Understanding Caffeine Content of

Popular Brewing Methods within the

Australian Coffee Consumer Market

By Crema Coffee Garage

In collaboration with Chemistry Staff in the

University of Newcastle
Table of Contents

Acknowledgement
1. Abstract
2. Introduction 1
3. Methods 3
3.1 Selection & Information 3
3.2 Coffee Grind & Sorting Process 4
3.3 Brew Method Processes 7
3.4 Sample Production Method 13
3.5 Caffeine Analysis Method 16
4. Results 17
5. Discussion 18
6. Conclusion 23
7. Appendix 24
References 29

Legend of Tables & Figures

Table 1 4
Table 2 6
Table 3 17
Table 4 18
Table 5 22

Figure 1 4
Figure 2 8
Figure 3 9
Figure 4 10
Figure 5 11
Figure 6 12
Figure 7 21
Figure 8 21
Acknowledgement

Crema Coffee Garage would like to acknowledge the outstanding efforts of

Ravelle King, Café Support Manager at Crema Coffee Garage, in managing this
project. We would like to thank Dr Steve Beveridge for his participation and
guidance in constructing the project, without whom it would not have been
possible. We would also like to thank the University of Newcastle for their
collaboration on this project, with special mentions to Dr Ian van Altena who
oversaw the project and guided student assessment throughout the analysis. We
would like to thank Shonavee Simpson, Product Positioning Specialist at Crema
Coffee Garage, for her work in the role of Editor on this project. We would like to
thank Adam Krupa, CEO of KRUVE, for his assistance in supplying equipment and
valuable insight. We would also like to thank Tim and Jane Peters, owners of
Crema Coffee Garage, whose support made this project a reality.

We would also like to thank all the students involved in the analysis project
and the staff members at Crema Coffee Garage who participated in and supported
this project.
 1. Abstract

The objective of Crema Coffee Garage in completing the Caffeine Content

Project is to provide empirical data regarding the average caffeine content of five
popular coffee brewing methods, using the same equipment and coffee type that
home users were most likely to utilise to make coffee for themselves. These brew
methods include Espresso, Stovetop Espresso, Pour Over (filter brew), Cold Brew
and French Press (plunger). Our aim is to provide consumers with knowledge about
their caffeine consumption, allowing consumers and even retailers to make more
informed decisions about caffeine consumption. It is also our aim to fill the gaps in
this area of knowledge within the coffee industry, particularly in regards to
alternative brewing methods such as filter brew, cold brewing and pour over. Using
a high-performance liquid chromatography method for analysis, we were able to
analyse the approximate caffeine (mg) present in 1L of each brew method, which
allowed us to compare the brew methods equally. Espresso was the clear winner,
extracting approximately 4,200mg/L of caffeine, almost twice as much as the cold
brew method which extracted approximately 2,240mg/L; the stovetop method
performed just as well as cold brew with approximately 2,192mg/L and was
followed by French Press at approximately 742mg/L and Pour Over at
approximately 692mg/L. While these results are insightful regarding the most
effective methods for extracting caffeine, they do not in themselves reflect
caffeine content consumed in a beverage, either by Australian industry serving
standards or by the serving size trends of consumers, but we will explore this
further in the discussion. To minimise the known variables of coffee, all the
samples were produced from the same bean of a single roast batch for
comparability.
 2. Introduction

We first attempted to find information regarding caffeine content in coffee

in early 2017, but were unable to discern any clear answers to what we thought

was a simple question. There is a vast amount of seemingly contradictory

information about caffeine content in espresso coffee and some alternative brew

methods, such as cold brew coffee, both online and in various publications. Some

of this information may be accurate, but much of it was vague or only implied

results or simply wasn’t transparent about the cause of these discrepancies. Much

of the source material was not accessible to the general public and in cases where

sources were provided to back claims, they were often contextually irrelevant to

the Australian market and didn’t provide enough raw data for individual

interpretation or comparison. The other problem we experienced was accessing

scientific and medical studies already completed in this area, due to restrictions

on academic literature. Coming up against these barriers, we decided to find

answers ourselves. Our objective was to analyse the caffeine content in a variety

of popular coffee brewing methods used in Australia, using the same equipment

and a commonly consumed coffee varietal, and to interpret the results within the

context of Australian Industry Standards and consumer trends.

To achieve this we had to create strict parameters around the experiment.

First, we chose the coffee brewing methods, including Espresso, Pour Over/Filter

Brew, Stovetop Espresso, Cold Brew and French Press/Plunger. While caffeine

analysis of espresso has been explored enough that consumers can estimate

caffeine intake, there is limited conclusive information on the caffeine content of

other popular brewing methods such as the French Press, Pour Over, Stovetop or

1
Cold Brewing, even though there are observable and determined differences

between some brewing methods (Bell, Wetzel and Grand, 1996). We also found

there was little information that showcased caffeine content in alternative

brewing methods in a comparable way to espresso, or in a way that would allow

consumers to better understand and manage their caffeine intake. Again, even

fewer resources that contextualised that data for the Australian market and

consumers.

It is well known within the coffee industry that different types of coffee will

present different levels of caffeine. The most obvious and well-known example of

this is the difference in caffeine content between Arabica varietals and Robusta

coffee beans (Hečimović, Belščak-Cvitanović, Horžic´& Komes, 2011). However, as

William Murray – President and CEO of the National Coffee Association USA

explains in ‘The Challenges of Measuring Caffeine Content’ (Feb. 12, 2016),

caffeine content can “vary by type of coffee, from farm to farm, tree to tree, and

even roast to roast. The way the beverage is prepared affects the caffeine content

of a cup of coffee – and of course, the size of your “cup.” This may be one reason

that there is a lot of disparate information on caffeine levels that is publicly

available, which can be hard to sort through.” (n.p.) This does mean that the

results of this project are a guide to understanding which brewing methods

produce more or less caffeine, allowing consumers to make more informed

decisions about how they consume coffee. However, this study presents a solid

foundation for further investigations into coffee caffeine content, such as

differences in caffeine content between species, varietals or growing conditions.

2
 3. Methods

A variety of methods were used to prepare the coffee samples - from bean

selection and brewing to sample production - and to perform the caffeine analysis.

3.1. Bean Selection

The bean selection was an important foundation for the project, as we

wanted to know our results were as consistent and comparable as possible,

however we knew the bean would have to be commonly available in the Australian

market as well. Head Roaster at Crema Coffee Garage, Douglas Thew, selected a

Colombian Excelso Fully Washed from the Tolima region, which was chosen for its

well-known uniformity in size, shape, colour and flavour that results in an even

roast and makes the results of our brews far more predictable. “Excelso” is a

quality grade term used primarily in Colombia. Excelso coffee beans are large, but

slightly smaller than Supremo coffee beans, and pass through Grade 16 (16/64"

diameter) sieve perforations, but are too large to pass through Grade 14 (14/64"

diameter) sieve perforations. The beans were roasted to a finishing temperature of

215°C, classified as a medium roast, and the beans were rested for seven days

before used for samples. Waiting seven days from the roast date for brewing is our

standard recommendation for use, as this allows for the beans to degas and for

flavour development.

The average cupping score of the Colombian Excelso was 83.13pt. Figure 1

shows the cupping notes from green bean wholesaler, Condesa, which our Head

Roaster confirmed accurately represents the bean used for the project.

3
 Figure 1

3.2. Coffee Grind & Sorting Process

The grind sizes for each of the brew methods was based on standard recipes

that are widely used by the Australian market, both commercially and

domestically. We ground all our coffee used for sample brewing in the same DK-40

batch coffee grinder, using our standard grind measurements - the same grind

settings we use when grinding customer coffee – which is on a scale from 1-8 (see

Table 1 below).

Table 1

4
 It is common knowledge within the coffee industry that when grinding

coffee, the particle sizes do vary and include quantities of fine particles and large

particles that fall outside the specified grind setting. The quality of the coffee

grinder can reduce the variability to some degree, but it is impossible to eliminate

entirely. In approaching this part of the project we wanted to achieve two things:

1) better understand what the particle size range of each grind setting

contains in a scientific measurement (microns), and;

2) ensure consistency throughout our brew methods.

The KRUVE Sifter is a three-tiered coffee grind sifter that uses

interchangeable sieves designed with round holes (rather than square holes)

measured in microns. These sieves sort coffee particles into more consistently

“true size” ranges for different grind settings by eliminating particles that are too

coarse or fine. At the time of the project, the full set came with sieves ranging

from 200 microns all the way up to 1100 microns, and was developed by a team of

industry specialists and engineers working for the Canadian based company,

KRUVE. When we discovered this range was not wide enough to include French

Press grind, CEO Adam Krupa express posted a set of sieves with a larger 1200-1600

micron range suitable for Australian standard French Press grind, now available as

part of the full set. The result is a metric particle size guide (micron, μm) for

coffee grind, rather than using words like ‘salt’ or ‘sand’ to describe grind size,

and it is important to note that the metric result is a micron range. To determine

the correct range, 50g of ground coffee for each grind setting was sifted using the

KRUVE Sifter, allowing us to ascertain the range of particle sizes found within each

grind setting, and note any particle size ranges that were outside of the Australian

5
standard particle size guides for each method. For example, the micron range we

used for espresso grind is 500-900μm and to establish how much of the grind falls

within this range we used a 500μm sieve on the bottom tier and a 900μm sieve on

the middle tier of the sifter. It should be noted, KRUVE recommends a micron

range for espresso between 250-500μm, which highlights the significance of

cultural tastes in the production of coffee. This process leaves too coarse a grind

in the top tier of the sifter and too fine grind in the bottom tier of the sifter and

all grind within the correct micron range in the middle tier. Using this process we

were able to establish that this espresso grind setting produces 36.98g out of 50g

of ground coffee within the specified micron range. The results of this process is as

follows:

Table 2

The KRUVE Company also provided us with a thorough and in depth analysis

of each grind setting, separately and compared, regarding particle size distribution

and cumulative distribution. See the Appendix for further information (property of

6
KRUVE). The analysis of grind particle settings showed that finer grind settings,

such as espresso for example, were more consistent as they produced smaller

amounts of grind particles outside the setting micron range. The coarser grind

settings, such as plunger for example, produced more inconsistent levels of grind

particles. In comparing the grind particle data and caffeine extraction data, we

were able to conclude that grind size is one factor that impacts on caffeine

extraction, but we will discuss this further in our discussion of the results of this

project.

3.3. Brew Method Processes

The brew methods we chose for their popularity among Australian coffee

drinkers. This was determined anecdotally by Crema Coffee Garage staff based on

best-selling products at our stores and brew methods that consumers most

frequently ask questions about. The process for each brew method is outlined

below.

7
Espresso

Figure 2

8
Stovetop

Figure 3

9
Pour Over

Figure 4

10
Cold Brew

Figure 5

11
French Press (Plunger)

Figure 6

12
3.4. Sample Production Method

Each brew method was completed five times then mixed together to make a

single batch for our samples, the result being an average of each brew method was

analysed. For example, the method we used to produce the Cold brew sample

went as follows:

1. Coffee was brewed according to the cold brew “how to” recipe used by

Crema Coffee Garage in house and recommended to consumers (see Brew

Methods sections or Crema Coffee Garage website -

https://cremacoffeegarage.com.au/brewing-guides - for recipe details).

The resulting brew was transferred to a container.

2. This process was repeated four (4) times in exactly the same manner and
each resulting brew was added to the same container.

13
3. After all five (5) separate brews were completed and combined in the
container, the entire container of coffee was stirred gently with a bamboo
stirrer and a 50mL sample was extracted using a 30mL plastic syringe.

14
4. This 50mL sample was then put through a laboratory grade paper filter to
remove any solid particles.

5. The samples were stored in small glass, sealed containers and immediately
refrigerated. All bottles were labelled and dated with the brew date.

15
3.5. Caffeine Analysis Method

The method used for the analysis of caffeine content was high performance

liquid chromatography (HPLC), which allows for the accurate analysis of soluble

compounds (in this case caffeine) from a liquid.

The reversed-phase HPLC (C18) method was chosen for this project,

whereby a solvent mobile phase such as water or methanol is used to separate the

mixture as it passes through a column containing silica modified with a non-polar

surface group.

Procedure

1. A series of caffeine calibration standards were prepared with concentrations

of 5, 10, 25 and 50 mg/L (ppm).

2. Samples were prepared as follows:

(a) Stove Top, Espresso and Cold Brew samples were diluted 1:99 by

placing 1 mL of sample into 100 mL volumetric flask and making up to the

mark with R.O water (R.O. = reverse osmosis).

b) French Press and Pour Over Filter samples were diluted 1:24 by

placing 1 mL of sample into 25 mL volumetric flask and making up to the

mark with R.O water.

3. Pass 1.5 mL of each sample through a filter membrane into an auto-injector

vial, load the auto-injector and start HPLC analysis.

16
 4. Results

The following results are the detectable caffeine concentrations of brews

supplied by Crema Coffee Garage. Run September–October, 2017, by Students in

CHEM2201 (Medicinal and Analytical Chemistry), University of Newcastle.

Table 3

From the data in the table we are able to conclude:

-When comparing caffeine content of different coffee brews on a per

Litre basis, espresso clearly extracts the most caffeine.

-Although they are completely different brew methods, Stovetop and

Cold Brew have, on average, less than 50 mg difference in their caffeine

content.

-The French Press and Pour Over methods extracted the least amount

of caffeine and there is an approximate difference of 50 mg of caffeine

between these two methods.

17
 5. Discussion

When comparing these findings by the caffeine content per litre, the

espresso method extracts the most caffeine, however, this does not necessarily

reflect caffeine consumption or how much caffeine is likely to be present in a 1

cup or 2 cup serve of different coffee brews. In Table 4 our findings have been

presented to reflect the Australian market consumption by comparing:

-30 mL of each brew method (including standard deviations)

-‘Recommended Serving Sizes’ for each brew method

-The ‘Normal Serving Size’ used by most consumers for each brew method

Table 4

The ‘Recommended Serving Size’ refers to the suggested serve by the

manufacturer or how much of the brew is served in accordance with Australian

Industry Standards. For example, the Australian coffee industry standards

regarding the millilitres of espresso served per cup are based on Italian industry

18
standards. Coffee roasts and blends tend to be lighter and sweeter in flavour here

in Australia than they are in Italy, so liberties are taken to reflect the tastes of the

marker, but our cup sizes and coffee style is very similar in many ways. It is also

worth noting that we have not specified a caffeine difference between coffee

types like latte, cappuccino and flat white because there should be no difference

in Australia. An 8 oz. cappuccino should contain 30 mL of espresso, as should an 8

oz. latte or flat white. According to Australian Industry Standards, the amount of

espresso is determined by the cup size - 8 oz., 12 oz. or 16 oz.

In alternative brewing methods, there is no uniform serving size for all

methods and each brew is served differently according to the recommended

serving sizes by the manufacturer. For example, the Bodum 3 Cup French Press can

produce between 300-355mL of coffee, but a Bialetti 3 Cup Moka Pot Stovetop

produces up to 100mL of stovetop espresso. Another example, the Pour Over 1 Cup

brew produces up to 250mL of coffee, which is substantially more liquid than the

French Press 1 Cup and Stovetop 1 Cup serves. It is important to note these

differences when comparing caffeine content.

In Australia, the recommended serve is not always observed. To account for

this we have included a ‘Normal Serving Size’ column to reflect the more typical

serving sizes of Australian consumers. These normal serving sizes are based on how

Crema Coffee Garage understands the Australian public to typically drink their

coffee, based on a combination of standard serving sizes used in Australia and

anecdotal evidence from customers and across the Australian industry on typical

consumption.

As Table 4 illustrates, although espresso may contain the most caffeine

when compared millilitre to millilitre with other brew methods, the serving sizes

19
of other brew methods mean that you are likely consuming more caffeine per

serve. For example, an 8 oz. cup of coffee, such as a latte, contains 30 mL of

espresso and approximately 126 mg of caffeine; but an 8 oz. cup of cold brew

coffee contains 50-60 mL of cold brew and approximately 134 mg of caffeine. To

use another example from Table 4, the average Australian consumer will serve the

entire contents of a 3 Cup Bialetti Stovetop topped with milk or water in an 8 oz.

cup, which would contain around 100 mL of Stovetop espresso and approximately

219 mg of caffeine. This demonstrates quite clearly the importance of

contextualising caffeine content in coffee by how markets consume that coffee.

By analysing the caffeine content of these brew methods we were also able

to determine factors that influence caffeine content. These factors included:

-Brewing Temperature

-Particle Size of the Coffee Grind Used

-Length of Time the Coffee Brewed For

Espresso extracted the most caffeine, likely because it uses a consistent and

extremely fine grind (more particles to extract from) and the machine applies

substantial heat and pressure. However, while temperature is known to increase

the solubility of caffeine in water, it is unlikely that pressure contributes to the

solubility of caffeine in our extracts. In fact, previous studies on impacting factors

on caffeine extraction indicate that the consistent and fine grind level used for

espresso is likely responsible for the significantly higher caffeine content.

20
 What is interesting about the results, regarding these factors, is the

similarity of caffeine content between Stovetop and Cold Brew, and between Pour

Over and French Press. The results have been graphed to better illustrate this

occurrence:

Figure 7 Figure 8

Figure 7 illustrates in a simple line graph the caffeine content of each brew

method, while Figure 8 displays the cumulative distribution of grind particles sizes

in each grind setting used to produce our brew methods. In Figure 7, we can see

Stovetop and Cold Brew have a similar caffeine content and in Figure 8 we can see

that the grind setting used for Stovetop and Cold Brew (Filter) have a similar

consistency. In saying that, these brew methods share no other factors that should

mean their caffeine content would be so closely matched: stovetop uses heat and

pressure, while cold brew uses no heat or pressure and instead has a longer brew

time (8 hours in total).

French Press and Pour Over also produced a similar amount of caffeine.

Factors they have in common include brew temperature and neither uses pressure

for extraction, and though they use different grind settings both are at the coarser

end of the scale. French Press did extract slightly more caffeine than Pour Over

(approximately 50 mg more), which could potentially be due to the longer brewing

21
time of 4.5 minutes and the inconsistency of the grind which results in greater

amounts of fine particles. In fact, the French Press grind produced the most fine

grind particles (500µm or smaller) after the espresso grind setting.

Perhaps the most striking comparison of all was when we compared all the brews

as an average “mug size”, which is the cup size most Australians are drinking,

there was a negligible difference in caffeine content. A “mug size” can range

between 250-355mls on average, depending on the manufacturer, and is shown in

Table 5. The ‘millilitres’ column shows only the coffee part of the beverage,

which is usually served in a mug and diluted down with either water or milk to fill

the cup – with the exception of filter coffee which is served undiluted.

Table 5

22
 6. Conclusion

One of the primary objectives of this project was to provide comparable and

contextually appropriate information about the approximate caffeine content

produced in popular brew methods commonly used by Australian coffee consumers.

The contextualising of the data in relation to the Australian market: What type of

coffee are Australians likely to brew with? What equipment are they brewing with?

How much are they serving? These factors were important to Crema Coffee Garage

to make the outcomes of the project relevant to our business and our customers,

as well as the wider Australian market.

We recognise that caffeine content will vary between Arabica and Robusta

coffee types, between Arabica varietals and cultivars, as well as variations

between growing regions or specific growing conditions, methods of processing and

more, which this study did not investigate, but provides the foundations for further

study. However, the results of this project lay the foundation for further

investigation into caffeine content, caffeine extraction and how we might be able

to utilise the extraction elements for a better understanding and production of

coffee in Australia.

23
 7. Appendix

Property of KRUVE – Grind Particle Distribution Data Set

Espresso

24
Stovetop

25
Filter Brew

26
French Press

27
Grind Particle Distribution in Comparison

28
 References

- Bell, Leonard N., Clinton R. Wetzel & Alexandra N. Grand. ‘Caffeine content in

coffee as influenced by grinding and brewing techniques.’ Food Research

International. 1996; 29:785–789. doi: 10.1016/S0963-9969(97)00002-1.

-Condesa QC – Lot [SR-1962] Colombia IN17-0899 Excelso Fully Washed. Colombian

Single Origin Quality and Cupping Report. (2017)

- Hečimović, Ivana, Ana Belščak-Cvitanović, et al. ‘Comparative study of

polyphenols and caffeine in different coffee varieties affected by the degree of

roasting.’ Food Chemistry. 129, 991-1,000, 15 May 2011. Web.

-Murray, William. ‘The Challenge of Measuring Caffeine Content.’ The National

Coffee Blog. National Coffee Association USA, 12 Feb. 2016. Web.

29