Determining the Efficiency and Yield of Caffeine Extraction for Robusta and Arabica Coffee Beans

Zeyu Yu, A. Reddy, Himanshu Wagh
{"title":"Determining the Efficiency and Yield of Caffeine Extraction for Robusta and Arabica Coffee Beans","authors":"Zeyu Yu, A. Reddy, Himanshu Wagh","doi":"10.53043/2320-1991.acb90013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The objective of this review is to determine the difference in caffeine content in the coffee beans from different brands that are available in Costco. Two different popular coffee bean brands were bought and tested to determine which brand would have the highest caffeine content and their relative popularity among consumers. The extraction DMC method was conducted by using chemicals such as calcium carbonate, water, and DMC. The same amount of coffee beans were boiled with water until highly concentrated solutions were formed. Extraction funnel was utilized to wash out caffeine. Then, the recrystallization and vacuum filtration was utilized to obtain caffeine in solid form. The identity of the product along with the purity of the product was determined using melting temp, IR-spectroscopy, UV-vis spectrum, and TLC plating. The mass of caffeine produced from individual coffee brands were measured and compared. It was hypothesized that robusta coffee beans would yield more caffeine than arabica coffee beans. The expected results verify those claims as the data demonstrates that the amount of caffeine extracted from 10 grams of robusta coffee would be around .8021 grams, while the amount of caffeine extracted from 10 grams of arabica coffee would be around .4321 grams. The IR graph, UV-vis graph, and TLC plate were conducted to verify the identity of the product. The predicted IR graph, UV-vis graph, and TLC plate closely matched with the literature values, which indicates that the product produced is pure caffeine. One source of error that could skew the data could be the presence of impurities from the coffee beans that react in solution while we are trying to extract the caffeine. The broader impact of this review is that by understanding the caffeine content in different products, the medical and scientific field can further determine the difference in health effects between excess and optimal caffeine consumption to the human body. Additionally, scientists can research various medical usages of caffeine to help different patients with sleep disorders.","PeriodicalId":191002,"journal":{"name":"Applied Cell Biology","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Cell Biology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53043/2320-1991.acb90013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The objective of this review is to determine the difference in caffeine content in the coffee beans from different brands that are available in Costco. Two different popular coffee bean brands were bought and tested to determine which brand would have the highest caffeine content and their relative popularity among consumers. The extraction DMC method was conducted by using chemicals such as calcium carbonate, water, and DMC. The same amount of coffee beans were boiled with water until highly concentrated solutions were formed. Extraction funnel was utilized to wash out caffeine. Then, the recrystallization and vacuum filtration was utilized to obtain caffeine in solid form. The identity of the product along with the purity of the product was determined using melting temp, IR-spectroscopy, UV-vis spectrum, and TLC plating. The mass of caffeine produced from individual coffee brands were measured and compared. It was hypothesized that robusta coffee beans would yield more caffeine than arabica coffee beans. The expected results verify those claims as the data demonstrates that the amount of caffeine extracted from 10 grams of robusta coffee would be around .8021 grams, while the amount of caffeine extracted from 10 grams of arabica coffee would be around .4321 grams. The IR graph, UV-vis graph, and TLC plate were conducted to verify the identity of the product. The predicted IR graph, UV-vis graph, and TLC plate closely matched with the literature values, which indicates that the product produced is pure caffeine. One source of error that could skew the data could be the presence of impurities from the coffee beans that react in solution while we are trying to extract the caffeine. The broader impact of this review is that by understanding the caffeine content in different products, the medical and scientific field can further determine the difference in health effects between excess and optimal caffeine consumption to the human body. Additionally, scientists can research various medical usages of caffeine to help different patients with sleep disorders.
罗布斯塔和阿拉比卡咖啡豆咖啡因提取效率和得率的测定
这篇综述的目的是确定好市多不同品牌的咖啡豆中咖啡因含量的差异。研究人员购买了两种不同的流行咖啡豆品牌,并对其进行了测试,以确定哪种品牌的咖啡因含量最高,以及它们在消费者中的相对受欢迎程度。采用碳酸钙、水、DMC等化学物质提取DMC。将等量的咖啡豆与水一起煮沸,直到形成高度浓缩的溶液。利用萃取漏斗将咖啡因洗出。再通过重结晶和真空过滤得到固体形式的咖啡因。采用熔炼温度、红外光谱、紫外可见光谱、薄层电泳等方法对产品进行了鉴定和纯度鉴定。对不同咖啡品牌产生的咖啡因进行了测量和比较。据推测,罗布斯塔咖啡豆比阿拉比卡咖啡豆产生更多的咖啡因。预期的结果证实了这些说法,因为数据表明,从10克罗布斯塔咖啡中提取的咖啡因含量约为0.8021克,而从10克阿拉比卡咖啡中提取的咖啡因含量约为0.4321克。用红外图、紫外-可见图和薄层色谱板对产品进行鉴别。预测的IR图、UV-vis图、TLC板与文献值吻合较好,表明生产的产品为纯咖啡因。造成数据偏差的一个原因可能是,当我们试图提取咖啡因时,咖啡豆中的杂质会在溶液中发生反应。这篇综述的更广泛的影响是,通过了解不同产品中的咖啡因含量,医学和科学领域可以进一步确定过量和最佳咖啡因摄入对人体健康影响的差异。此外,科学家可以研究咖啡因的各种医学用途,以帮助不同的睡眠障碍患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信