robusta coffee
ingredient / ingredient-robusta-coffee
ロブスタ種コーヒー / Coffea canephora
Coffee beans of Coffea canephora (Robusta). They are described as having higher caffeine and chlorogenic-acid contents than Arabica.
On this page (7 sections)
Reading the bitterness
Robusta (Coffea canephora) is a type of coffee bean. In a study comparing 1 commercial sample of each (100% Robusta from India and 100% Arabica from Brazil) roasted by the same roaster with the same roasting process, the median bitterness scores given by 6 trained panelists on a 0 to 9 scale were higher for Robusta in espresso (Robusta 4.7, Arabica 4.0) and filter coffee (3.5, 1.2), and about the same in moka (3.3, 3.4) and Neapolitan coffee (2.9, 3.1). In espresso, Robusta also had greater aroma persistence, with caramel-, roast-, and stone-fruit-like aromas. No test of the difference between the species is shown.
In contrast, a study comparing 6 single-origin beans of different origins (4 arabica, 2 robusta), with roast conditions set for each bean separately (20 panelists, 10-point scale), found that which one tasted more bitter changed with the brewing method. For the beans both from Brazil, the robusta was significantly more bitter as filter coffee and the arabica as Turkish coffee. Astringency was significantly stronger in robusta in all 3 brewing methods, which the paper attributes to robusta's higher chlorogenic acid content.
In HPLC analysis of 6 roasted bean samples (4 arabica, 2 robusta), Brazilian Robusta had the highest caffeine content of the 6, at 22.38 mg/g (dry-matter basis), and the same bean also showed the highest values for chlorogenic acid isomers (3-caffeoylquinic acid 14.09, 4-caffeoylquinic acid 8.23, 5-caffeoylquinic acid 4.65 mg/g, all dry-matter basis). There is 1 more robusta sample (from Guatemala), but the values are for 1 bean each, so this is not an exhaustive comparison by species.
Sources for this overview
Checked for this overview: Uses the comparison of median bitterness and aroma by brewing method, with 1 commercial sample of each species from the same roasting process.
Antioxidant and Sensory Assessment of Innovative Coffee Blends of Reduced Caffeine Content
Checked for this overview: Uses the sensory evaluation of 6 single-origin beans (which one is more bitter changes with brewing; robusta is more astringent; chlorogenic acid). / Uses measured caffeine and chlorogenic-acid contents for Brazilian Robusta.
Follow the connections
robusta coffee →differs from→ arabica coffee
robusta coffee →— composition→ caffeine →is a poor universal prototy…→ bitterness
Structured claims — open a section to read each claim's confidence, evidence and limits
Composition and content (1)
Scope: Layer: food (roasted beans, dry-matter-basis values). HPLC analysis. The 6 samples were 4 arabica (Mexico and Colombia, both decaffeinated, plus Brazil and Costa Rica) and 2 robusta (Guatemala and Brazil), 1 bean each. Not an exhaustive comparison by species.
Show data
ingredient-robusta-coffee —has_composition→ compound-caffeineSensory (2)
Scope: Layer: food. 2 commercial samples roasted with the same roasting process by an Italian roaster (Musetti), brewed as espresso (coffee powder to beverage 1:2 by weight, 92 °C), Neapolitan (72 g/L), moka (76 g/L) and filter (50 g/L), and rated by 6 trained panelists on a 0 to 9 scale (medians). Untargeted metabolomics was used alongside.
Show data
ingredient-robusta-coffee —differs_from→ ingredient-arabica-coffeeScope: Layer: food. 6 single-origin beans (not blends) roasted to a medium degree and brewed as espresso, Turkish coffee and filter coffee. Sensory evaluation by 20 panelists (experienced in coffee sensory evaluation) on a 10-point scale. The bitterness statistics are in Supplementary Tables S1–S3 (one-way ANOVA with Tukey's test). Roast conditions were set by trial and error for each bean and were not matched between species.
Show data
ingredient-arabica-coffee —differs_from→ ingredient-robusta-coffee