Talk:Decaffeination

message: Could we have some more tea-leaf specific information on decaffeination please?
--81.178.110.53 11:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this page  both ethyl acetate and carbon dioxide methods are used to decaffeinate tea.  The carbon dioxide method allegedly leaves more of the health-benefit-related compounds in the tea intact. 18.142.6.208 15:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I decaffeinate tea leaves by steeping them in hot water for 20 seconds. I discard this water and then reuse the leaves. I learned this from a friend who worked at a coffee shop and said that it removed up to 99% of the caffeine.Morganfitzp 19:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense unless supported by scientific evidence! 87.114.155.130 (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the "at home" decaffeination method discussed here is popular enough (on commercial tea pages and as passed down through cultural tea brewing processes that it needs to be mention, with the tone that it *may* work and referencing other sources.  I added these changes last week.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.114.222 (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: More Tea Talk

message: I removed the following sentence: In the direct method the caffeine reacts with the solvent to form a chemical that is not soluble in the solvent. It's nonsense from a chemical standpoint-- solvents extract caffeine unchanged, they don't react with it, and if caffeine got converted into something that wasn't soluble, the extraction process wouldn't remove it. Is the intent to discuss at a more basic level "how extraction works", or to extend the discussion to cover what might be done with the caffeine solution after extraction? DMacks 20:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Direct Process" cleanup 

message: I get terrible headaches from drinking decaf along with many other people. Any studies on that? --chad 08:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly because you are so accustomed to caffeine, that when not consuming enough, you get withdrawal syndromes.  By adapting yourself to decaf, you may find that it will eventually work the other way around njaard 13:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a mega-study done by JHU that showed caffiene can cause withdrawl headache up to 9 days after cutting back.  Another study I can't remeber said that caffiene affected novice users positively, but people who had it before and quit - then tried it in the study didn't respond as positively.  Lastly, in a personal discussion with the herbalist Jim Duke, he mentioned a unique studying showing that decaf has addicting affects of its own, partially attributed to low levels of caffiene but largely attributed to other acidic chemicals.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.114.222 (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headaches 

message: It's interesting to note that you often don't get decaffeinated coffee, even when you order it, probably due to human error (or perhaps shared brewing equipment).  18.142.6.208 15:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is that really decaf? 

message: It might be worth adding a few sentences about why decaffeinated drink are disireable in the first place. --Alamaison 14:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons? 

message: Any health concerns regarding the decaffeination process should be mentioned.
:: if you know any post them with the correct evidence. Markthemac (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health concerns 

message: I am curious about a contradiction between two sections of this article:
* The first section mentions "the international standard of having removed 97% of the caffeine in the beans or the EU standard of having the beans 99.9% caffeine free by mass".  According to the US Standard, it would then take 33 cups of decaffeinated coffee to equal the amount of caffeine in one cup of regular (unless brewing decaf somehow removes a larger percentage of the caffeine in the beans than brewing regular...?)
* In the last section before the references, entitled "Not caffeine free", one reads "Drinking five to ten cups of decaffeinated coffee could deliver as much caffeine as one or two cups of regular coffee".
Does anybody have an explanation for this contradiction?  Are coffee producers simply not meeting the standards?  Or is one of those tidbits of information incorrect?
207.108.254.113 20:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The description of the extraction notes that it takes many cycles of extraction to get to the "decaffeinated" level. So it's possible that any one brewing cycle can only remove a certain amount of caffeine, not necessarily an amount in ratio to the concentration in the beans. No idea for sure for this particular situation though. DMacks 20:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Leftover caffeine in decaffeinated coffee 

message: What do they do with the caffeine they remove? Marnanel 01:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do they do with the caffeine they remove? 

message: There are several incorrections in this part of the article:
CO2/O2 process
With the CO2 process, pre-steamed beans are soaked in a liquid bath of carbon dioxide
It is not liquid, it's supercritical. It's a different matter state and shouldn't be confused.
 at 73 to 300 atmospheres. 
SI units shoul be used: 7,3 to 30,0 MPa.
After a thorough soaking, the pressure is reduced allowing the CO2 to evaporate, or the pressurized CO2 is run through either water or charcoal filters to remove the caffeine. 
This should be rephrased into something like:
After a thorough soaking, CO2 is run through either water or charcoal filters to remove the caffeine, and then the pressure is reduced allowing the CO2 to evaporate.
This same process can also be done with oxygen (O2). 
Never heard of this.
These liquids work better than water because they are kept in supercritical state near the transition from liquid to gas so that they have the high diffusion of gas and the high density of a liquid.
Again, they are not liquids, they are supercritical fluids, and they don't work better than water, they work better than LIQUID water. Water can also be in supercritical state, which also enhances it's solvent properties, but has the drawback of being highly corrosive. And they have the DIFFUSIVITY of a gas.
16:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CO2/O2 process 

message: Might anyone be willing to add a section on these mycotoxins, and how they might contaminated decaffeinated beans? I am aware that the fungi which produce these toxins are inhibited by caffeine, but don't know much more. Is the final aflatoxin content more than, say, commercially produced peanuts? I'd be interested to know. Tuckerekcut (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aflatoxin/ochratoxin 

message: Where can we ask for decaf coffee in India? I havent seen it in any coffe shops. Any  idea about it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.123.182.27 (talk) 06:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  decaf coffee in India 

message: The last part of the article states that 10 cups of decaf coffee contain the same amount of caffeine as 1-2 cups of caffeinated coffee, but earlier in the article the Swiss Water Process is said to remove 99.9% of the caffeine. The later paragraph needs to be rewritten so that the article is not self-contradictory. Cernansky (talk) 04:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article contradicts itself 

message: "this effectively means that no physical process or chemical reaction will remove only caffeine while leaving the other chemicals at their original concentrations. "
This is a very strong claim (any chemist could easily think of a process to do this imo, it would simply be prohibitively expensive), so it need citing. I reworded it to say it was "challenging" in the article.YobMod 12:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: cite needed

message: Edited this sentence in the 2nd paragraph, "They are then rinsed with Trichloroethylene, a solvent that contains as much of the chemical composition of coffee as possible without also containing the caffeine in a soluble form.
Took out "Trichloroethylene" -- this solvent is no longer used. I've also read that methylene chloride may be carcinogenic (or was thought to be at one time). This article really needs some help because this issue should at least be noted in the article. Allbiblio (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Trichloroethylene

message: I cannot believe that decaffeinated drinks contain 1-2% caffeine. Normal coffee contains about 0.05% caffeine by weight, and regular coke has around 0.01%. Can someone who knows the subject please fix this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baziliscus (talk • contribs) 19:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It means 1-2% of the original caffeine content (compared to non-decaffeinated), not the direct amount of caffeine as a fraction of the coffee itself. For example, the subsequent paragraph states "the international standard of having removed 97% of the caffeine". I adjusted the wording of the earlier sentence, hope it's clearer there now. DMacks (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "...decaffeinated drinks still have around 1-2% caffeine in them" must be wrong. 

message: There are some scientists who are making decaf coffee plant with gene splicing. Plant biotechnology: Make it a decaf Komitsuki (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic? 

message: I added an inconsistency template to the article because it is claimed that BOTH processes were the first commercially successful ones.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter baum (talk • contribs) 22:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See next section. DMacks (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Which process was first: the steam or Roselius process?

message: The steam process can't have been invented in 2012 if it is the method that was originally used by HAG coffee. Maybe it should be 1912 instead of 2012?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter baum (talk • contribs) 21:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, that was a bunch of nonsense. Even 1912 wouldn't be "first steam process" (by almost a decade). I deleted it and added cites for the long-existing reasonably-correct information about the Roselius process. DMacks (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong year???

message: …which we see on the label in some stores… Is that just another name for the Swiss Water Process? --Jerome Potts (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mountain Water Process 

message: is the same quantity of Chlorogenic acids present in decaffeinated coffee bean (Not Roasted) as in green Coffee bean?####  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitup (talk • contribs) 12:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chlorogenic acids extracted from Coffee Bean-Question! 

message: Someone told me Lead is used for decaffeinating coffee. Can't find anything about it with a quick search, because in most hits lead is used as in "can lead to" rather than the element/metal. So is this a local fable? PizzaMan (♨♨) 11:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: The sequencing of the sections has been changed to keep the sections about coffee together, instead of interjecting the section about decaffeinated tea between them. The heading of the long section on "Decaffeination processes" has been changed to make clear that it is only about coffee. The hierarchy of the subheadings within that section has also been tweaked. Piperh (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor restructuring 

message: The article had two contradictory phrases: "The process is usually performed on unroasted (green) beans ..." and "... coffee is always decaffeinated in its green, unroasted state." Since all of the processes described in detail in the rest of the article start with unroasted (green) beans, I've taken out the "usually". If anyone knows of an exception, the text can be reworded appropriately. Piperh (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green (unroasted) beans 

message: "Preserving tannins is desirable not only because of their flavor, but also because they have been shown to have anticarcinogenic, antimutagenic, antioxidative, and antimicrobrial properties. Specifically, tannins accelerate blood clotting, reduce blood pressure, decrease the serum lipid level, produce liver necrosis, and modulate immunoresponses."
Ahem... Are you REALLY sure that you would like to get liver necrosis?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.50.216.62 (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird statement about tea and tannins 

message: I'm unclear what this parenthetical about "red" tea is doing here, or if this is an uncommon term to refer to a type of Camellia sinensis tea: 
A generally accepted statistic is that a cup of normal black (or red) tea contains 40–50 mg of caffeine, roughly half the content of a cup of coffee.
Typically "red" tea would mean rooibos, which is an uncaffeinated herbal tea that is not made from the camellia sinensis plant. Or is there a type of "red" tea that refers to a camellia sinensis (i.e. caffeinated) tea? Cultstudmugged (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing line about "red" tea