Pour-over and immersion
How the main non-espresso brew methods work – percolation, where fresh water flows through the grounds, and immersion, where all the water steeps with all the coffee – and what each device changes.
Contents
In brief
- Brew methods follow two principles. In percolation (pour-over, drip machines) fresh water keeps flowing into the grounds and brew flows out; in full immersion (French press, cupping, cold brew) all the water is added at once and steeps with the coffee.3,1
- Immersion approaches an equilibrium. It gives precise control of strength through the ratio, but little control of extraction yield; percolation offers more flexibility.3
- In a nine-method comparison, the filter machine and the French press used about 18 mL of water per gram of coffee and took 4–6 minutes, espresso under 4 mL/g and under 30 seconds; cold brew typically steeps for 8–24 h at room temperature or colder.2,8
- The filter decides what reaches the cup besides dissolved solids. Paper absorbs oil very efficiently; paper-filtered coffee held about 12 mg/L cafestol in one study, French press about 87 mg/L and boiled coffee 939 mg/L.1,10
- The paper coffee filter goes back to a utility model registered by Melitta Bentz in Dresden on 20 June 1908.12
Two principles: percolation and immersion#
Most non-espresso brew methods move soluble coffee into water in one of two ways.3
Percolation (flow-through). Fresh water flows into the grounds, and extracted brew flows out the other side.3 In a pour-over or drip machine, the water passes through the coffee bed mainly by gravity, and the filter holds the grounds back.1 Because new water keeps arriving, the liquid around the particles is continually replaced.3 The balance of the brew changes for as long as water keeps passing through the bed.1
Full immersion (steeping). All the water is added to the coffee at once.3 The French press is the classic example; cupping, toddy-style cold brewers and Japanese vacuum (siphon) brewers are full immersion methods too.3 In a French press, there is no pressure driving extraction: solubles simply diffuse from the floating particles into the solution.1 As the liquid grows stronger, extraction slows, and the brew approaches an equilibrium.3
The difference matters for control. Full immersion gives precise control of strength (TDS) through the ratio, but little control of extraction yield; flow methods such as drip brewing give more flexibility.3 A lower yield in full immersion can only be reached by cutting the brew short.3 How strength and yield are measured and calculated for each principle is explained in the extraction yield and TDS entry.
A · Percolation
- Fresh water in. Water is poured onto the bed, and new water keeps arriving.3
- Coffee bed. Ground coarse enough for water to pass through by gravity alone.1
- Cone and paper filter. Hold the grounds back; size, shape and material set the shape of the bed.1 Where the cone narrows, water spends less time in contact with the grains.4
- Brew out. The brew leaves the bed as it forms.3
- Server. Collects a brew whose composition keeps shifting as more water passes.1
B · Full immersion
Hybrids. Some methods combine the two. The AeroPress starts as an immersion brew; a piston then adds pressure at the end, and the brew is filtered through paper.1 Some brewer baskets hold the water back at first, so the grounds steep, and then open the drain: in one patented design a valve blocks the drain hole until the rising water reaches a helical bimetallic spring, which extends and lifts the valve.16 Boiled coffee (Turkish or cezve coffee) is a separate case: the coffee is heated with the water to boiling, and the grounds are left to settle rather than being filtered out.1
What you control#
The same variables apply to every method, but they act differently in each.
- Ratio. Stronger coffee at the same extraction yield is made by using more coffee per litre; it is not more bitter, it simply contains more solids.1 In full immersion, the ratio sets the TDS almost directly.3
- Grind. Each method needs its own grind size. In a pour-over, the grind sets how fast water percolates and how long it stays in contact with the coffee.1 Finer particles extract more efficiently, but too fine a grind can hinder flow and lead to over-extraction.1 Grinding is covered in its own entry.
- Time. In percolation, contact time follows from the grind and the shape and depth of the bed.1 In immersion it is chosen: in a French press, longer steeps may enhance bitterness and intensity, shorter ones acidity and sweetness.1
- Temperature. Hotter water extracts faster.3 In full immersion between 80 and 99 °C it changed how quickly equilibrium was reached, not the final strength.3
- Agitation and pour pattern. In a pour-over, water is added by hand or by a machine, some of which deliver set amounts at set temperatures over time.1 No study opened for this entry measured the effect of pour pattern, pulse pouring or stirring on extraction, so this entry gives no rules for them. How the pour moves the bed is covered in Pour-over technique.
- Bloom. No source opened for this entry tested the effect of a pre-wetting (bloom) step on extraction. Why fresh coffee releases gas is covered in the freshness entry; what the gas does during the bloom is set out in the pour-over technique entry.
- Water. Hardness, acidity and cation composition can directly influence the result.1 The water entry covers this.
Pour-over and drip devices#
In a pour-over, the coffee is ground at coarser particle sizes so that water passes through by gravity alone (the same textbook’s table lists the pour-over grind as medium), and placed in a holder with a filter.1 Filters come in many sizes, shapes and materials, which lets the brewer control the shape of the bed and the degree of filtration.1
Cone or flat bed. A deep, narrow bed extracts differently from a wide, shallow one, because the contact time between water and coffee differs.1 Many filter systems use a cone-shaped filter.1 Modelling shows that flow through a cylindrical bed is close to one-dimensional, while a truncated cone causes non-uniform flow and significant variation in local extraction.4 Where the cone is narrow, water spends less time in contact with the grains.4
Filter paper. Paper absorbs oil very efficiently, so paper-filtered brews are low in fat.1 The same holds for the cholesterol-raising diterpenes cafestol and kahweol (see Filtration and body).10
Bypass. Over-extraction can be avoided by stopping percolation after a planned time and adding hot water to the brew, instead of letting all the water pass through the grounds.1
Materials and preheating. No study opened for this entry measured how dripper material or preheating changes the slurry temperature, so no figures are given.
Automatic drip and batch brewers#
An automatic drip machine does the pouring: it heats the water and delivers it over the bed, and some can be programmed to deliver set amounts at set temperatures over time.1 In one comparison, a filter machine brewed 100 g of coffee with 1,800 mL of water at about 90 °C in 348 s, through a paper filter.2 Its coffee was relatively weak but very well balanced.2
What certification asks for. The SCA home-brewer standard (SCA 310-2021) sets test conditions and requirements for electrical filter brewers for home use.9
- A test ratio of 55 g of coffee per 1.000 kg of fresh, cold water at 17 ± 3 °C.9
- A slurry temperature of 90–96 °C, reached by the moment 33% of the water has been sprayed and held for the rest of the brew cycle.9
- A target brew strength of 1.15–1.55% TDS at the test ratio.9
- A test grind defined by sieve fractions. For conical baskets: less than 12% (by mass) above 850 µm, at least 68% between 425 and 850 µm, and 20% or less below 425 µm; flat baskets have their own, coarser specification.9
- If the holding receptacle (carafe) is heated: 80–85 °C during the first 30 minutes of holding, and a heating element must never raise the coffee above 85 °C.9
The standard sets no limit on total brew time.9
Immersion methods#
French press. Coarse coffee and hot water are mixed and left in contact for a set time, chosen by the brewer; a plunger with a filter then separates the grounds from the brew.1 In the nine-method comparison, the steep lasted 240 s.2 Fines and the relatively inefficient metal mesh leave more sediment than drip filtering, and pressing squeezes oil from the bed into the brew.1 In the nine-method comparison, the French press had more body and more bitterness than the two other filter methods.2
Cupping. Cupping is a full immersion brew.3 Its cupping-style yields are discussed in the extraction yield and TDS entry; the protocol belongs to the cupping entry.
AeroPress. A press that starts as immersion and ends with piston pressure through a paper filter.1 Its patent describes a hollow cylinder with a perforated cap; pressing the plunger pressurises the air above the liquid, which forces the brew through the filter.14
Siphon (vacuum brewer). Classed with full immersion methods in the equilibrium study.3 No source opened for this entry gives its brewing parameters.
Cezve or ibrik (Turkish coffee). Freshly roasted beans are ground to a fine powder; the coffee, cold water and sugar go into a pot and are brewed slowly on a stove to produce foam.11 Extraction relies mainly on diffusion at high temperature, which also extracts less soluble compounds; the textbook links these to the typical intense, bitter, dark-chocolate flavours; the grounds must settle, and some sediment reaches the cup.1 Turkish coffee culture and tradition was inscribed on UNESCO’s list of intangible cultural heritage in 2013.11
Cold brew#
Cold brew uses water at room temperature or lower; pour-over, immersion and French press versions exist.1 Typical steeping times run from 8 to 24 hours at 20–25 °C or colder.8
Without heat, fewer of the low-polarity compounds, such as coffee oil, are extracted, while highly polar compounds still extract rather well.1 Cold brew needs a long time to reach a sufficient yield, but loses fewer volatiles by evaporation.1 At 21–25 °C, 3-CGA (a chlorogenic acid) rose quickly over the first 180 minutes, and both caffeine and 3-CGA reached equilibrium between 6 and 7 hours.7
Cold brew is often called less acidic. Measurements are more nuanced: cold and hot brews had comparable pH in two studies6,7 but higher pH in cold brew in a third8, and in two studies cold brew had lower titratable acidity.6,8 Long brewing can also give oxidised flavours unless exposure to air is controlled.1 More in the cold brew entry.
All methods at a glance#
The cards bring together the parameters reported for each method in the sources of this entry. Values come from different studies and set-ups, so read them as typical ranges, not as recipes. “n/a” means no source we could use gives a value.
PercolationWater flows through the bed
ImmersionAll the water at once
French press
Cold brew (immersion)
HybridSteep, then press
BoilingHeated with the grounds
Pressure (for comparison)Covered in the espresso entry
Extraction kinetics: why the principles diverge#
Two stages inside each grain. Models of coffee extraction describe two processes: rapid dissolution of coffee from the grain surfaces, and much slower diffusion through the pore network inside the grain.5 The slow stage is attributed to the greater resistance to mass transfer in the intact cells of larger grains.5 In a packed bed, as described in the group’s earlier work, extraction comes from two domains: easily accessible coffee in fines and on the broken surfaces of larger grains, and less accessible coffee in intact cells.4
Immersion: a closed system. In a well-mixed suspension, the model passes quickly through the surface-dissolution stage and then slowly towards a stable equilibrium.5 Experiments agree. The TDS of full immersion coffee rises with time and then plateaus: at a brew ratio of 25 (water to coffee) after about 20 minutes, at a ratio of 5 only after about 45 minutes.3 At equilibrium, the extraction yield is about 21% over a wide range of brew ratios, and TDS is roughly inversely proportional to the ratio; the authors conclude that higher yields cannot be obtained with a single full immersion brew.3 Cupping-style brews in the same paper nevertheless reached 23.9 ± 0.6% (22.2 ± 0.4% for decaffeinated coffee).3
Percolation: an open system. In a drip filter, hot water flows down through the bed under gravity, leaching soluble content.5 The brew leaves the bed as it forms, so its composition keeps shifting as more water passes.1 This is why percolation is the more flexible principle, and why bypass is one way to stop it before the late, bitter fraction dominates.1,3
Uniformity. A single yield figure hides how evenly the bed was extracted. Fines have a larger surface-to-volume ratio than coarse grains, so they reach a different yield.4 For a fine grind in the cylindrical chamber, the model predicted a variation of about 5 percentage points in yield across the bed, with the average in the target range.4 The authors expect a high variation in yield to add bitter flavours; the study did not test this.4 In the conical bed, flow deviated significantly from one-dimensional, and local extraction varied significantly.4
What the two principles mean for yield arithmetic – retained liquid, beverage-based versus equilibrium formulas – is set out in the extraction yield and TDS entry.
Filtration and body#
The filter decides what besides dissolved solids reaches the cup. A metal mesh lets fines and oil through; paper absorbs oil very efficiently.1 Mouthfeel depends partly on suspended fines, particularly in French press and espresso.1 But oil alone does not explain body: French press coffee is high in oil yet is not generally perceived as fuller, probably because it is served as a long, less concentrated cup.1
Diterpenes. Cafestol and kahweol are cholesterol-raising diterpenes found in unfiltered coffee.10 A 2025 study measured them across brew methods:
| Brew | Cafestol (mg/L) | Kahweol (mg/L) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Home-brewed, paper-filtered (five brands, two filter types) | 12 (4–24), range | 8 (3–19) | Orrje et al.10 |
| Percolator | 91.2 | 69.2 | Orrje et al.10 |
| French press | 86.8 | 68.7 | Orrje et al.10 |
| Boiled coffee | 939 | 678 | Orrje et al.10 |
| Boiled coffee poured through a fabric filter | 28 | 21 | Orrje et al.10 |
| Workplace brewing machines (n = 11) | 176 (24–444), median and range | 142 (18–434) | Orrje et al.10 |
One of four espresso samples reached 2,447 mg/L cafestol; the authors could not explain the variation between them.10 Espresso cups are small, so concentrations per litre do not translate directly into intake per cup. The health side belongs to a future health entry.
Slurry temperature#
The SCA home-brewer standard specifies the temperature of the slurry in the basket, not of the water supplied: it must reach 90–96 °C by the time 33% of the water has been sprayed and stay in that range for the rest of the cycle.9 In the nine-method comparison, the gravity methods were brewed with water at about 90 °C.2 In the Karlsbad pot, the water was poured in small portions and reheated in between.2
No peer-reviewed measurement of slurry temperature in manual pour-over brewing was found among the sources opened for this entry. Figures that circulate for hand brewing are therefore left out.
Notes on the reference values#
The method cards above collect the parameters reported in the sources. They describe practice and research recipes, not single correct values. “n/a” means no source opened for this entry gives a value that meets the verification rules.
Notes. The grind peaks are the maximum of the laser-diffraction size distribution at the grinder setting used.2 The “1 bar” in one study probably means absolute pressure, while the textbook describes almost no pressure in gravity brews and no driving pressure in immersion brews (see Contested).1,2 The following ratios are our own arithmetic from the doses and volumes in the sources: 18 mL/g for the filter machine and French press, about 15 mL/g for the moka pot, 10 mL/g and about 11.7 g/g for the two cold brews. The metal filter of the moka pot and espresso is named in the introduction of the diterpene study, which cites earlier measurements; that study did not brew moka coffee itself.10
Cold and hot brew: what the measurements show#
Two studies brewed cold and hot coffee from the same beans at the same or a similar ratio.
- Rao & Fuller, 2018. Six light-roast coffees, 35 g in 350 mL. Cold brew steeped for 7 h at 21–25 °C; hot brew used boiling water in a French press for 6 min; both were filtered through paper.6 pH was comparable, 4.85–5.13. Titratable acidity was lower in every cold brew, and so was antioxidant activity; the authors suggest that hot brewing extracts more non-deprotonated acids.6
- Cordoba et al., 2019. Two Colombian coffees, 60 g in 700 g water at 20 °C, medium or coarse grind, 14 or 22 h.8 All cold brews had lower titratable acidity than their hot counterparts.8 Coarse grind and 22 h gave the highest TDS; the medium grind caked in the filter bags.8 Panellists scored the coarse-ground 14 h brews highest.8
Titratable acidity to pH 8 (mL of 0.10 N NaOH per 40 mL of brew, mean) from Rao & Fuller6:
| Coffee | Hot brew | Cold brew |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 6.53 | 5.88 |
| Ethiopia (Ardi) | 7.08 | 5.25 |
| Ethiopia (‘Yirgz’, vendor label) | 7.45 | 5.18 |
| Myanmar | 6.40 | 5.32 |
| Colombia | 7.85 | 5.52 |
| Mexico | 6.68 | 4.75 |
Data table
| Point | mL 0.10 N NaOH per 40 mL brew | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 6.53 | 6.53 | 6 |
| Brazil | 5.88 | 5.88 | 6 |
| Ethiopia (Ardi) | 7.08 | 7.08 | 6 |
| Ethiopia (Ardi) | 5.25 | 5.25 | 6 |
| Ethiopia ('Yirgz') | 7.45 | 7.45 | 6 |
| Ethiopia ('Yirgz') | 5.18 | 5.18 | 6 |
| Myanmar | 6.40 | 6.4 | 6 |
| Myanmar | 5.32 | 5.32 | 6 |
| Colombia | 7.85 | 7.85 | 6 |
| Colombia | 5.52 | 5.52 | 6 |
| Mexico | 6.68 | 6.68 | 6 |
| Mexico | 4.75 | 4.75 | 6 |
The study did not report TDS or extraction yield, so it cannot separate a lower overall extraction from a different acid profile.6 Cold brew can be drunk cold or hot, after dilution with water.1
History of the devices#
The dates below come from patent documents, a patent office and UNESCO; they show when a design was registered, not who first brewed that way.
- 1908 – Paper filter. Melitta Bentz of Dresden registered a coffee filter as a utility model with the Imperial Patent Office on 20 June 1908.12 It had a base curved and recessed on the underside, with inclined flow holes; her first prototype was a perforated brass cup lined with blotting paper.12 The company was entered in the commercial register on 15 December 1908.12
- 1928–1931 – Plunger pot. A US patent filed on 2 April 1929, with Italian priority of 2 April 1928, granted on 24 March 1931 to Ugo Paolini and assigned to Attilio Calimani and Giulio Moneta, describes a vessel with a tight-fitting, sliding filter that is pushed down a rod and traps the grounds at the bottom.15 Earlier plunger designs may exist; none was opened for this entry.
- 1939–1941 – Chemex. Peter Schlumbohm filed a US patent for a “filtering device” on 13 April 1939, with German priority of 13 April 1938; it was granted on 6 May 1941.13 It describes a conical funnel and flask in one piece, a paper filter cone, and a groove that serves as both pouring spout and air passage.13
- 2005 – AeroPress. Alan Adler filed a patent for a coffee or tea filtering press on 18 May 2005; it was granted on 14 December 2010.14
- 2013 – Turkish coffee culture and tradition inscribed by UNESCO as intangible cultural heritage.11
Open questions#
- Pour technique. How pour rate, pour height, pulses and stirring change extraction in a pour-over has not been tested in any study opened for this entry. Bed-shape modelling suggests that flow uniformity matters.4
- Bloom. The effect of pre-wetting fresh coffee on extraction yield and flavour lacks a peer-reviewed measurement among the sources opened here.
- Slurry temperature by hand. No published measurement of slurry temperature in manual pour-over, or of the effect of dripper material and preheating, was found.
- Cold brew at fridge temperature. The equilibrium study did not examine cold brew, and its authors call for experiments on full immersion cold brewing.3
- Method versus recipe. It is difficult to link a brew method to a flavour direction for a given coffee, because pressure, filter and ratio change together.1 The nine-method comparison used one recipe per method.2
Key studies#
Liang et al., 2021 – Full immersion at equilibrium. Builds a desorption model for immersion brewing and tests it across brew ratios and temperatures from 80 to 99 °C. TDS plateaus after about 20 minutes at a ratio of 25 and about 45 minutes at a ratio of 5; yield settles near 21% over a wide range of ratios (cupping-style brews reached about 24%), and the ratio controls strength but hardly yield.
Gloess et al., 2013 – Nine methods side by side. Brews one coffee (a different one for the capsules) by espresso, lungo, capsule, moka pot, French press, Karlsbad pot and filter machine, and records dose, water, temperature, time and pressure for each. Strength, yield, aroma and sensory profile differ widely; the French press had more body and bitterness than the other filter methods.
Moroney et al., 2019 – Uniformity in the coffee bed. Compares one-dimensional flow models with computational fluid dynamics for a cylindrical and a conical bed. The cone produced non-uniform flow and uneven local extraction, and a fine grind in the cylindrical chamber showed about 5 points of yield variation.
Rao & Fuller, 2018 – Cold brew acidity. Brews six coffees cold (7 h) and hot (6 min) at the same ratio. pH was comparable, but titratable acidity and antioxidant activity were lower in every cold brew.
Orrje et al., 2025 – Diterpenes by brew method. Measures cafestol and kahweol in workplace machine coffee and in home brews by liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry. Paper-filtered coffee was low, French press intermediate and boiled coffee highest; a fabric filter removed most of the diterpenes from boiled coffee.
- Pressure in gravity and immersion brews: a textbook describes almost no pressure in a filter brewer, where water flows by gravity, and no pressure driving extraction in immersion brews1, while a comparison of nine methods lists 1 bar for filter coffee, French press and Karlsbad pot.2 That figure matches atmospheric pressure and is probably absolute pressure; the source does not say so.
- Percolation versus immersion yield. An equilibrium model and experiments show that full immersion brews at equilibrium settle near a yield of about 21% over a wide range of brew ratios (cupping-style brews in the same paper reached about 24%), and that flow methods offer more flexibility.3 Yet in a nine-method comparison the French press gave 26% and filter coffee 19%.2 The second study measured oven-dried total solids at one recipe per method, the first refractometric dissolved solids at equilibrium, so the figures are not comparable.
- Acidity of cold and hot brew. In two studies cold brew had lower titratable acidity than hot brew made at the same or a similar ratio6,8. Its pH was comparable in two studies, 4.85–5.13 for both in one6,7, but higher in cold brew in the third.8 Whether cold brew is “less acidic” depends on which measure is meant.
- How long cold brew needs: caffeine and 3-caffeoylquinic acid (3-CGA) reached equilibrium within 6–7 h at 21–25 °C7, while typical steeping times run from 8 to 24 h, and a coarse grind steeped for 22 h gave more dissolved solids than 14 h.8 Single compounds and total solids may not level off at the same time.
Coffearium (2026). Pour-over and immersion. Coffearium – The open coffee compendium. Retrieved 22 October 2026, from https://coffearium.org/entries/brew-methods/
@misc{coffearium2026-brew-methods,
author = {{Coffearium}},
title = {{Pour-over and immersion}},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {Coffearium -- The open coffee compendium},
url = {https://coffearium.org/entries/brew-methods/},
urldate = {2026-10-22},
note = {Retrieved 22 October 2026}
}Entries are updated when the evidence changes; the retrieval date tells your readers which version you used.
Sources
- BMestdagh, F.; Glabasnia, A.; Giuliano, P. (2017). The Brew – Extracting for Excellence. In: Folmer, B. (ed.), The Craft and Science of Coffee, Academic Press, ch. 15, pp. 355–380. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-803520-7.00015-3 · other copies
- AGloess, A. N.; Schönbächler, B.; Klopprogge, B.; D’Ambrosio, L.; Chatelain, K.; Bongartz, A.; Strittmatter, A.; Rast, M.; Yeretzian, C. (2013). Comparison of nine common coffee extraction methods: instrumental and sensory analysis. European Food Research and Technology 236, 607–627. doi:10.1007/s00217-013-1917-x · other copies
- ALiang, J.; Chan, K. C.; Ristenpart, W. D. (2021). An equilibrium desorption model for the strength and extraction yield of full immersion brewed coffee. Scientific Reports 11, 6904. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-85787-1 · other copies
- AMoroney, K. M.; O’Connell, K.; Meikle-Janney, P.; O’Brien, S. B. G.; Walker, G. M.; Lee, W. T. (2019). Analysing extraction uniformity from porous coffee beds using mathematical modelling and computational fluid dynamics approaches. PLOS ONE 14(7), e0219906. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0219906 · other copies
- AMoroney, K. M.; Lee, W. T.; O’Brien, S. B. G.; Suijver, F.; Marra, J. (2017). Coffee extraction kinetics in a well mixed system. Journal of Mathematics in Industry 7, 3. doi:10.1186/s13362-016-0024-6 · other copies
- ARao, N. Z.; Fuller, M. (2018). Acidity and Antioxidant Activity of Cold Brew Coffee. Scientific Reports 8, 16030. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-34392-w · other copies
- AFuller, M.; Rao, N. Z. (2017). The Effect of Time, Roasting Temperature, and Grind Size on Caffeine and Chlorogenic Acid Concentrations in Cold Brew Coffee. Scientific Reports 7, 17979. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-18247-4 · other copies
- ACordoba, N.; Pataquiva, L.; Osorio, C.; Moreno, F. L. M.; Ruiz, R. Y. (2019). Effect of grinding, extraction time and type of coffee on the physicochemical and flavour characteristics of cold brew coffee. Scientific Reports 9, 8440. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-44886-w · other copies
- ASpecialty Coffee Association (2021). SCA Standard 310-2021 Home Coffee Brewers: Specifications and Test Methods. Specialty Coffee Association (document © 2022).
- AOrrje, E.; Fristedt, R.; Rosqvist, F.; Landberg, R.; Iggman, D. (2025). Cafestol and kahweol concentrations in workplace machine coffee compared with conventional brewing methods. Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases 35, 103933. doi:10.1016/j.numecd.2025.103933 · other copies
- AUNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage (2013). Turkish coffee culture and tradition. UNESCO.
- APotthast, J. B. (Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt, DPMA) 75th anniversary of death of Melitta Bentz. German Patent and Trade Mark Office.
- ASchlumbohm, P. (1941). Filtering device (US Patent 2,241,368). United States Patent Office.
- AAdler, A. J. (2010). Coffee or tea filtering press (US Patent 7,849,784 B2). United States Patent and Trademark Office.
- APaolini, U. (assignors Calimani, A.; Moneta, G.) (1931). Apparatus for preparing infusions, particularly for preparing coffee (US Patent 1,797,672). United States Patent Office; Italian priority 2 April 1928, filed 2 April 1929, granted 24 March 1931.
- ASimmons, S. (applicant DeLonghi America Inc) (2002). Coffee maker filter basket with steeping feature (WO 2002/045558 A2). World Intellectual Property Organization.
Tier A · authoritative · B · trade and expert · C · general. Supporting quotes for every source are in the data version of this entry. If a publisher’s site refuses access, try the doi link or “other copies”.
Discussion
A space for readers to share experience from the farm, the roastery or the bar, ask each other and offer other views. The Coffearium team does not reply here. Please keep to the community rules; to change the entry itself, use Suggest a change.