0.02

69.9 2.6 cx
5.4 0.1 ay
1.039 0.028 ay
1.48 0.12 ay
1.367 0.035 ay
135.0 27.5 by
63.54 3.7 ay
22.3 1.4 ay
0.61 0.41 ax
2.16 0.30
1.16 0.17
0.88 0.18
2.44 0.44
0.09 0.03
0.08 0.02
3.32 0.62
0.17 0.05

76.3 1.5 bx
5.3 0.2 ax
1.027 0.034 ax
1.42 0.15 bx
1.352 0.044 ax
102.4 12.2 ax
61.14 3.21 ax
21.7 0.8 ax
0.88 0.46 ax
2.19 0.31
1.17 0.15
0.91 0.17
2.53 0.39
0.10 0.03
0.08 0.02
3.45 0.56
0.18 0.05

73.4 2.4 bx
5.5 0.1 ay
1.071 0.028 ay
1.72 0.24 by
1.409 0.035 ay
113.8 20.5 ay
66.89 4.73 ay
22.8 1.2 ay
0.89 0.51 ax
2.31 0.22
1.25 0.12
0.99 0.11
2.71 0.22
0.11 0.02
0.08 0.01
3.70 0.33
0.20 0.02

77.7 2.1 ax
5.3 0.2 ax
1.043 0.037 ax
1.51 0.18 bx
1.373 0.048 ax
91.1 12.9 ax
61.16 4.23 ax
21.3 1.2 ax
1.23 0.38 bx
2.22 0.26
1.20 0.13
0.91 0.14
2.51 0.36
0.10 0.02
0.08 0.02
3.42 0.49
0.18 0.04

77.1 1.6 ax
5.4 0.1 ay
1.059 0.027 ay
1.62 0.13 by
1.392 0.035 ay
117.6 21.7 ay
67.78 3.77 ay
23.3 1.1 ay
1.29 0.64 bx
2.39 0.26
1.27 0.15
1.02 0.13
2.77 0.33
0.12 0.02
0.09 0.01
3.79 0.46
0.21 0.03

2002), where an increase in brewing pressure results in higher viscosity. In addition, Andueza et al. (2003) reported that in the temperature range 8898 C there were no signicant variations in
viscosity; this is partially conrmed by our data, where only the
two higher chamber temperatures (80 and 85 C) produced more
viscous coffee.
Unlike viscosity, density and total solids were not signicantly
affected by temperature (Table 1), whereas higher pressure
resulted in higher values for both parameters. In particular, total
solids exceeded the EC reference value of 60 mg/ml. This is important as consumers generally associate this parameter with coffee
The refractive index was also signicantly affected by the
higher pressures found in the new method. This parameter can
be considered as a summary of coffee extraction. The Pearson correlation coefcients with viscosity (r = 0.919), density (r = 0.999),
and total solids (r = 0.579) were high. Finally, higher pressures
increased overall coffee extraction, whereas temperature did not,
which contrasts with the results of Andueza et al. (2003).
Caffeine, trigonelline, and chlorogenic acids were not affected
by pressure or temperature values in the tested ranges. As the full
EC volatile compounds prole is composed of over 800 chemical
compounds (Maarse and Visscher, 1996), only those showing signicant differences in the two-way ANOVA analysis are reported
in Table 2. The analysis shows that temperature has a limited
effect, while there is no apparent effect of pressure on the aromatic
prole. Signicant differences were only found for 9 out of 53 identied compounds. Of these, two pyrazines (2-ethyl-3 6-dimethylpyrazine and 2-ethyl-6-methylpyrazine) were signicantly
increased by higher temperatures. Both are powerful odorants,

associated with toasted, woody and mouldy perceptions in EC

(Yeretzian et al., 2003). Moreover, temperature produced signicant differences in another key odorant, guaiacol, which in small
amounts is responsible for spicy sensations, and a burnt avour
in greater concentrations (Blank et al., 1991). Higher guaiacol concentrations were recorded at 85 C than 75 C. Two other coffee
pyrazines (2-ethyl-5-methylpyrazine and 2-isopropenylpyrazine)
showed the same behaviour. Furthermore, higher temperatures led
to the extraction of a greater amount of 3-hexanone (fruity avour)
and 4-vinyl guaiacol. Therefore, for all the compounds signicantly
affected by temperature, increasing headspace concentrations
were found as the extraction temperature increased. In contrast,
none of the identied compounds were signicantly affected by
pressure. The positive effect of the increasing temperature on
aroma compounds concentration is probably related to their
improved solubility in the liquid phase. Moreover, since these compounds are usually poorly soluble in water, probably the increase
of temperature determines an increment of their partition coefcient in water. On the opposite, the increasing pressure expected
to have an opposite effect, but as above stated any signicant effect
of pressure has been recorded. Probably, the time that temperature
and pressure are maintained in the extraction chamber before
introduction of water plays an important role for the balance of
the contrasting effect of temperature and pressure, and under the
tested conditions the effect of temperature was predominant.
In summary, pressure and temperature signicantly affected EC
quality produced with the new brewing method. In general,
increasing pressure positively affected parameters related to the
body of the brew (density, viscosity, refractive index, total
solids) and appearance (measured by the foam index). Higher

Table 2
Mean and standard deviation of organic volatile compounds signicantly affected by extraction chamber temperature. Different letters indicate a difference as a function of
temperature, based on the post hoc Tukey test (p < 0.05).
75 C 15 bar

24.07 4.08
7.32 1.37
3.32 0.63
0.40 0.07
13.90 2.33
0.54 0.10
1.35 0.21
17.70 2.60
3.83 0.74

75 C 20 bar

23.86 3.94
7.49 1.69
3.27 0.52
0.40 0.09
13.77 2.24
0.50 0.07
1.33 0.19
17.54 2.39
3.80 0.52

80 C 15 bar

27.80 6.56
8.62 1.91
3.89 1.04
0.48 0.09
16.06 3.77
0.65 0.15
1.57 0.39
19.47 4.59
5.07 1.12

80 C 20 bar

27.01 3.17
8.36 0.94
3.84 0.48
0.44 0.07
15.58 1.83
0.63 0.11
1.54 0.18
19.43 2.32
4.58 0.57

85 C 15 bar

29.84 6.47
9.50 2.12
4.05 1.09
0.54 0.13
17.16 3.60
0.73 0.14
1.73 0.37
20.67 4.22
5.92 1.78

85 C 20 bar

29.06 6.72
9.63 2.60
4.06 1.05
0.46 0.11
16.76 3.74
0.71 0.11
1.67 0.37
20.66 4.19
5.39 1.24



P. Masella et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 146 (2015) 204208

Table 3
Mean and standard deviation of nine measurements of physico-chemical parameters
in espresso brewed using the iyperespresso capsule method (see data published in
Parenti et al., 2014).
Output temperature (C)
Density at 20 C (g ml 1)
Viscosity at 20 C (m N s m 2)
Refractive index (nD)
Foam index (%)
Foam persistency (min)
Total solids (mg ml 1)
Extraction (%)
Concentration (%)
Total lipids (mg ml 1)
Caffeine (mg ml 1)
Trigonelline (mg ml 1)
4-Caffeoilquinic acid (mg ml 1)
3-Caffeoilquinic + 5-caffeoilquinic acids (mg ml
3,4-Dicaffeoilquinic acid (mg ml 1)
4,5-Dicaffeoilquinic acid (mg ml 1)
Total caffeoilquinic acids (mg ml 1)
Total dicaffeoilquinic acids (mg ml 1)

87.6 1.8
5.15 0.10
1.012 0.014
1.40 0.04
1.331 0.019
61.3 10.1
234.27 9.34
69.69 1.78
25.1 0.7
7.0 0.2
4.49 0.73
2.31 0.19
1.22 0.12
0.96 0.08
2.59 0.22
0.11 0.01
0.09 0.01
3.54 0.29
0.20 0.02

temperature was important for a good aromatic prole. Hence, the

best operative settings seem to be 85 C and 20 bar.
In addition to data from the literature on conventional EC methods, another relevant benchmark for the CF method is the capsule
(HIP) method described by Parenti et al. (2014). The two methods
are similar; the main differences are the extraction kinetic (partially static in CF) and the range of applied pressures (higher in
CF). It is therefore interesting to compare the CF and capsule data
reported by Parenti et al. (2014), particularly given that the same
batch of raw coffee beans were used in both the experiments.
The results of the HIP analyses are presented in Table 3. The results
from the CF method indicate signicantly higher values for pH,
density and viscosity. In both methods the values of these parameters were higher than those reported by Illy et al. (2005) for the
traditional method. The higher pH values are probably related to
the higher total solid content of EC produced at high pressures.
This was conrmed by the good correlation (r = 0.86) founded
between pH and total solids values, when computed over all the
collected EC samples. According to the literature (Navarini et al.,
2004), both the CF and HIP methods produce coffees with high
body perceptions.
Another nding is that the CF refractive index is very high compared with the HIP method. This conrms the signicant correlation with density and viscosity, but not solids found in the
ANOVA analysis. Unlike the other physical values, the extraction
results are signicantly higher in the HIP method. Finally, foam
parameters were more pronounced in the CF than the HIP method.
The foam index was about 100% for CF compared to about 60% for
HIP. The same is true for foam persistency, which was over eight
hours for CF and about six hours for HIP. This conrms the correlation between the two parameters (Nunes et al., 1997). The foam
parameters of the CF method can be partially explained by the
lower total lipids in the liquid phase, which instead constitute
the emulsion phase.
The results of the high performance liquid chromatography
showed that there was no signicant difference in the acidic prole
of EC brewed using the HIP and CF methods, whereas differences
were found in the volatile compound prole. In particular (as discussed above) a difference was found for guaiacol, which was

higher in the HIP headspace. Other compounds with higher concentrations in HIP were acetic acid methyl ester, 2-butanone, linalool, 3-aminophenol and 2-methoxy-4-vinylphenol. However, these
compounds have a minor impact on aroma. No volatile compounds
were found in higher amounts in coffee brewed using the CF
method (data not shown). These differences in the volatile organic
compounds found in the cup headspace could be due to the height
of the foam layer, which act as a selective barrier against escaping
volatiles (Dold et al., 2011).
4. Conclusions
A new espresso coffee brewing method, Caff Firenze (CF), has
been developed and patented. The beverage produced by the CF
method is clearly recognizable by a thick and very persistent foam
layer, while the coffee has chemical and physical parameters that
are fully compliant with traditional ECs. Compared to the Hiperespresso capsule method, CF produces ECs characterized by a slightly
lower concentration of certain perceivable volatile organic compounds, probably as a consequence of the thickness of the foam.
However, the CF method appears more exible as the characteristics of the EC can be adjusted as a function of brewing conditions.
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Why? S.R.L.
for sponsoring this research, and to illycaff spa for providing the
Andueza, S., Maeztu, L., Dean, B., De Pea, M.P., Bello, J., Cid, C., 2002. Inuence of
water pressure on the nal quality of arabica espresso coffee. Application of
multivariate analysis. J. Agric. Food Chem. 50 (25), 74267431.
Andueza, S., Maeztu, L., Pascual, L., Ibanez, C., De Pea, M.P., Cid, C., 2003. Inuence
of extraction temperature on the nal quality of espresso coffee. J. Sci. Food
Agric. 83 (3), 240248.
Blank, I., Sen, A., Grosch, W., 1991. Aroma impact compounds of Arabica and
Robusta coffee. Quantitative and qualitative investigations. In: Proceedings
14th ASIC Coll, pp. 117129).
Dalla Rosa, M., Nicoli, M.C., Lerici, C.M., 1986. Caratteristiche qualitative del caff
espresso in relazione alle modalit di preparazione. Ind. Aliment. 9 (86), 629
Dold, S., Lindinger, C., Kolodziejczyk, E., Pollien, P., Ali, S., Germain, J.C., Perin, S.G.,
Pineau, N., Folmer, B., Hengel, K.H., Barron, D., Hartmann, C., 2011. Inuence of
foam structure on the release kinetics of volatiles from espresso coffee prior to
consumption. J. Agric. Food Chem. 59 (20), 1119611203.
Illy, E., Navarini, L., 2011. Neglected food bubbles: the espresso coffee foam. Food
Biophys. 6 (3), 335348.
Illy, A., Viani, R., Suggi Liverani, F., 2005. Espresso Coffee: The Science of Quality.
Elsevier Academic Press.
Klopprogge, B., Gloess, A.N., Scho, B., DAmbrosio, L., Chatelain, K., Bongartz, A.,
2013. Comparison of nine common coffee extraction methods: instrumental
and sensory analysis. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 236, 607627.
Maarse, H., Visscher, C.A., 1996. Volatile compounds in food. Qualitative and
Quantitative Data. TNO Food Analysis Institute The Nederlands, 7th Zeist.
Navarini, L., Rivetti, D., 2010. Water quality for espresso coffee. Food Chem. 122 (2),
Navarini, L., Cappuccio, R., Liverani, F.S., 2004. The body of the espresso coffee: the
elusive importance. In: Proceedings 20th ASIC Coll, pp. 193203.
Nunes, F.M., Coimbra, M.A., Duarte, A.C., Delgadillo, I., 1997. Foamability, foam
stability, and chemical composition of espresso coffee as affected by the degree
of roast. J. Agric. Food Chem. 5, 32383243.
Parenti, A., Guerrini, L., Masella, P., Spinelli, S., Calamai, L., Spugnoli, P., 2014.
Comparison of espresso coffee brewing techniques. J. Food Eng. 121, 112117.
Vanni, A., 2009. Sealed capsule for the preparation of a beverage, in particular
espresso coffee European Patent 1 886 942 b1(12).
Yeretzian, C., Jordan, A., Lindinger, W., 2003. Analysing the headspace of coffee by
proton-transfer-reaction. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. 224, 115139.