paper or plastic are all that is necessary to maintain
quality, provided the coffee is freshly roasted and
ground and consumed shortly thereafter, say within
a week for R and G coffee (or 10–12 days or longer
for RWB).
0018 However, packaged RWB and especially R and G
coffee from large-scale manufacture have been avail-
able for some considerable time, accelerated by the
advent of supermarkets. There are now twin prob-
lems in the inevitably longer time scale (e.g., 3–12
months or more) between manufacture and consump-
tion. The first problem is that roast coffee, especially
R and G coffee, deteriorates quite rapidly, in respect
of headspace aroma and of flavor, in the presence of
air/oxygen/moisture, and the second problem is that
roasted coffee gradually releases substantial quan-
tities of its entrapped carbon dioxide gas (and other
minor gaseous components), R and G coffee much
more quickly than RWB. In the case of the former,
however, about half will be released in the course of
grinding. The amount of gas still retained plotted
against time is asymptotic in character to zero,
which may well show some 1000 h to near comple-
tion for RWB but substantially less time for R and G
coffee after grinding.
0019 A fully closed package containing freshly ground
roast coffee will therefore rapidly develop a high
internal pressure, maybe sufficient to cause the pack-
age to burst, and is thus dangerous. RWB will cause a
similar or greater problem, though the rate of devel-
opment of internal pressure will be much slower.
0020 In practice, these twin packaging problems have
been solved in a number of ways: firstly, packaging
under vacuum, allowing a low percentage oxygen
content in the headspace to be established within the
package (e.g., 25 mmHg pressure means less than 1%
oxygen headspace level), and also accommodating
release of carbon dioxide, so that the final pressure
in the package may eventually just reach atmospheric;
secondly, by allowing the R and G coffee in bulk to
degas over a sufficient period of time to a low level,
followed by gas purging whilst individual packages
are being filled. In the first method, tin cans have been
used for many years, and more recently plastic pack-
ages, closed by heat sealing and then fitted into card-
board boxes. Such plastic packages have raised a
number of additional problems, not least of seal in-
tegrity due to the hazard of coffee dust, but also due
to a smaller headspace volume than is possible in a tin
can, to take up residual carbon dioxide, and some
prior degassing may be necessary. The package must
not be allowed to become soft, thus restricting the
final internal pressure that is tolerable (around
500 mmHg abs. max.). These packages are so-called
‘hardpacks,’ though in fact a package that has gone
soft does not necessarily indicate per se that the coffee
has deteriorated in quality.
0021In the second method, where no vacuum is
employed, various packaging materials can be used
and heat-sealed, to give so-called ‘soft packs.’ Gas
purging is used to ensure that, again, the residual
percentage oxygen content in the headspace gas is
preferably less than 1%. In both these methods, care
is necessary in the selection of plastic packaging
material (usually laminates) in consideration of gas
ingress/egress, both of oxygen and carbon dioxide
and also of volatile aroma compounds, and, import-
antly, high resistance to water-vapor ingress.
0022A third method that is especially popular in Europe
is in the use of plastic packages to which a nonreturn
valve (e.g., Goglio valve) has been securely attached,
which allows release of excess carbon dioxide when
the internal pressure exceeds a certain predetermined
level. In this way, the amount of prior degassing is
minimized, and the use of a vacuum is not necessary.
0023All of these methods allow a much longer shelf-life
than is possible with simple air packs, though it
should be appreciated that shelf-life is shortened
once any package is opened. Stability is discussed in
the next section.
Deterioration on Storage
0024As will have been evident from the previous section,
both oxygen and moisture are the agents that are
primarily responsible for flavor-quality deterioration
together with the effect of temperature. It should be
noted that like all foodstuffs, deterioration is continu-
ously occurring from the time of harvesting and, in
the case of roasted coffee, from immediately after
roasting. Deterioration of flavor quality is, however,
a subjective phenomenon, though accompanying
chemical changes, only some of which may be directly
related, can of course be detected by laboratory ana-
lytical techniques. Nevertheless, trained panels with
statistical treatment of results can be used to assess
deterioration in terms of rating scales/words. Consid-
erable work has been undertaken at the Munich Tech-
nological University and others in recent years to
study the deterioration of both RWB and R and G
coffee under different conditions. They found it
useful to rate on a scale (10!4!1), with word sub-
divisions of quality as ‘high’ (close to fresh) ‘medium’
(satisfying) and ‘low’ (still acceptable without emer-
gence of stale or off flavours). Table 2 shows some of
these findings. Other data are available for different
conditions but are not directly comparable, showing
the markedly increased rate of deterioration at (1)
higher moisture contents of the R and G coffee
beyond 4%, and (2) percentage oxygen headspace
COFFEE/Roast and Ground 1491