See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266387220

Key Aroma Compounds of Soluble Coffee,

Conference Paper · January 2006

CITATIONS READS

0 3,117

1 author:

Denisley Bassoli
Starbucks Coffee Company
38 PUBLICATIONS   503 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Denisley Bassoli on 01 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Key Aroma Compounds of Soluble Coffee

D. BASSOLI, R. S. F. SILVA

Companhia Iguaçu de Café Solúvel S.A., Research and Development Department,

BR-369 km 88 C. Procópio, Brazil
Depto. de Ciência e Tecnologia de Alimentos, Universidade Estadual de Londrina,
Rodovia Celso Garcia Cid km 6, Londrina, Brazil

SUMMARY

Relatively few data on the volatile composition and sensorial relevant fraction of soluble
coffee has been published, reinforcing the importance of a better understanding of its aroma
composition, obtaining more details on the subtle differences of applicable productive
techniques and among products. Considering an approach that understands both analytical and
sensorial techniques, this work aims to identify the main components of soluble coffee aroma
and their sensorial impacts, enabling the focused development of technological alternatives
for aroma enhancement, potentially reflecting on the economics of its commercialization. The
volatile components were isolated via HS-SPME technique and then identified by GC-MS.
The GC-FID/O technique was used for the volatiles qualitative sensorial description by the
Free Choice Profile method. A comparison with data obtained using an electronic nose proved
it to be a functional tool to classify instant coffees. On the seven samples tested, up to 414
volatile compounds were analytically detected, being 24 quantified, 132 detected on the
sensorial analysis, indicated to be of sensorial impact, amidst which 22 were quantified.

INTRODUCTION

Generally speaking, several volatile components present in foodstuffs have little sensorial
relevance and the recent research methodologies applied have made possible to researchers
the identification and quantification of a comparatively reduced number of key aroma
components, decisive of the odour finally sensed (Blank et al., 1992; Semmelroch et al.,
1995). On this particular, among the employed techniques, gas chromatography coupled with
olfactometry has been applied for several foods, including roasted coffee (Bassoli, 2006).
Also, special sensors array instruments, called electronic noses, have been used, attempting to
help or reproduce, notwithstanding partially, the answer of the human sense of smell to a
composed volatile (Bassoli, 2006). During soluble coffee production, several transformations
and aromatic losses happen, which combined to the intrinsic thermal processes, modify
quantitative and qualitatively its volatile fraction composition, differentiating it from a
reference brewed coffee. Coffee aroma is composed of a great variety of functional chemical
groups, where the composition depends on factors such as species and variety, growth
conditions and crop, storage, roasting degree, let alone all other process conditions (Clarke
and Macrae, 1985). More than eight hundred volatile compounds have been identified in
roasted coffees, positioning the coffee beverage as a high complexity drink in terms of
volatile composition (Shibamoto, 1992). However, contrarily to roasted coffee, the volatile
and sensorial relevant fraction composition of soluble coffee has been studied, so far, at a
lesser extent. This reinforces the need of a better understanding of its aroma composition,
helping to clarify even the subtle but important differences among products and processing
techniques that guide consumers` perception and preference (Haesselbarth and Ullrich, 2002).
The present work adopted an integrated approach to study soluble coffee aroma relevance, by
combining sensorial analysis with instrumental methodology, based on the identification of
340
the volatile fraction composition and the respective aromatic impacts. This was achieved
using a HS-SPME (Viegas et al., 2004) extractive technique, gas chromatography coupled
with mass detection (GC-MS) as identification technique and GC-FID/O olfactometry
technique, for qualitatively describing the sensorial impact. Results were compared to the
ones obtained with an electronic nose.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Soluble coffee samples

Seven samples were tested as described in Table 1, all distinct amongst themselves, according
to an expert sensorial panel initial evaluation.

Table 1. Soluble coffee samples analysed.

Sample Origin Remark Raw materials Roasting intensity

1* Brazil experimental arabica medium
2* Brazil experimental arabica medium
3* Brazil experimental conilon medium
4 Brazil retail market conilon / arabica dark
5 Brazil retail market --- dark**
6 England retail market --- medium**
7 England retail market --- medium / light**
*Produced at Café Iguaçu R&D laboratory. **Estimated by sensorial analysis.

Volatiles extraction – HS-SPME

2.8 grams of sample were directly weighted in a 20 ml vial. After proper sealing, it was
heated for 10 minutes at 70 ºC, exposing then a SPME (DVB/CAR/PDMS) 50/30 fibre for 30
minutes in the headspace, followed by a desorption step, made directly at the GC injector
port.

Chromatography conditions – GC-MS

A 6890N gas chromatograph coupled to a 5973 selective mass detector (Agilent) was used.
Injection volume of 1 µl on splitless mode and with He (5.0) as carrier gas, injector
temperature and time respectively of 250 ºC and 10 minutes were the analytical conditions
adopted. A polar capillary column INNOWax (60 m x 320 µm x 0.25 µm) was used, with an
oven temperature profile starting at 40 ºC then held for 5 min, raised by 4 ºC/min to 60 ºC,
held for 5 min, raised by 8 ºC/min to 250 ºC, held for 3 min. The volatile components
identification was primarily based on the NIST library v.2.0a (2002), followed by mass
spectra interpretation. The quantitative determination used 25 external standards considered
of aromatic impact in the consulted literature (see Table 2).

Sensorial analysis – GC-FID/O

For olfactometry (Ruth and Connor, 2001), a GC-FID chromatograph was connected to an
ODO II olfactometer system (SGE). Retention times were monitored for comparison against
the analytical determination. The OSME technique was used (Mcdaniel et al., 1989), with a
semi-trained sensorial panel, applying the Free Choice Profile technique (Williams and
Langron, 1984). Each of the 5 panel members selected described the aroma quality, properly
logged, and registered the aroma intensities thru time in a direct time-intensity scale from 0 to

341
100. Retention times, peak areas, odoriferous intensity and time for each component of the
Osmegrams were compiled. Multidimensional analysis was used for a statistical evaluation,
performed by the Generalised Procrustes Analysis (GPA) (Oliveira and Benassi, 2003),
Senstools v. 2.3.28 (Op & P Product Research).

Electronic nose analysis

2.8 grams of sample were directly weighted in a 40 ml vial. After proper closure, it was
processed by a PEN2 e-nose model (Airsense Analytics) equipped with a 10 sensors array,
sampling directly the headspace of each product. Total analysis time was 2 minutes per
sample.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Instrumental data

In the seven analysed samples, there were from 378 to 429 chromatographic peaks, totalising
414 different compounds. Those detected under a certainty level of 50% or above (Bassoli,
2006; National Institute Of Standards And Technology, 2002) accounted respectively for
about two thirds of the total chemical classes and around half of the total number of
compounds referenced to roasted coffees (Clarke and Macrae, 1985; Moreira et al., 2000).
Under a certainty level of 60% or above (Bassoli, 2006; National Institute Of Standards And
Technology, 2002) combined to mass spectra interpretation, a total of 160 compounds could
be identified, ranging from 69 to 126 compounds each sample, compatible with the range of
84 to 116 reported for green coffees (Monroy, 2005). Twenty four volatile compounds were
quantified (Table 2).

Furthermore, comparing with roasted and ground coffee data (Supelco, 2001) where 57
compounds were identified, 2-butanone, 3-methyl-butanal, 2-ethyl-hexanol, dimethyl
disulfide, phenol, pyridine, pyrazine, 4-methyl-thiazole, 2,5-dimethyl-pyrazine, 2,6-dimethyl-
pyrazine, 2,3-dimethyl-pyrazine and 2,3,5-trimethylpyrazine were identified on the soluble
coffees tested as well. Twenty four volatile compounds were quantified, as shown in Table 2,
highlighting 4,5-dimethyl-thiazole, identified with the employed technique. In general, the
quantifiable components are also present in both green and roasted coffees, but, although
concentrations found were coincident in some cases, they cannot be objectively compared
with quoted references. By correlating raw materials composition to the experimental
samples, it could be noticed that 1-methyl-piperidine, methional, 2-ethyl-1-hexanol, 3,4-
dimethyl-2,5-furanedione, benzyl alcohol and maltol were characteristic of sample 1, obtained
from arabica coffee. For both experimental samples produced with arabica coffees, ethyl-
benzene and 3-methyl-2-buten-1-ol were commonly detected. The conilon based sample 3,
presented 2-pyrrolidone and 2,4-ditert-butyl-phenol compounds. In the Brazilian retail
samples, sample 4 could be associated to ethyl acetate and 1,5-dimethyl-1H-pyrrol-2-
carbonitrile, while butanal, decane, 4,5-dimethyl-oxazole and 3-hexen-2-one were
characteristic of sample 5. About English market samples, besides several components
individually detected, associations were with acetone, 2,3-dimethyl-isoxazole, 1-(2-methyl-1-
propenil)-pyrrolidone, ethyl-pyrazine and 1-(2-furanil-methyl)-1H-pyrrol. The retail samples
had in common 3-methyl-butanal, 1-hydroxi-2-propanone, 4,5-dimethyl-thiazole, 2-methoxy-
methyl-furane and 2n-propyl-pyrazine.

342
Table 2. Volatile compounds found in the soluble coffee samples related with literature.

Compound Concentration Referenced concentrations -

range (mg/kg) green and roasted coffees (mg/kg)
2,3-butanedione 8.5 to 19.6 50 Indonesian (Grosch, 1996),
1.8 Colombian *
(Ho et al., 1993),
50 Colombian * / 58.7 Kenyan
(Grosch et al., 1996)
2,3-pentanedione 15.2 to 37.3 40 arabica / 50 robusta
(Grosch et al., 1996)
Pyridine 14.3 to 46.9 49 roasted (Stofberg and Stoffelsma, 1981)
Pyrazine 1.9 to 6.6 2.8 roasted and ground (Ho et al., 1993)
4-methyl-thiazole 4.2 to 7.3 0.5 to 1.0 arabica / 0.8 to 1.5 robusta
(Tressl, 1989)
2,5-dimethyl-pyrazine 18.8 to 36.8 25 to 35 roasted (Silwar et al., 1987),
17 roasted (Stofberg and Stoffelsma, 1981)
2,6-dimethyl-pyrazine 50.4 to 126 30 to 35 roasted (Silwar et al., 1987),
19 roasted (Tressl, 1989)
2,3-dimethyl-pyrazine 4.9 to 11.6 2.5 roasted (Ho et al., 1993),
5.3 roasted (Silwar et al., 1987)
4,5-dimethyl-thiazole 1.7 to 3.2 Not found
2,3,5-trimethyl-pyrazine 12.6 to 38.5 5.0 roasted (Hashim and Chaveron, 1996)
2-ethyl-3-methyl-pyrazine 16.9 to 41.2 1.1 roasted and ground (Ho et al., 1993)
2-furfuriltiol 3.2 to 29.9 1.1 arabica / 1.7 robusta
(Semmelroch et al., 1995)
Acetic acid 288 to 442 Traces arabica
(Van Der Stegen and Van Duijn, 1987)
Methional 2.7 to 12.1 0.2 Colombian / 0.1 Indonesian
(Semmelroch et al., 1995),
0.2 roasted (Czerny and Grosch, 2000)
Furfural 70.3 to 438 22.5 roasted (Ho et al., 1993)
2,3-diethyl-5-methyl-pyrazine 4.2 to 10.6 0.06 to 0.1 arabica * / 0.3 robusta *
(Grosch, 1998)
Linalool 5.3 to 11.0 0.73 Colombian (r) (Ho et al., 1993),
0.02 green (Holscher and Steinhart, 1995)
Isovaleric acid 21.4 to 52.3 13 green / 21 roasted
(Wöhrmann et al., 1997),
16 to 41 arabica * (Schröder et al., 1997)
Guaiacol 19.3 to 65.7 4.2 arabica / 28.2 robusta
(Semmelroch et al., 1995),
4.0 roasted (Czerny and Grosch, 2000)
Furaneol 26.7 to 71.4 109 arabica / 57 robusta
(Semmelroch et al., 1995)
4-ethyl-guaiacol 6.0 to 26.8 21 arabica / 4.1 arabica *
(Czerny and Grosch, 2000)
Cis-isoeugenol 2.9 to 16.1 0.12 Colombian * (Ho et al., 1993)
Hydroxi-methyl-furfural ** 14.4 to 183 Not found
Vanillin ** 0.1 to 2.1 4.8 Colombian / 16.1 Indonesian
(Semmelroch et al., 1995)
*Roasted. **Not detected by sensorial analysis.

343
Sensorial analysis

The results showed that all samples were properly characterized and discriminated (Figure 1).
Multivariate studies in sensorial analysis are generally two-dimensional. In this work, the
choice was to study the first 3 dimensions, responsible for the largest variances, respectively
20.62%, 12.30% and 11.17%. When using the Free Choice Profile, the variability explained
usually is smaller than the one observed in a conventional quantitative descriptive analysis,
for instance. The total variance explained of 44.09% is comparable to Narain et al. (2003),
where the explained variability found was 25%. The repeatability of each panelist was
verified through its residual variance, in accordance with the value considered acceptable,
close to 1.0% (Op & P Product Research). Correlations with the three defined dimensions for
the GPA were quite distributed, heterogeneous and relatively small, being all samples were
very well separated (Figure 1). The panelists sniff detected 132 compounds of aroma impact,
being 22 quantified (Table 2). The consensus for the terms used among the panelists for all
the seven samples resulted in 71 sensorial descriptors, not shown. Reviewing the literature
references for roasted coffee (Bücking, 1999; Schenker et al., 2002; Grosch, 2001) and coffee
beverage (Mayer et al., 2000) (Table 3), the amount of key aroma compounds varied between
15 and 40, equivalently to the 69 key aroma compounds herein identified, also comparable to
data earlier obtained (Sanz et al., 2002), that indicated 40 key aroma compounds combining
both soluble and filtered coffees. Paralleling with 45 compounds of high aromatic impact in
coffee (Blank and Sen, 1992; Semmelroch et al., 1995; Moreira et al., 2000; Semmelroch and
Grosch, 1996; De Maria et al., 1999; Rowe, 2000; Jameson, 2001; Schenker et al., 2002;
Rowe, 2002), 27 of those were identified in the samples tested in this work. Nevertheless,
vanillin and hydroxi-methyl-furfural were not detected, probably due to their intrinsic
retention times that lead them into a particularly abundant chromatogram region,
consequently troubling sensorial identification.

Figure 1. Consensual configuration for the panelists.

344
Figure 2. Electronic nose consensual configuration.

Table 3. Volatile components identified and their respective sensorial descriptors.

S AMP L E S
COMPONENT Sensorial descriptors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2,3-butanedione vanilla, sweet potatoes, caramel XX XXXXX
2,3-pentanedione hazelnut, sweet, almonds, vanilla XX XXXXX
Pyridine dry peas, sweet, burnt XX XXXXX
Pyrazine solvent, rubber, oat, ether, mouldy XX XXXXX
4-methyl-thiazole burnt, acetone, mouldy, cooked meat, peanuts X X X X X X X
2,5-dimethyl-pyrazine hazelnut, corn, roasted coffee, almonds, fruity X X X X X X X
2,6-dimethyl-pyrazine cooked, hazelnut, corn, alcohol, potatoes, X X X X X X X
earthy
2,3-dimethyl-pyrazine popcorn, corn, mouldy, alcohol, nuts, fruity X X X X X X X
4,5-dimethyl-thiazole popcorn, corn, rubber, caramel, plastic XXXX
2,3,5-trimethyl-pyrazine potatoes, beans, popcorn XX XXXXX
2-ethyl-3-methyl-pyrazine corn, sweet, alcohol, passion fruit, papaya X XX
2,3,5-trimethyl-pyrazine potatoes, beans, popcorn XX XXXXX
2-ethyl-3-methyl-pyrazine corn, sweet, alcohol, passion fruit, papaya X XX
2-furfuriltiol alcohol, solvent, vinegar, sweet XX XXXXX
Acetic acid vinegar, acetic acid XX XXXXX
Methional potatoes, cooked potatoes XX XXXXX
Furfural hay, grass XX XXXXX
2,3-diethyl-5-methyl-pyrazine fried potatoes, mouldy XX XXXXX
Linalool passion fruit, green leaves, grass, figs XX XXXXX
Isovaleric acid corn bran XX XXXXX
Guaiacol corn, smoked, medicinal, camphor, peppery X X X X X X X
Furaneol alcohol, sweet, caramel, vanilla XX XXXXX
4-ethyl-guaiacol smoked, corn, cheese, spicy, peppery XX XXXXX
Cis-isoeugenol smoked, corn XX XXXXX

345
Electronic nose results

The best discrimination region ranged from 8 to 12 seconds of run time (with 1 second
intervals), defined in preliminary tests with soluble coffees (Bassoli, 2006; Airsense, 2002).
Total variance explained was 98.99%, respectively 98.51% and 0.48% in the two considered
dimensions. Each interval had its repeatability verified through the residual variance (Op & P
Product Research), the largest observed being 0.19% at 8 seconds. As there was consensus,
one hypothesis to be lately explored would be to consider only this specific time for such
analysis. Obtained results allowed the characterization and discrimination of all samples
(Figure 2), and a good discrimination power was observed. This indicates that the electronic
nose technique, being a fast and simple method, should be regarded as a potential powerful
tool for classification of soluble coffees, complementarily to sensorial evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining the HS-SPME extraction technique with GC-MS, between 378 and 429
chromatographic peaks were detected on the seven soluble coffee samples analysed, with a
total of 414 different compounds detected. From these, 24 components were quantified. Using
GC-FID/O olfactometry and Free Choice Profile techniques, 132 compounds of aromatic
impact were detected, being 22 quantified. Sensorial data was processed by GPA, being all
samples discriminated properly. Similar results were obtained when submitting the samples to
an electronic nose. It is suggested that the electronic nose could be a powerful auxiliary tool
to classifying soluble coffees. The identification of the main aroma components and their
odour relevance may help either in the maximization of those compounds considered positive
for the beverage or reduction of those regarded as not desirable to quality, in a selective way.
It also widens insights about concentration and interaction effects on the final sensorial
sensation. Furthermore, targeting key aroma compounds allows the development of
technological alternatives for soluble coffee aroma improvement.

REFERENCES

Airsense. Analytics handbook. Version 1.1. 2002.

Bassoli, D. Impacto aromático dos componentes do café solúvel: uma abordagem analítica e
sensorial. 2006. 205 p. Tese (Doutorado em Ciência de Alimentos) – Universidade
Estadual de Londrina. Brasil.
Blank, I.; Sen, A.; Grosch, W. Aroma impact compounds of arabica and robusta coffee:
qualitative and quantitative investigations. In: Colloque Scientifique International Sur
Le Café, 14, 1991, San Francisco. Association Scientifique International du Café, 1992.
p. 117-129.
Bücking, M. Release of flavour materials in presence of retardant substances from the coffee
beverage. 1999. 180 p. Tese (Doutorado em Química) - University of Hamburg,
Hamburg.
Clarke, R.; Macrae, R. Coffee. v. 1. London: Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, 1985.
capítulo 3, p. 83-113.
Czerny, M. ; Grosch, W. Potent odorants of raw Arabica coffee. Their changes during
roasting. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, Columbus, v. 48, p. 868-872,
2000.
De Maria, C.; Moreira, R.; Trugo, L. Componentes voláteis do café torrado. Parte I:
componentes heterocíclicos. Química Nova, São Paulo, v. 22, n. 2, p. 209-217, 1999.

346
Grosch, W. et al. Studies on the aroma of roasted coffee. Royal Society of Chemistry,
Cambridge, v. 197, p. 200-205, 1996.
Grosch, W. Evaluation of the key odorants of foods by dilution experiments, aroma models
and omission. Chemical Senses, Oxford, v. 26, p. 533-545, 2001.
Grosch, W. Flavour of coffee. A review. Nahrung, Weinheim, v. 42, p. 344-350, 1998.
Grosch, W. Instrumental and sensory analysis of coffee volatiles. In: Colloque Scientifique
International Sur Le Café, 16, 1995, Kyoto. Association Scientifique International du
Café, 1996. p. 147-156.
Haesselbarth, A.; Ullrich, F. Quantitation of potent aroma compounds above freshly brewed
coffee by aroma trapping. In: Colloque Scientifique International Sur Le Café, 19, 2001,
Trieste. Association Scientifique International du Café, 2002. CD-ROM.
Hashim, L.; Chaveron, H. Use of methylpyrazine ratios to monitor coffee roasting. Food
Research International, Ontario, v. 28, p. 619-623, 1996.
Ho, C. et al. An overview of the Maillard reactions related to aroma generation of coffee. In:
Colloque Scientifique International Sur Le Café, 15, 1993, Montpellier. Association
Scientifique International du Café, 1994. v. 2, p. 519-527.
Holscher, W.; Steinhart, H. Aroma compounds in green coffee. In: Charambolous, G. Food
flavors. Generation, analysis and process influence. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 1995.
p. 785-803.
Jameson, D. Organosulphur chemistry – aroma chemicals and beyond Part 1. Speciality
Chemicals, Redhill, 17p., 2001.
Jameson, D. Organosulphur chemistry – aroma chemicals and beyond Part 2. Speciality
Chemicals, Redhill, 9p., 2001.
Mayer, F.; Czerny, M.; Grosch, W. Sensory study of the character impact aroma compounds
of a coffee beverage. European Food Research and Technology, Berlin, v. 211, n. 4, p.
272-276, 2000.
Mcdaniel, M. et al. Pinot noir aroma: a sensory-gas chromatographic approach. In:
Charambolous, G. Flavors and off-flavors. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 1989. p.23-36.
Monroy, G. Caracterización del aroma del café molido de Puerto Rico mediante la técnica de
microextracción em fase sólida (SPME) y cromatografía de gás acoplada a
espectrometria de masas (GC/MS). 2005. 156 p. Dissertação (Mestrado em Ciência e
Tecnologia de Alimentos) – Universidad de Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico.
Moreira, R.; Trugo, L.; De Maria, C. Componentes voláteis do café torrado. Parte II:
Compostos alifáticos, alicíclicos e aromáticos. Química Nova, São Paulo, v. 23, n. 2, p.
195-203, 2000.
Narain, C.; Paterson, A.; Reid, E. Free choice and conventional profiling of commercial black
filter coffees to explore consumer perceptions of character. Food Quality and
Preference, Oxford, v. 15, p. 31-41, 2003.
National Institute Of Standards And Technology. Versão 2.0a. Mass Spectra Search Program.
2002.
Oliveira, A.; Benassi, M. Perfil livre: Uma opção para análise sensorial descritiva. Boletim
SBCTA, Campinas, v. 37 (supl.), p. 66-72, 2003.
Op & P Product Research. Senstools Versão 2.3. Utrecht: OP & P Product Research, 1995-
1998. Conjunto de Programas. CD-ROM.

347
 Rowe, D. High impact aroma chemicals Part 2: the good, the bad and the ugly. Perfumer and
Flavorist, Oregon, v. 27, p. 24-33, 2002.
Rowe, D. More fizz for your buck: high-impact aroma chemicals. Perfumer and Flavorist,
Oregon, v. 25, n. 5, p. 1-19, 2000.
Ruth, S.; Connor, H. Evaluation of three gas chromatography-olfactometry methods:
comparison of odour intensity-concentration relationships of eight volatile compounds
with sensory headspace data. Food Chemistry, Reading, v.74, p. 341-347, 2001.
Sanz, C. et al. Comparison of potent odorants in a filtered coffee brew and in an instant coffee
beverage by aroma dilution analysis (AEDA). European Food Research and
Technology, Berlin, v. 214, p. 299-302, 2002.
Schenker, S. et al. Impact of roasting temperature profiles on chemical reaction conditions in
coffee beans. In: Colloque Scientifique International Sur Le Café, 19, 2001, Trieste.
Association Scientifique International du Café, 2002. CD-ROM.
Schenker, S.et al. Impact of roasting conditions on the formation of aroma compounds in
coffee beans. Journal of Food Science, Chicago, v. 67, n. 1, p. 60-67, 2002.
Schröder, I. et al. Volatile minor acids in coffee. Part 2. Detection of steam treatment.
Deutsche Lebensmittel-Rundschau, Stuttgart, v. 93, p. 216-218, 1997.
Semmelroch, P. et al. Determination of potent odourant in roasted coffee by stable isotope
dilution assays. Flavour and Fragrance Journal, Glasgow, v.10, p.1-7, 1995.
Semmelroch, P.; Grosch, W. Studies on character impact odorant of coffee brews. Journal of
Agricultural and Food Chemistry, Columbus, v. 44, n. 2, p. 537-543, 1996.
Shibamoto, T. An overview of coffee aroma and flavour chemistry. In: Colloque Scientifique
International Sur Le Café, 14, 1991, San Francisco. Association Scientifique
International du Café, 1992. p. 107-116.
Silwar, R. et al. Gaschromatographisch-massenspektrometrische Untersuchungen des
röstkaffeearomas. Quantitative bestimmung wasserdampffüchtiger aromastoffe. Chemie
Mikrobiologie Technologie der Lebensmittel, Nürnberg, v. 10, p. 176-187, 1987.
Stofberg, J.; Stoffelsma, J. Consumption of flavoring materials as food ingredients and food
aditivies. Perfumer and Flavorist, Oregon, n. 5, v. 7, p. 19-35, 1981.
Supelco. SPME applications guide. Apostila. Ed 3, 2001. 67p.
Tressl, R. Formation of flavor components in roasted coffee. American Chemical Society
Symposium Series, Oregon, v. 409, p. 285-301, 1989.
Van Der Stegen, G.; Van Duijn, J. Analysis of normal organic acids in coffee. In: Colloque
Scientifique International Sur Le Café, 12, 1987, Montreux. Association Scientifique
International du Café, 1988. p. 347-354.
Viegas, M. et al. Comparação da sensibilidade entre os métodos headspace e extração por
solvente para análise dos compostos voláteis presentes no café solúvel. In: Simpósio
Latino Americano De Ciência De Alimentos, 5, 2003, Campinas. Anais... Campinas:
UNICAMP, 2004. CD-ROM.
Williams, A.; Langron, S. The use of Free-choice profiling for the evaluation of commercial
Ports. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, Sussex, v. 35, p. 558-568, 1984.
Wöhrmann, R.; Hojabr-Kalali, B.; Maier, H. Volatile minor acids in coffee. I. Contents of
green and roasted coffee. Deutsche Lebensmittel-Rundschau, Stuttgart, v. 93, p. 191-
194, 1997.

348

View publication stats