臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

一杯咖啡的好壞受到很多因素的影響，從生豆的品質到加工的過程，存放的時間，一直到研磨的程序都會影響咖啡的品質。沖泡研磨咖啡時有一些規則可以遵循，例如：選擇正確顆粒大小的咖啡、咖啡粉與水比例的正確；本研究使用位於不同產區之咖啡原料(中南美洲產區-巴西和非洲產區-摩卡)以及亞洲產區-台灣阿里山本土咖啡；依照淺度焙炒、中度焙炒、深度焙炒三種不同的火侯，施以感官品評，區別出不同種產區咖啡生豆最為適合的焙炒火侯。
本研究以專家品評方式探討不同產區咖啡生豆於不同焙炒火侯之香味與口感的變化；並探討使用不同沖泡調理工具，所產生不同口感；並利用田口實驗方法，分析相關咖啡沖泡最適化為本研究之研究動機。預計透過實驗分析方法及官能品評直交表評分方式分析檢測咖啡沖泡最佳化。
經實驗後對於品評SWEET(甘甜味)口感的最佳化條件為:品種為台灣咖啡(A3)，調理方法為蒸餾式咖啡壺(B1)，焙炒火侯為淺色(C1) 而依貢獻率看來，以咖啡豆品種影響最大，再者為焙炒火侯的深淺，第三為調理方式，影響甚微者是磨豆的粗細。而對於品評ACIDITY(酸味)口感的分析最佳化條件為:品種為摩卡咖啡(A2)，調理方法為義式咖啡機(B3)。而其貢獻率看來，以調理方式影響最大，再者為咖啡豆品種，焙炒火侯的深淺為第三，影響甚微者是磨豆的粗細。對於品評FLAVOR(風味) 口感的分析的最佳化品種為:台灣咖啡(A3)，調理方法為蒸餾式咖啡壺(B1)，焙炒火侯為淺色(C1)。而其貢獻率看來，以咖啡豆品種影響最大，再者為焙炒火侯的深淺，調理方式為第三，影響甚微者是磨豆的粗細。
官能品評，對於咖啡的各項色、香味，均有不同的評斷標準，也希望未來能有更精進的評斷標準，能付予官能品評更多標準化客觀描述。
咖啡調理方法、焙炒火侯、地方人情文化不同，均會產生不同體會與標準，本實驗選用其中三項作為因子，冀望日後研究者能從不同面向，投入更專業研究。

The quality and flavor of a cup of coffee are affected by many factors, from the quality of green beans to the brewing procedure, storage time, and the grinding process. There are some rules to follow for brewing nice tasting coffee, such as choosing right granule sizes and right coffee powder to water ratio. This study used coffee beans from different locations including Mocha from Latin America, Brazil and Africa, and Alishan coffee from Taiwan, Asia. In this study, beans brewed separately in light, medium and deep roasts, were first subjected to sensory evaluation to determine the optimized roasting level for beans produced in different locations.
In this study, expert evaluation method was adopted to explore sweetness, acidity and flavor characteristics of coffee beans prepare date different roasting level. The effect of brewer type was also studied. The aim of this study was to apply Taguchi method to determine the optimized brewing method that led to best coffee characteristics. Orthogonal arrays of scorings from sensory evaluation were used to determine the optimized brewing condition for different characteristics of coffee.
The sensory evaluation indicated that the coffee with optimized sweetness was found in native Taiwanese coffee beans (A3) brewed by siphon and vacuum pot coffee brewer (B1) set at light roasts (C1). To breakdown their contribution rate to coffee sweetness, the source of coffee bean seemed to contribute the most, followed by levelof roasting, and then the brewing procedure. The coarseness of coffee grind contributed the least to sweetness. At the same time, the sensory evaluation revealed that the coffee with optimized acidity was found in Mocha beans (A2) brewed by espresso machines (B3) set at light roasts (C1). The breakdown of acidity contribution rate indicated that the brewing procedure contributed the most, followed by source of coffee bean, and then the level of roasting. Again, the coarseness of coffee grind contributed the least. As to the result of sensory evaluation for the flavor of coffee, the optimized flavor of coffee was found in native Taiwanese coffee beans (A3) brewed by siphon and vacuum pot coffee brewer (B1) set at light roasts (C1). The breakdown of flavor contribution rate indicated that the source of coffee bean contributed the most, followed by the level of roasting, and then the brewing procedure. Again, the coarseness of coffee grind contributed the least.
Sensory evaluation might have set up different evaluation criteria for each coffee characteristic, for instance, color and flavor. This may lead to subjective evaluation bias. We hope that this work can contribute somewhat to the developing of more objective evaluation criteria.
Many factors, including brewing method, roasting level, and local culture of coffee tasting will certainly lead to different cupping experience and evaluation criteria. In our sensory evaluation only three factors were evaluated, which we hope will be expanded to include many more factors by future researchers to represent more professional sensory evaluation.

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的 6
第三節 研究流程 7
第四節 研究範圍 8
第二章 文獻探討 9
第一節 咖啡的介紹 9
第二節 咖啡豆的烘焙類型 11
第三節 官能品評法 13
第四節 田口實驗法 14
第三章 研究方法 16
第一節 研究架構 16
第二節 操作型定義及變項衡量 17
第三節 量表說明 19
第四節 資料分析方法 21
第四章 結果與討論 24
第一節　實驗步驟說明 24
第二節　資料分析 27
第五章　結論與建議 37
參考文獻 39
附錄 42

表次
表3- 1控制因子 17
表3- 2 L9(34)直交表 22
表4- 1咖啡沖泡最佳化實驗-實驗編號 28
表4- 2咖啡品評SWEET(甘甜味)口感分析表 28
表4- 3咖啡品評SWEET(甘甜味)口感因子平均值 29
表4- 4咖啡品評SWEET(甘甜味)口感因子平均S/N比 29
表4- 5咖啡品評SWEET(甘甜味)口感變異數分析表 29
表4- 6咖啡品評ACIDITY(酸味)口感分析表 31
表4- 7咖啡品評ACIDITY(酸味)口感因子平均值 32
表4- 8咖啡品評ACIDITY(酸味)口感因子平均S/N比 32
表4- 9咖啡品評ACIDITY(酸味)口感變異數分析表 32
表4- 10咖啡品評FLAVOR(風味)口感分析表 34
表4- 11咖啡品評 FLAVOR(風味)口感因子平均S/N比 35
表4- 12咖啡品評FLAVOR(風味)口感變異數分析表 35

圖次
圖 1-1 研究流程圖 7
圖 3-1研究架構 16
圖4- 1咖啡品評SWEET(甘甜味)口感因子平均值圖 30
圖4- 2咖啡品評SWEET(甘甜味)口感因子平均S/N比圖 30
圖4- 3咖啡品評ACIDITY(酸味)口感因子平均值 33
圖4- 4咖啡品評ACIDITY(酸味)口感因子平均S/N比 33
圖4- 5咖啡品評FLAVOR(風味)口感因子平均值 35
圖4- 6咖啡品評 FLAVOR(風味)口感因子平均S/N比 36

中文

咖啡經（2014）。線上檢索日期：2014/01/08網址：http://www.coffeebreak. com.tw/?p=33
區少梅（2003）。食品感官品評學及實習。台中：華格納企業有限公司。
陳清泉（1998）。簡介焙炒咖啡之組成及萃取方法，食品工業月刊 30 卷9 期。
程永雄、張淑芬、徐信次（2004）。咖啡種原特性與利用。初版，3-4。嘉義：行政院農業委員會農業試驗所嘉義農業試驗分所。
黃國棟（2003）。焙炒條件對咖啡豆香氣形成影響之研究。國立屏東科技大學食品科學研究所，未出版，屏東縣。
游雅雯（2007）。應用實驗設計於咖啡沖泡後口味之探討。國立雲林科技大學工業工程與管理研究所，未出版，雲林縣。
廖婉甄（2014）。影響咖啡豆進口數量之因素探討-以美國與台灣為例。國立國立中正大學國際經濟研究所，未出版，嘉義縣。
簡永杰（1998）。咖啡豆之含氮化合物於焙炒時之反應。未出版碩士論文。大葉大學食品工業研究所，彰化縣。
蘇家愷（2009）。曼特寧和巴西研磨咖啡最適沖泡條件之官能品評研究。餐旅暨家政學刊，Vol.6 No.2 。
蘇朝墩（2010）。品質工程。新北市：中華民國品質學會。

英文
Clark, R. J., and Marcrae, R., (1995) Elsevier Science Publishing CompanyInc. New York.
Clifford M.N.and Willson, (1985) K.C the avi publishing company, Inc USA.
Cristovam, E., Russell, C., Paterson, A., & Reid, E. (2000). Gender preference in hedonic ratings for espresso and espresso-milk coffee. Food Quality and Preference, 11, 437-444.
　　d-of-specialty-coffee:6VDMLWDNQY.
Dutra E.R.;Oliveira L.S.1; Franca A.S.; Ferraz V.P.and Afonso R.J.C.F.(2001)A preliminary study on the feasibility of using the composition of coffee　roasting exhaust gas for the determination of the degree of roast.　Journal of Food Engineering.47：241-246.
Feria-Morales, A.M. (1989). Effect of holding-time on sensory quality of brewed coffee. Food Quality and Preference, 1, 87-89.
Feria-Morales, A.M. (2002). Examining the case of green coffee to illustrate the limitations of grading systems/experts in sensory evaluation for quality control.
Flament, I. (1989) Coffee,coca,and tea, food Reviews, International. 5：317.
Food Quality and Preference, 13, 355-367.
Hsu, J.L. & Hung W.C. (2005).Packed coffee drink consumption and product attribute preferences of young adults in Taiwan. Food Quality and Preference, 16, 361-367.
http://www.mfa.org.my/?franchise-news:kopiesatu-making-headway-in-the-worl
Mendes, L.C., de Menezes, H.C.,Aparecida, M., & da Silva, A.P.(2001). International Coffee Organization(ICO). Available:http://www.ICO.org. (2013, 12, 23).
MFA. (2010) Malaysia Franchise Association. (2010, December 13) Retrieved from：
Steenkamp, J.E.M., Van Trijp, H.C.M.,& Berge, J.M. F. (1994). Perceptual mapping based on idiosyneraticsets if attributes. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(1),15-27.
Stone, H. & Sidel, J.L. (1993). Sensoryevaluation practices. California:Academic Press.
Valdenebro, M.S., Leon-Camacho,M., Pablos,F., Gonzalez, A.G.,and Martin,M. J., (1999) Determination of the arabica/robusta composition of roastedcoffee according to their sterolic content. The analyst. 124 999-1002.
Wang, D. (1989). Technical Report from Yeuan Yeou Enterprise Co. Ltd. Oct