ArticleScientific reports2022
Comparison of chemical compounds and their influence on the taste of coffee depending on green beans storage conditions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improved food storage in jute packaging: an assessment of the current uses, constraints, and functional enhancements of jute bags and the potential of nonconventional jute-based paper packaging.Journal of food science and technology · 2025Review
- Article
- Application of ATR-FTIR for Green Arabica Bean Shelf-Life Determination in Accelerated Storage.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Targeted and Non-Targeted HPLC Analysis of Coffee-Based Products as Effective Tools for Evaluating the Coffee Authenticity.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Lipid Oxidation Changes of Arabica Green Coffee Beans during Accelerated Storage with Different Packaging Types.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Currently, there is no technology for the storage of green coffee (GrC), that results in obtaining high-quality roasted coffee (RC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of storage temperature (- 10, 5, 10, 18, 20 °C), postharvest treatment method (natural (N), washed (W)) and type of packaging material (GrainPro (G), jute (J) bags) on the content of chlorogenic acids (CQAs), caffeine and trigonelline as well as the sensory profile of RC from the specialty sector after 12 months of regulated storage. Sensory analysis showed that natural coffees have better taste and higher quality than washed coffees after 12 months of storage. The highest total scores were obtained from the natural coffee stored in a GrainPro bag at - 10 °C followed by coffee stored in a jute bag at 10 °C which had the smallest decreases compared to the initial recorded values. No notable differences among CQA contents in washed coffees stored in either type of bag was seen but natural coffees stored in jute bags at 10 °C and 18 °C displayed the lowest drops relative to the initial values.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.