| Literature DB >> 35844912 |
Hanjing Wu1, Peiyao Lu1, Ziyao Liu1, Javad Sharifi-Rad2, Hafiz A R Suleria1.
Abstract
Phenolic compounds present in coffee beans could generate flavor and bring benefits to health. This study aimed to evaluate the impacts of commercial roasting levels (light, medium, and dark) on phenolic content and antioxidant potential of Arabica coffee beans (Coffea arabica) comprehensively via antioxidant assays. The phenolic compounds in roasted samples were characterized via liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry (LC-ESI-QTOF-MS/MS). Furthermore, the coffee volatile compounds were identified and semi-quantified by headspace/gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (HS-SPME-GC-MS). Generally, for phenolic and antioxidant potential estimation, light roasted samples exhibited the highest TPC (free: 23.97 ± 0.60 mg GAE/g; bound: 19.32 ± 1.29 mg GAE/g), DPPH, and FRAP. The medium roasted beans performed the second high in all assays but the highest ABTS+ radicals scavenging capacity (free: 102.37 ± 8.10 mg TE/g; bound: 69.51 ± 4.20 mg TE/g). Totally, 23 phenolic compounds were tentatively characterized through LC-ESI-QTOF-MS/MS, which is mainly adopted by 15 phenolic acid and 5 other polyphenols. The majority of phenolic compounds were detected in the medium roasted samples, followed by the light. Regarding GC-MS, a total of 20 volatile compounds were identified and semi-quantified which exhibited the highest in the dark followed by the medium. Overall, this study confirmed that phenolic compounds in coffee beans would be reduced with intensive roasting, whereas their antioxidant capacity could be maintained or improved. Commercial medium roasted coffee beans exhibit relatively better nutritional value and organoleptic properties. Our results could narrow down previous conflicts and be practical evidence for coffee manufacturing in food industries.Entities:
Keywords: Coffea arabica; GC‐MS; LC‐MS/MS; antioxidant properties; characterization; phenolic compounds; roasting; semi‐quantification; volatile compounds
Year: 2022 PMID: 35844912 PMCID: PMC9281936 DOI: 10.1002/fsn3.2849
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Sci Nutr ISSN: 2048-7177 Impact factor: 3.553
Determination of phenolic content in coffee beans with three roasting degrees and their antioxidant activity
| Antioxidant assays | Light roasting | Medium roasting | Dark roasting |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free Phenolic | |||
| TPC (mg GAE/g) | 23.97 ± 0.60a | 22.41 ± 0.58b | 20.14 ± 0.72c |
| TFC (mg QE/g) | 0.97 ± 0.01a | 0.87 ± 0.02b | 1.16 ± 0.04b |
| TCT (mg CE/g) | 1.87 ± 0.23a | 3.51 ± 0.02b | 5.46 ± 0.21c |
| DPPH (mg TE/g) | 148.55 ± 6.28a | 147.86 ± 5.50a | 143.32 ± 2.59a |
| FRAP (mg TE/g) | 30.34 ± 1.03a | 27.63 ± 0.89b | 29.50 ± 0.52a |
| ABTS (mg TE/g) | 101.72 ± 1.05a | 102.37 ± 8.10a | 94.87 ± 5.10a |
| ·OH‐RSA (mg TE/g) | 18.72 ± 0.10c | 22.41 ± 2.17b | 32.94 ± 0.29a |
| FICA (mg EE/g) | 0.37 ± 0.09a | 0.49 ± 0.02a | 0.51 ± 0.03a |
| RPA (mg TE/g) | 48.06 ± 4.75a | 42.33 ± 1.44b | 52.18 ± 1.38a |
| Bound Phenolic | |||
| TPC (mg GAE/g) | 19.32 ± 1.29a | 17.86 ± 0.04b | 15.83 ± 1.28c |
| TFC (mg QE/g) | 0.935 ± 0.04a | 0.71 ± 0.04b | 0.74 ± 0.07b |
| TCT (mg CE/g) | 12.01 ± 0.17a | 6.39 ± 0.48b | 2.10 ± 0.01c |
| DPPH (mg TE/g) | 69.98 ± 2.26b | 75.80 ± 0.48a | 77.39 ± 0.89a |
| FRAP (mg TE/g) | 17.95 ± 0.84a | 18.13 ± 0.15a | 17.40 ± 0.13a |
| ABTS (mg TE/g) | 61.51 ± 2.20a | 69.51 ± 4.20a | 64.62 ± 4.84a |
| ·OH‐RSA (mg TE/g) | 36.85 ± 0.26b | 50.63 ± 7.31a | 52.11 ± 2.07a |
| FICA (mg EE/g) | 3.61 ± 0.25a | 3.39 ± 0.17a | 3.28 ± 0.08a |
| RPA (mg TE/g) | 9.20 ± 1.89b | 17.01 ± 1.33a | 15.80 ± 3.34a |
Values expressed as mean ± standard deviation per gram dry weight. Values within the same rows with different superscript letters (a,b,c) indicate that they are significantly different from each other (p < .05).
Abbreviations: ·OH‐RSA, hydroxyl radical scavenging activity; ABTS, 2,2’‐azino‐bis‐3‐ethylbenzothiazoline‐6‐sulfonic acid assay; CE, catechin equivalents; DPPH, 2,2’‐diphenyl‐1‐picrylhydrazyl assay; EDTA, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid; FICA, ferrous ion chelating activity; FRAP, ferric reducing antioxidant power assay; GAE, gallic acid equivalents; QE, quercetin equivalents; RPA, reducing powder assay; TAC, total antioxidant capacity; TE, Trolox equivalents; TFC, total flavonoid content; TPC, total phenolic content; TTC, total tannin content.
FIGURE 1Venn diagram of phenolic compounds present in roasted coffee samples. The similarity of total phenolic compounds (a), phenolic acids (b), flavonoids (c), and other phenolic compounds (d) profiles between the coffee beans with three roasting levels
Characterization of phenolic compounds in different roasted coffee beans by LC‐ESI‐QTOF‐MS/MS
| No. | Proposed compounds | Molecular formula | RT (min) | Ionization (ESI+/ESI−) | Molecular weight | Theoretical ( | Observed ( | Error (ppm) | MS2 product ions | Coffee beans |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phenolic acid | ||||||||||
| Hydroxybenzoic acids | ||||||||||
| 1 | 2,3‐Dihydroxybenzoic acid | C7H6O4 | 14.815 | [M−H]− | 154.0266 | 153.0193 | 153.0198 | 3.3 | 109 | M |
| 2 | 2‐Hydroxybenzoic acid | C7H6O3 | 18.259 | **[M−H]− | 138.0317 | 137.0244 | 137.0249 | 3.6 | 93 | *M, L, D |
| Hydroxycinnamic acids | ||||||||||
| 3 | Caffeoyl tartaric acid | C13H12O9 | 4.064 | [M+H]+ | 312.0481 | 313.0554 | 313.0563 | 2.9 | 161 | *M, L, D |
| 4 | Ferulic acid | C10H10O4 | 15.728 | [M−H]− | 194.0579 | 193.0506 | 193.0502 | −2.1 | 178, 149, 134 | *M, L |
| 5 | Ferulic acid 4‐ | C16H20O9 | 17.403 | **[M−H]− | 356.1107 | 355.1034 | 355.1042 | 2.3 | 193, 178, 149, 134 | *M, D |
| 6 | 3‐Feruloylquinic acid | C17H20O9 | 18.729 | [M−H]− | 368.1107 | 367.1034 | 367.1043 | 2.5 | 298, 288, 192, 191 | *L, M |
| 7 | 3‐Caffeoylquinic acid | C16H18O9 | 20.622 | **[M−H]− | 354.0951 | 353.0878 | 353.0887 | 2.5 | 253, 190, 144 | *M, L, D |
| 8 | Caffeic acid | C9H8O4 | 21.831 | [M−H]− | 180.0423 | 179.035 | 179.0356 | 3.4 | 143, 133 | M |
| 9 | 3‐ | C16H18O8 | 22.008 | **[M−H]− | 338.1002 | 337.0929 | 337.0938 | 2.7 | 265, 173, 162 | *M, L |
| 10 | 1,5‐Dicaffeoylquinic acid | C25H24O12 | 31.498 | **[M−H]− | 516.1268 | 515.1195 | 515.1211 | 3.1 | 353, 335, 191, 179 | *L, M, D |
| 11 |
| C11H10O5 | 37.342 | [M+H]+ | 222.0528 | 223.0601 | 223.0604 | 1.3 | 163 | *D, M |
| Hydroxyphenylpropanoic acids | ||||||||||
| 12 | 3‐Hydroxy‐3‐(3‐hydroxyphenyl) propionic acid | C9H10O4 | 10.956 | **[M−H]− | 182.0579 | 181.0506 | 181.05 | −3.3 | 163, 135, 119 | D |
| 13 | Dihydroferulic acid 4‐ | C16H20O10 | 11.159 | [M−H]− | 372.1056 | 371.0983 | 371.0983 | 0.0 | 195 | M |
| Hydroxyphenylpentanoic acids | ||||||||||
| 14 | 5‐(3'‐Methoxy‐4'‐hydroxyphenyl)‐ | C12H14O4 | 31.143 | [M+H]+ | 222.0892 | 223.0965 | 223.0954 | −4.9 | 205 | M |
| Hydroxyphenylacetic acids | ||||||||||
| 15 | 2‐Hydroxy‐2‐phenylacetic acid | C8H8O3 | 20.229 | **[M−H]− | 152.0473 | 151.04 | 151.0405 | 3.3 | 136, 92 | *L, M, D |
| Flavonoids | ||||||||||
| Flavonols | ||||||||||
| 16 | 3‐Methoxysinensetin | C21H22O8 | 16.528 | **[M+H]+ | 402.1315 | 403.1388 | 403.1395 | 1.7 | 388, 373, 355, 327 | L |
| Other polyphenols | ||||||||||
| Hydroxybenzaldehydes | ||||||||||
| 17 | p‐Anisaldehyde | C8H8O2 | 13.709 | **[M+H]+ | 136.0524 | 137.0597 | 137.0599 | 1.5 | 122, 109 | *M, L |
| 18 | 4‐Hydroxybenzaldehyde | C7H6O2 | 22.552 | **[M−H]− | 122.0368 | 121.0295 | 121.0297 | 1.7 | 77 | L |
| Hydroxycinnamaldehydes | ||||||||||
| 19 | Ferulaldehyde | C10H10O3 | 24.716 | [M−H]− | 178.063 | 177.0557 | 177.0567 | 5.6 | 161, 147 | M |
| Curcuminoids | ||||||||||
| 20 | Curcumin | C21H20O6 | 4.095 | [M−H]− | 368.126 | 367.1187 | 367.1177 | −2.7 | 217 | L |
| Tyrosols | ||||||||||
| 21 | Demethyloleuropein | C24H30O13 | 44.294 | [M−H]− | 526.1686 | 525.1613 | 525.1595 | −3.4 | 495 | M |
| Lignans | ||||||||||
| 22 | Sesamin | C20H18O6 | 3.984 | [M−H]− | 354.1103 | 353.103 | 353.102 | −2.8 | 338, 163 | L |
| Stilbenes | ||||||||||
| 23 | Resveratrol | C14H12O3 | 31.317 | **[M−H]− | 228.0786 | 227.0713 | 227.0709 | −1.8 | 212, 185, 157, 143 | D |
Ionization mode with ** represents that the compound was detected in both positive and negative modes but only one mode's data were presented. For compounds found in more than one sample, only results for samples with * were shown in the table. Roasted coffee beans samples mentioned in abbreviations are Light roasted “L”, Medium roasted “M”, and Dark roasted “D.”
Abbreviation: RT, retention time.
The content of volatile compounds identified in different roasted coffee beans by HS‐SPME‐GC‐MS
| Comp no. | Compound name | Molecular formula | RT (min) | LRI | LRI (NIST) | Content (μg/g) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Light roasted | Medium roasted | Dark roasted | ||||||
| Pyridines | ||||||||
| 1 | Pyridine | C5H5N | 10.63 | 1175 | 1169 | 1.88 ± 0.03 | 2.93 ± 0.03 | 5.31 ± 0.10 |
| Pyrazines | ||||||||
| 2 | Pyrazine | C4H4N2 | 11.48 | 1201 | 1201 | 0.56 ± 0.02 | 0.625 ± 0.03 | 0.85 ± 0.06 |
| 3 | Pyrazine, methyl‐ | C5H6N2 | 13.18 | 1255 | 1252 | 6.25 ± 0.01 | 6.17 ± 0.01 | 7.03 ± 0.04 |
| 4 | Pyrazine, 2,5‐dimethyl‐ | C6H8N2 | 14.90 | 1311 | 1318 | 3.75 ± 0.04 | 3.48 ± 0.15 | 3.23 ± 0.02 |
| 5 | Pyrazine, 2,6‐dimethyl‐ | C6H8N2 | 15.09 | 1318 | 1314 | 2.89 ± 0.04 | 2.45 ± 0.05 | 2.50 ± 0.02 |
| 6 | Pyrazine, ethyl‐ | C6H8N2 | 15.22 | 1322 | 1325 | 0.57 ± 0.02 | 0.59 ± 0.01 | 0.63 ± 0.01 |
| 7 | Pyrazine, 2‐ethyl‐6‐methyl‐ | C7H10N2 | 16.73 | 1374 | 1375 | 0.52 ± 0.01 | 0.52 ± 0.01 | 0.52 ± 0.01 |
| Acids and esters | ||||||||
| 8 | Acetic acid | C2H4O2 | 18.40 | 1435 | 1434 | 52.66 ± 0.70 | 60.4 ± 0.46 | 60.83 ± 3.36 |
| 9 | 2‐Butenoic acid, 3‐methyl‐ | C5H8O2 | 26.83 | 1791 | 1802 | 1.53 ± 0.20 | 1.52 ± 0.22 | 1.48 ± 0.21 |
| Furan and Furanic compounds | ||||||||
| 10 | Furfural | C5H4O2 | 18.72 | 1447 | 1443 | 16.26 ± 0.36 | 17.44 ± 0.16 | 19.32 ± 0.37 |
| 11 | 2‐Furanmethanol, acetate (furfuryl acetate) | C7H8O3 | 20.73 | 1525 | 1523 | 0.99 ± 0.31 | 1.06 ± 0.09 | 1.60 ± 0.49 |
| 12 | 2‐Furancarboxaldehyde, 5‐methyl‐ (5‐Methylfurfural) | C6H6O2 | 21.53 | 1558 | 1555 | 14.16 ± 0.27 | 17.60 ± 0.43 | 18.93 ± 0.42 |
| 13 | 2‐Furanmethanol (Furfuryl alcohol) | C5H6O2 | 23.78 | 1654 | 1658 | 34.16 ± 0.40 | 37.87 ± 0.31 | 42.97 ± 1.65 |
| Pyrrole | ||||||||
| 14 | 1H‐Pyrrole‐2‐carboxaldehyde, 1‐methyl‐ | C6H7NO | 22.68 | 1605 | 1607 | 0.65 ± 0.01 | 0.83 ± 0.04 | 1.03 ± 0.04 |
| Ketones | ||||||||
| 15 | 2‐Cyclopenten‐1‐one, 2‐hydroxy‐3‐methyl‐ | C6H8O2 | 27.55 | 1824 | 1827 | 1.15 ± 0.16 | 1.48 ± 0.12 | 1.90 ± 0.18 |
| 16 | 2‐Cyclopenten‐1‐one, 3‐ethyl‐2‐hydroxy‐ | C7H10O2 | 28.98 | 1888 | 1894 | 0.72 ± 0.11 | 1.17 ± 0.29 | 0.935 ± 0.13 |
| 17 | Ethanone, 1‐(1H‐pyrrol‐2‐yl)‐ | C6H7NO | 30.51 | 1957 | 1957 | 1.60 ± 0.57 | 2.01 ± 0.10 | 2.48 ± 0.41 |
| Phenols | ||||||||
| 18 | Maltol | C6H6O3 | 30.43 | 1953 | 1954 | 0.83 ± 0.27 | 1.31 ± 0.38 | 1.97 ± 0.77 |
| 19 | Phenol | C6H6O | 31.17 | 1986 | 1989 | 1.01 ± 0.03 | 1.11 ± 0.08 | 1.52 ± 0.04 |
| Other compounds | ||||||||
| 20 | Anethole | C10H12O | 27.44 | 1819 | 1818 | 1.22 ± 0.70 | 1.50 ± 0.71 | 1.62 ± 1.29 |
Abbreviations: LRI, linear retention index; RT, retention time.
Pearson's correlation coefficients (r) of phenolic contents and the antioxidant capacity
| Variables | TPC | TFC | TCT | DPPH | FRAP | ABTS | ·OH‐RSA | FICA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TFC | 0.467 | |||||||
| TCT | −0.193 | 0.135 | ||||||
| DPPH | 0.786 | 0.601 | −0.524 | |||||
| FRAP | 0.785 | 0.683 | −0.449 | 0.936 | ||||
| ABTS | 0.747 | 0.486 | −0.525 | 0.954 | 0.916 | |||
| ·OH‐RSA | −0.932 | −0.535 | 0.221 | −0.847 | −0.844 | −0.840 | ||
| FICA | −0.781 | −0.633 | 0.523 | −0.990 | −0.975 | −0.941 | 0.859 | |
| RPA | 0.704 | 0.637 | −0.517 | 0.964 | 0.953 | 0.908 | −0.742 | −0.969 |
Significant correlation with p ≤ .01.
Significant correlation with p ≤ .05.