Journal of Engineering Science and Technology
ICIST2023, Vol. 19, No. 2 (2024) 60 - 72
© School of Engineering, Taylor’s University

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF COFFEE ROASTINGPROCESS BASED ON TWO DIFFERENT ENERGY SOURCES
ON A SMALLHOLDER COFFEE FARM IN JEMBERANDIK IRAWAN1,2,*, BENJAMIN CRAIG MCLELLAN1
1Department of Socio-Environment Energy,
Graduate School of Energy Science, Kyoto University,
Yoshida-hommachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan
2Institution Politeknik Negeri Jember, Jl. Mastrip, Krajan Timur,
Sumbersari, Jember, East Java, Indonesia*Corresponding Author: andik.irawan.32i@st.kyoto-u.ac.jp

Abstract
This study compares two scenarios for alternative energy supply options for thecoffee roasting process. The scenarios are: Solar Panel-Biogas (SB), and Local Grid
Electric-LPG (LL). To define the product for evaluation, the level of roasting waschosen as Medium Roasted (Code R55). These two alternative energy supplies arecompared based on Global Warming Potential (GWP). The types of coffee chosenwere Arabica, and Robusta with the wet and dry processing selected, and dataobtained experimentally. As the biogas is supplied as a byproduct of coffee
production, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was applied with the ReCiPe 2016
Midpoint level method to calculate the GWP. The key novelty of this study is thatit describes the GWP that emerges from each of the three roast curve stages basedon a total roast duration of 10 minutes. This covers the three phases in roasting
coffee: the dehydration phase (0-4 min), the Maillard phase (4-8 min), and thepyrolysis-development phase (8-10 min). The results indicate that the emission
impact of the dehydration stage is higher than the other two stages, due to therequired heat to reduce the water content over a short time. In general, the turning
point was highly important, as the water content of the coffee was decreasing,
especially for coffee beans that have different densities, the heating power to reachthis point is critical. The higher the density, the greater the required heating power.
Then, in the phase of the Maillard reaction, the heating power requirement will
decrease as the colour change develops. Scenario SB was (as anticipated) the lower
GWP, and this study demonstrates the benefit of integrated Sustainable Coffee
Production (SCP) as an Industrial Ecology (IE) solution.
Keywords: Biogas, Coffee profile, Coffee roasting, Density, Industrial ecology.

60

Life Cycle Assessment of Coffee Roasting Process . . . . 61

1. Introduction
The impact of climate change has been witnessed all around the world. However,many of the effects are being most critically felt in countries of the global south,
including most countries where coffee is grown. Coffee is the second most-tradedcommodity in the world after petroleum products, and Indonesia is the fourth largest
coffee-producing country, whose economy generates a large amount of foreignexchange from coffee exports [1, 2]. Coffee-producing countries have faced theeffects of climate change for decades such as fluctuations in temperature, rainfall,
humidity, soil nutrients, sunlight, and aeration which affect coffee plants. [3].
Coffee production in Indonesia is divided into two main types of products,
Arabica and Robusta, which are spread across smallholder plantations (95.37% of
production) in Java, Sumatra, and Sulawesi [4]. Robusta is generally grown inSouth Sumatra, Lampung, and East Java, while Arabica is grown in Aceh, North
Sumatra, South Sulawesi, Bali, and Flores. Coffee processing does not require
specialised certification. Still, the importance of the expertise gained through acertificate in coffee processing can improve the quality of premium products tobecome specialty coffee, which will bring higher prices [5]. Generally, coffee
processing is divided into wet and dry processing [6-8]. Figure 1 describes the wet
and dry coffee processing processes, both of which are divided into on-farm andoff-farm categories. Primary products (On-Farm) can be sold directly to coffee
processors, while secondary products (Off-Farm) are segmented by smallholders,and Small-Medium Enterprise (SMEs).
While coffee production can be impacted by climate change, it is also important
for the sector to consider how it can improve its performance environmentally.
Mitigation of emissions from all processes in the coffee processing chain using
alternative energy should be a priority as a contribution to mitigating the impacts
that threaten the industry. Utilizing wastewater from coffee processing into biogas
is a step towards Sustainable Coffee Production (SCP) [9]. Robusta products arecommercial products, so they are handled on the plantation [10], with the specificprocessing methods being important for the impact on sustainability. Almost all
Robusta processing is carried out using the dry process, which currently benefits
farmers most [11]. Coffee processing produces around 0.42 kg CO2eq per kg ofcherry emissions from transportation and 0.08 kg CO2eq per kg of Coffee roasted
from LPG Sources and Local Grid electricity [12].
Coffee roasting is part of the off-farm processes; all smallholders can roast
coffee by buying Green Beans (GB) from suppliers, determining the roast profile,and aiming to develop the best aroma, colour, and taste [13]. The roasting method
can be fast, medium, or slow roast [14]. Moreover, all stages in the coffee processcontribute to Global Warming Potential (GWP), with most coffee processing using
fossil fuel sources. Replacing LPG with biogas is one potential method for
mitigation of the emissions produced in the coffee roasting stages. For example,
the coffee process by smallholders in Jember contributed emissions of around 1.2
kg CO2eq per kg Coffee Powder (CP) with scenario fossil fuels and biogas this was
reduced to 0.42 kg CO2eq per kg CP [9].
In this study, LCA is used to calculate the potential emissions from coffee
roasting, with the use of energy sources such as solar panels and the local electric
grid compared. A previous study has demonstrated solar panels and local gridelectricity leading to 0.318 CO2eq, 0.744 CO2eq per kg CR [15]. The scenario of
Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

Special Issue 2/2024

62

A. Irawan et al.

biomass as energy in the coffee processing process in Mexico was previously
shown to produce lower emissions than fossil energy [16]. Economically, CR has
been shown to provide a beneficial impact compared to GB products in the Robusta
Bromo Mountain coffee farmer group [17], but the importance of selective
processing during the production process and considering the use of alternative
energy as a supporting energy source needs further investigation from direct
economic, environmental and potential marketing perspectives. Smallholders in
coffee processing are essential to sustainable coffee production [18]; throughcollaboration with smallholders, the industry will be strong and sustainable withquality GB [19].
In the case of coffee, it is important to define the functional unit for evaluation.
Roasters use the colour profile to indicate various levels of roast. In this case, theroast colour profile tested is based on codes #95 very light, and #25 very dark [20]. As roasting progresses, changes can be seen physically occurring with time andchanges in temperature during the roasting process, with coffee from a water weightcontent of 12% to around 5% [21] The changing colour during coffee roasting also
has a relation with the coffee taste [20]. There has not been any previous detailed
explanation of the emissions arising at each stage of the roasting process. The
novelty of this research is to explain the potential emissions from the coffee
roasting process explicitly by dividing it into three roasting stages: first, thedehydration stage; second, the Maillard reaction stage; and third, the development
stage. A coffee roasting curve was formed at each stage, which became a reference
for smallholders to determine the roast profile.
In this study, we discuss the potential emissions generated by the roasting stageof coffee with Arabica and Robusta from two different types of processing.
Potential emissions reduction analysis has been undertaken with LCA, using
SimaPro software and the ReCipe 2016 method. Two different energy sources,
solar panels-biogas, and local grid electric-LPG are used for comparison.
Dry Processsing
Single stage:- Drying

Cherry Coffee

Husk + GB

Multiple stages:- Pulped- Fermentation- Washing- Drying
Wet Processsing

Multiple stages:- Dehulling- Grade Sortation- Roasting Coffee- Grinding Coffee
Coffee Powder
Coffee Drink

Parch + GB

On Farm (Primary Product)

Off Farm (Secondary
Product)

Fig. 1. Coffee processing and on-off farm categories.

2. Materials and Methods
This study used raw dry coffee materials, Arabica, and Robusta, from theProcessing Group at the Indonesian Coffee and Cocoa Research Institute (ICCRI).
The coffee roasting was done at a company in Jember Regency, East Java. LCA is
Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

Special Issue 2/2024

Life Cycle Assessment of Coffee Roasting Process . . . . 63

used for the analysis of Global Warming Potential (GWP) [22, 23] in SimaPro
V9.3, with the ReCipe 2016 midpoint level method as an impact assessment [18,24]. The Eco-Invent database was used to calculate the GWP of production using
Local electricity - LPG (LL), and Solar Panels-Biogas (SB). Consumption of LPG
and electricity was measured experimentally. Figure 2 shows the flowsheet ofcoffee roasting assessment boundaries. Data were collected during August and
September 2022, using direct observation and experimentation at the Gusto Coffee
Company, Jember, East Java-Indonesia.

Energy Source
LPG
Dry Coffee
Beans

BiogasDehulling

Roasting
CoffeeHusk Skin

Silver Skin

CoffeeRoastedFig. 2. The scope of the study is presented in the dash-line.

2.1. Scope
The functional unit defined for this study is one kilogram of coffee roasted at a
medium level (Agtron 55). This study uses a roasting application and monitoring
to display graphs during the process, including temperature, time, and gas
consumption as shown in Fig. 3. The monitoring system is connected via a USB
cable to a microcontroller coffee roaster machine. Drum speed control ranges from60 to 75 rpm as a variable for control motor rotation, airflow control for heat power,
and heat losses; it also detects bean temperature and drum temperature in real-time,
and the gas pressure indicator is read during the roasting process gas pressure isconverted to gas consumption in this monitoring system. The monitoring system
readings are presented as a roasting curve and can be saved in the form of images
and exported to Excel files. At the same time, observations record the amount ofelectricity demand using a digital power meter during the roasting process as shown
Fig. 4. We completed the analysis by comparing the GWP of the two energy sources
and separating it into the three contributing stages of the coffee roasting process;
Dehydration, Maillard, and Pyrolysis [25].
The real-time monitoring system records temperature increases or decreases
and time during the roasting process. These temperature changes help to identify
the changing processes in roasting the coffee. These three stages can be readthrough the monitoring system, divided into time ranges from 0 to 4 minutes, 4 to
8 minutes, and 8 to 10 minutes. Data is stored as a reference for the roastery for theroasting stage with the same type of coffee beans. This study used coffee roastersamples, in a roaster machine with a capacity of 200 g. Table 1 shows the specifictools utilized. These tools were connected to software for the monitoring system on
temperature, time, and gas pressure. Solar panels are used during the dehulling and
Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

Special Issue 2/2024

64

A. Irawan et al.

roasting processes, with four monocrystalline-type panels and 100A batteries(Table 2). However, this study does not detail the GWP impact due to the dehulling
process, because it is focused on the three stages of the roasting process, whichshould eventually be able to determine the relative impact of alternative roast
levels, taste profiles, and beans. Figure 4 shows a roaster machine, solar panels, and
AC-DC power meters.

Fig. 3. The company's coffee roaster machine application.

Fig. 4. Solar panel (left), coffee roaster machine (middle),
AC power meter (black, right), DC power meter (white, right).
Table 1. Roaster machine specifications.
No. Materials
1
Drum Stainless 304
2
Tray Stainless 304
3
Body Stainless 304
4
Gas Indicator
5Temperature
6
Capacity
Specification
7
Motor Drum
8
Air Flow Fan
9Cooling Fan
Total power (watt)

Parameters
125 mm; tick 2 mm, L 120 mm
L × W × H: 220 × 65 × 40 mm
2 mm thick, L × W × H: 380 × 270 × 270 mm
0 - 100 millibar
Digital Beans, Monitoring Connections
100-200 g per batch
Power (Watt)
15
10
10
35

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

Special Issue 2/2024

Life Cycle Assessment of Coffee Roasting Process . . . . 65

*Data taken from observation roaster machine

Table 2. Installation specifications.
No.
Type Panel
1
Maximum Power (Pmax)
2
Maximum Power Current (Imax)
3
Maximum Power Voltage (Vmax)
4
Open Circuit Voltage (V)5Battery (Gel)6
Inverter Cosine Wave
7
Power Meter Indicator*Data were taken installation

Monocrystalline
100 W
5.62 A
17.8 VDC
21.8 VDC-

Energy DC
100 Ah, 12 V-

DC to AC
1000 W
100 A

2.2. Inventory
The coffee roasting mass balance inventory is presented in Table 3. Roasting
milestone parameters were measured respectively; raw material, bulk density inGB, bulk density in CR, apparent swelling, turning point, first crack, and second
crack. Next, the emissions factor was applied to calculate the LCA [26]. The
amount of energy and electricity consumption is explained in Table 4. Observationof gas consumption with a flow meter and pressure, for each phase of the roastingprocess, from minutes 0-4 (dehydrate), 4-8 (Maillard), and 8-10 (develop). The gas
consumption was recorded on the monitoring system using a gas pressure indicatorand gas flow meter indicator for gas flow measurement. Gas consumption is basedon the three stages of the roasting process. The gas cylinder is placed on the scaleand connected to the monitor system. The initial to final gas weight at each stage isrecorded and described in Table 4. The LCA input data for the LL Scenario selected
low voltage electricity Indonesia (ID), with electricity voltage transformation frommedium to low voltage, Cut-off-S was selected as the database for electrical energy
input. Low voltage electricity ID, photovoltaic, 3kWp slanted-roof installation, andCut-off-S was used for the SB Scenario.
Table 3. Roasting parameters.
No.
Roast type
CoffeeMoisture, %Beans mass, gRoast mass, g
Bulk density in beans, g/ml
Bulk density in roasting, g/ml
Apparent swelling, %Charge Temp, °C
Turning point temp, °C
First Crack temp, °C
Second Crack temp, °C
End Temp, °C*Data were measured

1
R55
A FW
12% ± 0.5
100
86.6
0.714
0.421
46.87
180
92 ± 1
194 ± 1205 ± 1210 ± 1

2
R55
A Nat
12% ± 0.5
100
86.2
0.64
0.383
44.04
180
92 ± 1
196 ± 1205 ± 1210 ± 1

3
R55
R FW
12% ± 0.5
100
87.7
0.73
0.391
63.74
180
92 ± 1
194 ± 1205 ± 1210 ± 1

4
R55
R Nat
12% ± 0.5
100
86.7
0.684
0.398
49
180
94 ± 1
193 ± 1
204 ± 1
209 ± 1

Table 4. Fuel consumption parameters.
No.

Roast
type

Coffee

1
2
3

R55
R55
R55

A FW
A Nat
R FW

Pre heat
0-5 min
4
4
4

Gas Consumption LPG, g
Dehydration
Maillard
0-4 min
4-8 min
6
2.3
6.3
1.5
4.5
2.3

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

Develop
8-10 min
1.2
1.4
2

Electric
Consumption,
kWh
0.02
0.02
0.02

Special Issue 2/2024

66

A. Irawan et al.

4

R55

R Nat

*Data were measured

4

3.5

3.4

2.5

0.02

3. Result and Discussions
This study used a 100 g GB coffee sample. The input temperature is fixed the same;
180o C. This temperature is used as a reference when inputting GB at the start ofroasting [27]. Furthermore, the water content was set at 12% uniformly based on
National Standard Indonesia for coffee dried. However, each GB has a different
density depending on the variety of beans and the meter above sea level of theplantation. This results in a difference in temperature for each sample at the turning
point, where for a moment, the temperature of the coffee beans is lowest and thenstarts to rise. In the coffee roasting process, the beans change colour and size, whichis affected by high temperatures; these changes occur between 160o C - 300o C [28].
The initial turning point temperature of coffee beans can vary due to processing andphysical characteristics of GB such as size and variety of raw material. Table 4
describes the electricity consumption as a total of 0.2 kWh, with an estimate of 0.08
kWh between dehydration and Maillard, and 0.04 kWh for the development phase.
Figure 5 describes the turning point range between 2-3 minutes; if the turning point
is at 3-5 minutes, the heat power is low. In 3-4 minutes, the temperature of the beansreaches 130oC-150oC, and the color changes due to the low GB moisture content(dehydration-drying phase). Furthermore, in the period between 4-8 minutes, thetemperature will rise to the point where the coffee beans begin to show apparent
swelling between 180℃-195℃ (Maillard reaction phase); the “first crack” is heard inthis phase. Finally, in the 8th-10th minutes of the development phase, the temperaturerises between 195℃-230℃, and the final profile is formed. In this phase, there is asecond “crack” sound. It is important to monitor the target coffee color because, at thisstage, the determination of coffee caramelization and flavor is achieved.
The results of the analysis show that the contribution of emissions from thedevelopment phase is lower than the Maillard and dehydration phases. This is due
to a decrease in gas consumption during this phase.
Figure 6 compares the two LL and SB scenarios for the FW Arabica roasting, thecontribution of GWP per one kg CR of LL energy sources at the dehydration stage
were 0.299 kg CO2eq, Maillard 0.166 kg CO2eq, and development 0.084 kg CO2eq. For
the LL scenario, the use of Local Electricity and LPG contribute GWP 30% and 8%.
When compared with the SB scenarios for the FW Arabica, dehydration was only
0.025 kg CO2eq, Maillard 0.021 CO2eq, and development 0.019 kg CO2eq, thesescenarios are lower than the LL scenarios. The use of biogas is a preferable optionthat can utilize liquid and solid waste converted into energy towards SCP [29].
The main contributor to energy and emissions for coffee roasting in the SB scenario
is the biogas, between 73%-74% of the total, with a GWP contribution of 0.2 kg CO2eq- 0.22 kg CO2eq per kilogram CR. In the LL scenario, the GWP of the LPG system
contributes 0.063 kg CO2eq - 0.068 kg CO2eq per kg CR. As seen in Fig. 7(b), thescenario of SB contributing to GWP is dominated by dehydration, Maillard, anddevelopment at 0.0247 kg CO2eq, 0.0197 kg CO2eq, and 0.018 kg CO2eq, respectively.
Meanwhile, Fig. 7(a) shows GWP for 1 kg CR from the LL scenario is 0.27 kg CO2eq,
0.1856 kg CO2eq, and 0.0855 kg CO2eq from the main phases respectively.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

Special Issue 2/2024

Life Cycle Assessment of Coffee Roasting Process . . . . 67

On the other hand, for robusta CR, Fig. 8 illustrates the GWP for the Robusta
type FW processing. The GWP contributor is higher in the dehydration phase thanin the other two steps. Figure 9 includes the same type of coffee but using naturalprocessing. In this study, robusta has a higher density than arabica. Coffee withdifferent densities may require additional power and heat and produce a different
taste depending on the roast profile [30].

Fig. 5. Roasting milestone.

(a)

(b)
Fig. 6. (a) Carbon contribution of coffee roastingArabica FW by LL energy source, (b) SB energy source.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

Special Issue 2/2024

68

A. Irawan et al.

(a)

(b)
Fig. 7. (a) Carbon contribution coffee roasting Arabica
natural by LL energy source, (b) SB energy source.

(a)

(b)
Fig. 8. (a) Carbon contribution coffee roasting
R FW by LL energy source, (b) SB energy source.

(a)

(b)
Fig. 9. (a) Carbon Contribution coffee roasting R
Nat by LL energy source, (b) SB energy source.

Figure 10 describes each stage of coffee roasting with a total GWP for one kgof roasted coffee from both types of coffee with two energy sources; LL energy
source from 0.85 kg CO2eq to 0.89 kg CO2eq; and SB 0.28 kg CO2eq - 0.3 kg CO2eq.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

Special Issue 2/2024

Life Cycle Assessment of Coffee Roasting Process . . . . 69

Fig. 10. GWP coffee roasting based on stages.

4. Conclusions
In the current study, the GWP contribution of one kg of roasted coffee under the
LL scenario for Arabica and Robusta coffee with full wash and natural processing
is undoubtedly higher than the SB scenarios. The potential for reduction inemissions is not just beneficial environmentally but could also provide a marketing
advantage for coffee roasters. But to obtain the advantage of utilising biogas(specifically from coffee waste streams) it is important for the roasting to be done
close to the coffee plantation. This is acceptable for domestic consumption, butmuch international coffee trade is currently at the green bean stage rather thanroasted beans.
There are some limitations to this study. For example, there can be differencesin each roasting process at the coffee roasting stage, especially on a home
production scale. In this research, the roasting time is limited to 10 minutes, andthe monitoring system on the roasting machine means that in household production
with different capacities, gas and electricity consumption will be different. Nonuniform raw materials characteristics such as density, moisture content, and qualityof raw materials, are challenges for coffee roasteries. A coffee roastery has a very
important role in maintaining the consistency of roasted coffee products forsustainability in coffee production [31]. The use of renewable energy can be
implemented using solar PV (SB-Scenario) which leads to lower GWP than Local
electricity-LPG at the roasting stage from the dehydration phase. Research studies
like this are possible as initiatives towards reducing environmental impacts in theoff-farm sector as a mitigation strategy to overcome the effects of climate change.
Future studies will aim to further classify the emissions associated with different
levels of coffee roast, and different coffee bean types.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST)SPRING, Grant Number JPMJFS2123. Supporting for Pioneer Research Initiatedby Next Generation. Division of Graduate Studies in Kyoto University.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

Special Issue 2/2024

70

A. Irawan et al.

Nomenclatures
CO2eq

Chemical compound with the chemical formula CO2

Abbreviations
AC-DC
A FW
Ah
A Nat
CR
FW
GB
GWP
ICCRI
ID
IE
Imax
JST
LCA
LL
L-W-H
MSMSe
Nat
Pmax
PV
R FW
R Nat
R55
SB
SCP
SMEs
VDC

Alternating current - direct current
Arabica full wash
Ampere hour
Arabica natural
Coffee roasted
Full wash
Green beans
Global warming potential
Indonesian coffee and cocoa research instituteIndonesia
Industrial ecology
Current maximum
Japan science and technology agency
Life cycle assessment
Local grid electric - LPG
Length - width - height
Medium small medium enterpriseNaturalPower maximum
Photovoltaic
Robusta full wash
Robusta natural
Roast colour code 55
Solar panel - biogas
Sustainable coffee production
Small medium enterprise
Volt direct current

References
1.

2.
3.
4.

Habibulah; Wibowo, R.P.; and Ayu, S.F. (2023). Analysis of Indonesian coffee
export demand in the United States using the aids model. International Journalof Economic, Business, Accounting, Agriculture Management and Sharia
Administration (IJEBAS), 3(3), 820-827.
Fitriani, F.; Arifin, B.; and Ismono, H. (2021). Indonesian coffee exports andits relation to global market integration. Journal of Socioeconomics andDevelopment, 4(1), 120-133.
Gokavi, N.; and Kishor, M. (2020). Impact of climate change on coffee
production: An overview. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry,9(3), 1850-1858.
Martauli, E.D. (2018). Analysis of coffee production in Indonesia. JASc
(Journal of Agribusiness Sciences), 1(2), 112-120.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

Special Issue 2/2024

Life Cycle Assessment of Coffee Roasting Process . . . . 71

5.

Ibnu, M.; Glasbergen, P.; Offermans, A.; and Arifin, B. (2015). Farmer
preferences for coffee certification: A conjoint analysis of the Indonesiansmallholders. Journal of Agricultural Science, 7(6), 20-35.
6. de Bomfim, A.S.C.; et al. (2022). Spent coffee grounds characterization andreuse in composting and soil amendment. Waste, 1(1), 2-20.
7. Borém, F.M.; and de Andrade, E.T. (2019). Processing and drying of coffee.
In Borém, F.M.; and de Andrade, E.T. (Eds.). Drying and Roasting of Cocoa
and Coffee. CRC Press, 141-170.
8. Banti, M.; and Abraham, E. (2021). Coffee processing methods, coffee quality
and related environmental issues. Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences,9(6), 144-152.
9. Novita, E.; and Irfani, M.E. (2023). Life cycle assessment of organic arabica
coffee products. Jurnal Teknik Pertanian Lampung (Journal Of AgriculturalEngineering), 12(1), 186-200.
10. Byrareddy, V.; Kouadio, L.; Mushtaq, S.; and Stone, R. (2019). Sustainableproduction of robusta coffee under a changing climate: A 10-year monitoring of
fertilizer management in coffee farms in Vietnam and Indonesia. Agronomy,
9(9), 499.
11. Hasan, T.; Supamoon, P.; Sembiring, N.B.; and Guritno, A.D. (2019).
Estimating the benefit of robusta coffee production in semarang andbanjarnegara. Agroindustrial Journal, 6(1), 366-371.
12. Adiwinata, F.; Suprihatin, S.; and Rahayuningsih, M. (2021). Penerapan
produksi bersih dan penilaian daur hidup industri kecil menengah pengolahan
kopi CV. Gunung Betung [Cleaner production implementation and life cycle
assessment in a small and medium coffee industry CV Gunung Betung]. Jurnal
Teknologi & Industri Hasil Pertanian, 26(2), 99-108
13. Manurung, R.; Apriliyanto, E.; and Nugroho, O. I. A. (2021). The Effect of the
Coffee Roasting Machine on Increasing Production of Arabic Coffee KSM
Galuh Lestari Dusun Gunungmalang in Indonesia. Proceedings of the 1st
International Conference on Law and Human Rights (ICLHR 2020), Virtual,259-266.
14. Smrke, S.; et al. (2018). Time-resolved gravimetric method to assess degassingof roasted coffee. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 66(21), 52935300.
15. Franco, M.A.; and Bartl, K. (2018). Carbon footprint of the coffee roastingprocess based on two technologies with different sources of energy in Peru.
European Journal of Sustainable Development, 7(3), 90-90.
16. Giraldi-Díaz, M.R.; Medina-Salas, L.D.; Castillo-González, E.; and León-Lira,
R. (2018). Environmental impact associated with the supply chain andproduction of grounding and roasting coffee through life cycle analysis.
Sustainability, 10(12), 4598.
17. Hidayanti, N.S.; Aji, J.M.M.; and Hapsari, T.D. (2021). Added value ofrobusta coffee products of “dwi tunggal” farmer group in bromo mountainslope. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 672(1),012024.
18. Lee, K-M.; and Inaba, A. (2004). Life cycle assessment: best practices of ISO
14040 series. Center for Ecodesign and LCA (CEL), Ajou University.
Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

Special Issue 2/2024

72

A. Irawan et al.

19. Wijaya, A.; Glasbergen, P.; and Mawardi, S. (2017). The mediated partnershipmodel for sustainable coffee production: experiences from Indonesia.
International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 20(5), 689-708.
20. Gancarz, M.; et al. (2022). Impact of coffee bean roasting on the content ofpyridines determined by analysis of volatile organic compounds. Molecules,
27(5), 1559.
21. Perren, R.; Geiger, R.; Schenker, S.; and Escher, F.. (2004). Recent
developments in coffee roasting technology. Proceedings of the 20th
International Conference on Coffee Science, Bangalore, India, 451-459.
22. ISO 14044:2006 (2006). Environmental management-life cycle assessmentrequirements and guidelines.
23. Catalán, E.; Sánchez, A. (2020). Solid-state fermentation (SSF) versus
submerged fermentation (SmF) for the recovery of cellulases from coffee husks:
A life cycle assessment (LCA) based comparison. Energies, 13(11), 2685.
24. Catalán, E.; Komilis, D.; and Sánchez, A. (2019). Environmental impact ofcellulase production from coffee husks by solid-state fermentation: A lifecycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 233, 954-962.
25. Okamura, M.; Soga, M.; Yamada, Y.; Kobata, K.; and Kaneda, D. (2021).
Development and evaluation of roasting degree prediction model of coffee
beans by machine learning. Procedia Computer Science, 192, 4602-4608.
26. Steen, M. (2000). Green house gas emissions from fossil fuel fired power
generation system. Institute for Advanced Materials, Joint Research Centre,
European Commission.
27. Pramudita, D.; Araki, T.; Sagara, Y.; and Tambunan, A.H. (2017). Roasting
and colouring curves for coffee beans with broad time-temperature variations.
Food and Bioprocess Technology, 10, 1509-1520.
28. Hernández, J.A.; Heyd, B.; Irles, C.; Valdovinos, B.; and Trystram, G. (2007).
Analysis of the heat and mass transfer during coffee batch roasting. Journal of
Food Engineering, 78(4), 1141-1148.
29. Irawan, A.; and McLellan, B.C. (2023). Study on biogas production fromcoffee wastes and cow-dung fermentation and its use towards reducing
emissions from coffee roasting. IOP Conference Series: Earth andEnvironmental Science, 1201(1), 012004.
30. Münchow, M.; Alstrup, J.; Steen, I.; and Giacalone, D. (2020). Roasting
conditions and coffee flavor: A multi-study empirical investigation.
Beverages, 6(2), 29.
31. Maspul, K.A. (2022). Applying the sustainable knowledge and behavior tocoffee roasters professional in the UAE. Jurnal Pengabdian dan
Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Indonesia, 2(1), 1-8.

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

Special Issue 2/2024