CoffeariumBeta
  1. Plant
  2. Farm
  3. Process
  4. Trade
  5. Roast
  6. Brew
  7. Cup
Extraction · Brew method

Pour-over technique

How a manual pour-over works step by step – ratio, grind, water temperature, bloom, pouring and drawdown – how filter and dripper shape change the cup, and how to adjust the grind, with published example values.

Across the chain: Science · Equipment

Source-checkedby Coffearium verification pass· Last source-checked 15 Oct 2026· Prepared with AI assistance· 14 sources (10 tier A)· 1 contested· Updated 20 Oct 2026
Reading depth
Contents
  • In a pour-over, hot water is poured by hand onto ground coffee in a filter; it percolates through the bed by gravity, and the brew drips into a server.1
  • Grind size sets how fast water percolates and how long it stays in contact with the coffee; finer grounds extract more efficiently but can hinder flow.1
  • In a 2023 study, six baristas brewed one V60 recipe to 1.27 ± 0.05% TDS; the turbulence of their pouring was a relevant variable.3
  • In a 2019 drip-brewer study, a semi-conical basket gave significantly stronger coffee than a flat-bottom basket with the same coffee, grind and water.5
  • Paper filters absorb oil very efficiently; in one study, paper porosity and grind size decided how much cafestol reached the brew.1,13

What a pour-over is#

A pour-over is a filter brew in which the water is poured by hand.1 Ground coffee sits in a holder lined with a filter. Hot water poured on top passes through the coffee bed mainly by gravity, and the brew drips into a server.1 It is a percolation method, unlike immersion brewing, in which the grounds float freely in the water.1

This entry covers the technique: the steps, the numbers reported for them and how to adjust them. How pour-over compares with immersion and other methods is explained in Pour-over and immersion. How strength and extraction are measured is explained in Extraction yield and TDS.

Before you pour#

Ratio. The ratio is the mass of water per mass of coffee. More coffee per litre, at the same extraction yield, gives a stronger brew.1 The Specialty Coffee Association (SCA) standard for electrical home brewers tests them at 55 g of coffee per 1.000 kg of water.2 The standard excludes manual pour-over devices, so its values serve here as a reference, not a rule.2 That is about 1 g of coffee to 18 g of water (our own arithmetic). The same standard targets a brew strength of 1.15–1.55% TDS (total dissolved solids) at that ratio.2

Grind. For a pour-over, coffee is ground coarse enough for water to pass through by gravity alone.1 The grind sets how fast the water percolates and how long it stays in contact with the coffee.1 The SCA test grind for conical baskets has at least 68% of its mass between 425 and 850 µm.2 Flat-bottom baskets have their own, coarser test grind.2

Water temperature. The SCA standard sets the temperature of the slurry, the wet coffee in the basket: 90–96 °C by the time 33% of the water has been sprayed on, held to the end of the brew.2 That rule is written for machines. In a 2020 drip-coffee study, brew temperature (87, 90 or 93 °C) had no appreciable impact on the sensory profile once strength and extraction were matched.8 No study opened for this entry measured slurry temperature in a hand-poured dripper.

Water quality. According to a coffee science textbook, the hardness, acidity and cation composition of the water can directly change the flavour of the brew.1 The water entry covers this.

A reference recipe, step by step#

The steps below follow one published research recipe for a cone dripper with a paper filter.3 Its numbers are an example, not a standard. Where another source gives a different value, it is named.

  1. Weigh the coffee and water. The study used 15 g of coffee and poured 290 mL of water in total.3 For comparison, the SCA test ratio would put 15 g with about 273 g of water (our own arithmetic).2
  2. Grind. The study’s grind measured about 945 µm by laser diffraction.3 The SCA standard gives mass fractions in size bands and names no measuring method, so this value cannot be compared directly with them.2
  3. Heat the water. The study used water at 93 °C.3
  4. Wet the filter and level the bed. The study wetted the paper with a little water at 93 °C, then added the coffee and levelled it into a flat bed.3
  5. Bloom. Pour a small amount of water to wet all the grounds, then wait. The study poured 60 mL and waited 15 s.3 During this pause, gas trapped in the coffee escapes (see Bloom below).4,10
  6. Pour the rest in stages. The study added 100 mL at 30 s and 130 mL at 1 min 20 s.3 Each pour went in concentric circles from the centre outwards.3
  7. Let it draw down. The last water drains through the bed. In the study, the dripper was spun to collect all the coffee, and its upper part was shaken by hand three times.3 Across six baristas, the whole brew took 2 min 31 s ± 12 s.3
  8. Taste, and measure if you can. The recipe gave 1.27 ± 0.05% TDS and an extraction yield of 19.6 ± 0.76%.3 To place your own brew, enter dose, beverage weight and TDS in the brewing control chart.
TimeWater poured1234567
  1. Bloom pour. A small first pour wets the grounds: 60 mL on 15 g of coffee in one recipe.3
  2. Bloom pause. Gas, mainly carbon dioxide, escapes as water reaches the grounds.10,12 The recipe paused for 15 s.3
  3. Further pours. 100 mL at 30 s and 130 mL at 1 min 20 s, in circles from the centre outwards.3
  4. One continuous pour. The same water poured in one go. No study opened for this entry compared it with pours in stages.
  5. Drawdown. The last water drains through the bed; in the recipe, the dripper was spun and shaken at this stage.3
  6. Brew in the server. It lags behind the water poured and ends lower, because the grounds hold back liquid. One study gives a retention ratio of about 2.1.4
  7. Total brew time. 2 min 31 s ± 12 s across six baristas, from 2 min 9 s to 2 min 45 s.3
One pour-over over time, with steps in proportion to one published recipe; pour durations were not reported and are drawn short. Schematic, not to scale.

Inside the dripper#

The coffee bed is a layer of wet grounds that the water must cross. Pressure in a pour-over is very limited: it depends on the column of water standing above the bed.1 The grind sets how fast the water percolates, and the depth and shape of the bed change the contact time.1

1234567
  1. Water jet. According to the publisher’s summary of a 2025 study, a strong, focused jet set off an avalanche of grounds and mixed the bed. A thin jet broke into droplets and mixed poorly.7
  2. Water above the bed. Water passes through mainly by gravity; the pressure is very limited and depends on this water column.1
  3. Coffee bed. Its grind sets how fast water percolates and how long it stays in contact with the coffee.1
  4. Paper filter. Holds the grounds back and absorbs oil very efficiently.1 Its porosity changed how much cafestol passed into the brew in one study.13
  5. Where the cone narrows. Modelling shows non-uniform flow in a truncated cone; where it is narrow, water spends less time in contact with the grains.6
  6. Outlet. The brew leaves the bed as it forms, so the balance of the cup shifts as more water passes.1
  7. Server. Collects the brew. In one drip study, each 30 s fraction was weaker than the one before.9
A cone dripper cut open along its axis: jet, water, bed, filter and flow towards the outlet. Schematic, not to scale.

Pouring and agitation. The way water is poured moves the grounds. According to the publisher’s summary of a 2025 fluid-dynamics study, a thick, focused jet dug into the bed and set off an avalanche of grounds that recirculated and mixed.7 The authors recommend pouring from as high as possible while the jet stays smooth (laminar).7 In the six-barista study, the turbulence of each barista’s pouring was a relevant variable.3 No study opened for this entry compared pulse pouring with one continuous pour, or measured the effect of pour rate.

Bed depth and dripper shape. A deep, narrow bed extracts differently from a wide, shallow one, because the contact time differs.1 Many filter systems use a cone, which gives a conical bed.1 In a 2019 drip-brewer study, a semi-conical basket gave significantly higher TDS than a flat-bottom basket with the same coffee, grind and water.5 In discrimination tests, tasters could tell the two apart at a fine and a medium grind.5

Filters: paper, metal and cloth#

Filters differ in size, shape and material, which sets the shape of the bed and the degree of filtration.1

  • Paper. Paper absorbs oil very efficiently, so paper-filtered brews are low in fat.1 Home-brewed paper-filtered coffee held about 12 mg/L cafestol in a 2025 study.14 Not all papers hold back the same amount (see Deep dive).13
  • Metal mesh. Writing about the French press, a textbook describes metal-mesh filtration as relatively inefficient: with fines, it leaves more sediment than drip filter brewing.1 No study opened for this entry measured a metal pour-over filter.
  • Cloth. In one study, pouring boiled coffee through a fabric filter cut its cafestol from 939 to 28 mg/L.14 No study opened for this entry measured a cloth pour-over filter.

Filter shape may matter as much as material. In a 2023 comparison of four methods, the authors report that filter shape can influence the volatile (aroma) profile more than filter material.4 That study used one coffee.4

Adjusting the brew#

Grind is a key setting to change. A finer grind often both extracts more efficiently and extends the flow time, so the two effects multiply.1 In the basket study, a finer grind gave significantly higher TDS in both basket shapes; for the dark roast, the difference between grinds was not significant.5 Too fine a grind can hinder the flow and lead to over-extraction.1

According to a coffee science textbook, under-extracted brews are perceived as too sweet and acidic, and over-extracted ones as bitter and astringent.1 Applied to a pour-over, the textbook’s points suggest the steps below. They are an inference, not rules tested in a study:

  • Too acidic, with a fast drawdown: grind finer. Finer grounds extract more and slow the flow.1
  • Bitter or astringent, with a slow drawdown: grind coarser. Too fine a grind hinders flow and can over-extract.1
  • Too strong or too weak, but balanced: change the ratio. More coffee per litre gives a stronger brew at the same yield.1
  • Over-extracted at the right strength: stop the percolation after a planned time and add hot water to the brew instead (bypass).1

The textbook recommends small adjustments, frequent tasting and measuring where possible.1 A refractometer reading placed on the brewing control chart shows whether a change moved strength, yield or both.

Bloom: what the gas does#

Roasting leaves gas in the beans, mainly carbon dioxide. In freshly roasted coffee, up to 75% of the trapped gas escaped during and immediately after grinding.10 The rest leaves slowly; coffee that has been stored holds less gas and releases it at a lower rate.11

The same 2018 degassing study states that carbon dioxide affects the extraction process.10 Water can also add carbon dioxide: it forms when coffee acids neutralise the hydrogen carbonate (bicarbonate) in the water.10 For espresso, a textbook describes the first wetting stage as hot water spreading into the voids of the particles while gas is pushed out of the bed.12

The bloom step gives that gas time to leave before the main pours. One 2023 study described its bloom – in an AeroPress protocol – as 15 s for the grounds to fully saturate and release carbon dioxide.4 No study opened for this entry measured whether a bloom changes extraction yield or flavour in a pour-over. Practical advice on bloom water and time therefore rests on practice, not on measurement.

Pouring, turbulence and reproducibility#

Jet and mixing. A 2025 study brewed pour-overs with real coffee and used laser-lit transparent particles in a glass funnel to make the mixing visible.7 According to the publisher’s summary, strong, focused jets set off an avalanche in the bed: displaced grounds recirculated, which improved mixing.7 The summary states that this gives a stronger coffee with fewer beans; thin jets broke into droplets and mixed poorly.7 Only the summary could be opened for this entry, so no flow rates or heights are given here.

The human factor. In a 2023 study, six baristas each brewed one Kenyan coffee by four methods, including a V60 cone with paper.3 The V60 brews reached 1.27 ± 0.05% TDS, and the brew time varied more than in any other method (± 12 s).3 The authors conclude that water pouring through the filter plays a very important role in extracting filter coffee.3 They name the turbulence generated by the baristas as a relevant variable.3

What is not measured. None of the studies opened for this entry compared pulses with one continuous pour, stirring with no stirring, or different pour rates in a hand-poured dripper. The 2019 basket study fixed the flow at 4 mL/s in a machine.5

Bed geometry and dripper shape#

Flow in a cone. Modelling with computational fluid dynamics found that flow through a cylindrical bed is close to one-dimensional, while a truncated cone produces non-uniform flow.6 This causes significant variation in local extraction across the cone.6 Where the cone narrows, water spends less time in contact with the grains.6

Cone versus flat bottom. A 2019 study brewed 66 g of coffee with 1,200 g of water in one drip brewer, fitted with a flat-bottom or a semi-conical basket.5 Water left the spray head at 95 °C and 4 mL/s.5 The semi-conical basket gave significantly higher TDS, and the authors estimated a sensory difference threshold of 0.24% TDS.5 At the fine grind, 23 of 45 tasters told the two baskets apart in a discrimination test.5 For the light roast, bitterness was significantly more intense from the semi-conical basket.5 TDS varied from brew to brew even under the same conditions, which the authors tentatively attribute to channelling; they suggest future tests at matched TDS.5

Grind by basket shape. The SCA home-brewer standard defines a different test grind for each shape.2 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.2 For flat baskets: less than 17% above 1,168 µm, at least 65% between 589 and 1,168 µm, and 18% or less below 589 µm.2 The standard’s text gives 1,198 µm as the upper bound of this middle band; its table gives 1,168 µm.2

How the brew changes during drawdown#

In a percolation brew, the balance of molecules in the cup changes as more water passes.1 According to a coffee science textbook, very soluble compounds – caffeine, sugars and organic acids – come out in the first seconds of a brew.1 Less soluble bitter compounds, such as phenylindanes, keep coming out over time.1

A 2020 study tested this by changing the carafe every 30 s during a drip brew.9 TDS fell with each fraction.9 Trained panellists found most taste and flavour attributes decreasing with time: earlier fractions were more bitter and more sour.9 Later fractions were sweeter and more floral, yet no fraction held a perceptible concentration of any monosaccharide.9 The authors suggest that sweetness in coffee comes from masking effects or sweet-associated aromas (see Contested).9

According to the textbook, over-extraction can be avoided by stopping percolation after a planned time and adding hot water to the brew (bypass).1

Filtration chemistry#

Paper. A 2018 study brewed one high-cafestol coffee through paper filters of different sizes, colours and countries.13 Among similar-sized papers, those with micro-perforations let the most cafestol and kahweol through.13 Paper porosity and the particle size of the grounds decided how low the cafestol content of the brew was.13

Across methods. A 2025 study measured these diterpenes by liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry.14 Home brews of five coffee brands, made with two kinds of paper filter, held about 12 mg/L cafestol (range 4–24 mg/L).14 French press coffee held 86.8 mg/L, and boiled coffee 939 mg/L.14 Boiled coffee poured through a fabric filter fell to 28 mg/L.14 The health side is not covered here; the figures are given as filtration data.

Fines and body. According to a coffee science textbook, mouthfeel depends partly on suspended fines, particularly in French press or espresso rather than filter brews.1 Filter paper absorbs oil, and paper-filtered brews are rated rather low in body.1

Reference values#

Parameter Value reported Context Source
Test brew ratio 55 g coffee per 1.000 kg water SCA 310-2021, electrical home brewers (manual pour-over devices excluded) SCA2
Target strength 1.15–1.55% TDS At the test ratio SCA2
Slurry temperature 90–96 °C from 33% of the water on, held to the end Machine requirement SCA2
Test grind, conical basket < 12% > 850 µm; ≥ 68% 425–850 µm; ≤ 20% < 425 µm Sieve fractions by mass SCA2
Test grind, flat basket < 17% > 1,168 µm; ≥ 65% 589–1,168 µm; ≤ 18% < 589 µm Sieve fractions by mass SCA2
Hand recipe: dose and water 15 g coffee; 60 + 100 + 130 mL at 0, 30 and 80 s; 93 °C V60 cone, paper filter, one Kenyan coffee Santanatoglia et al.3
Hand recipe: bloom 60 mL, 15 s pause Same recipe Santanatoglia et al.3
Hand recipe: grind ≈945 µm Laser diffraction Santanatoglia et al.3
Hand recipe: brew time 2:31 ± 0:12 min (2:09–2:45) Six baristas Santanatoglia et al.3
Hand recipe: result 1.27 ± 0.05% TDS; 19.6 ± 0.76% extraction Six baristas Santanatoglia et al.3
Liquid retained by the grounds ≈2.1 (water retention ratio) V60 and AeroPress recipes Santanatoglia et al.4
Basket study 66 g coffee, 1,200 g water; 95 °C; 4 mL/s Drip brewer, flat vs semi-conical Frost et al.5
Basket study grinds Medians ≈800, 1,000 and 1,200 µm Fine, medium, coarse Frost et al.5
Sensory difference threshold 0.24% TDS (estimate) Drip coffee Frost et al.5
Brew temperature tested 87, 90, 93 °C – no appreciable sensory effect at fixed TDS and extraction Drip coffee Batali et al.8
Cafestol, paper-filtered ≈12 mg/L (range 4–24) Home brews, five brands × two filter types (10 samples) Orrje et al.14
Cafestol, boiled then fabric-filtered 939 → 28 mg/L Boiled coffee Orrje et al.14

Notes on the published recipe#

The recipe in this entry comes from two 2023 papers by the same group, and their figures do not fully add up. The reproducibility paper gives 15 g of coffee and pours of 60, 100 and 130 mL, 290 mL in all, and states a final coffee-to-water ratio of 1:15.3 The aroma paper also states 1:15 and says 290 mL were yielded, given a water retention ratio of about 2.1.4 By our own arithmetic, 290 mL over 15 g is about 1:19, not 1:15. We therefore give the pours as stated and do not give a ratio for this recipe.

The grind of about 945 µm was measured by laser diffraction; the paper does not say which statistic it is.3 The SCA grind is defined by mass fractions in size bands, and the standard names no measuring method.2 The two are not directly comparable.

Open questions#

  • Bloom. No study opened for this entry measured how a bloom, or its water amount and time, changes extraction yield or flavour in a pour-over.
  • Pulses versus one pour. Whether pouring in stages, pour rate or stirring changes extraction has not been measured in the studies opened here; one study shows that pouring by hand adds variation.3
  • Jet and strength. The 2025 jet study reports stronger coffee from better mixing7; its numbers could not be checked for this entry.
  • Slurry temperature by hand. No published measurement of slurry temperature in a hand-poured dripper, or of the effect of dripper material and preheating, was found.
  • Shape at matched strength. The basket study did not control for TDS; whether shape changes flavour beyond strength is open.5
  • Metal and cloth in pour-over. No study opened for this entry measured oil, fines or diterpenes from metal or cloth pour-over filters.

Key studies#

Santanatoglia et al., 2023 – The human factor. Six baristas brewed one Kenyan coffee by an automated brewer, a V60, an AeroPress and a French press. The V60 gave reproducible TDS but the most variable brew time, and the authors identify the turbulence of pouring as a relevant variable.

Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 124, 105698 · doi:10.1016/j.jfca.2023.105698

Frost et al., 2019 – Basket geometry. Brews a light and a dark roast at three grinds in flat-bottom and semi-conical baskets of one drip brewer. The semi-conical basket gave stronger coffee that tasters could tell apart, and it raised bitterness for light roasts.

Journal of Food Science (early view), 2019 · doi:10.1111/1750-3841.14696

Batali et al., 2020 – Fractions of a drip brew. Splits drip brews into 30 s fractions and has a trained panel describe each. TDS fell from fraction to fraction; early fractions were more bitter and sour, late ones sweeter and more floral, without perceptible sugars.

Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 100(7), 2953–2962 · doi:10.1002/jsfa.10323

Rendón et al., 2018 – The paper filter and cafestol. Brews one high-cafestol coffee through paper filters of different origin and structure. Micro-perforated papers let the most diterpenes through; paper porosity and grind size decided how much cafestol reached the brew.

Food Research International 108, 280–285 · doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2018.03.041

Contested
  • Order of flavours during a drip brew: a coffee science textbook describes the balance moving from a sweet–acidic profile early in extraction towards a bitter, harsh and astringent one1, while in a 2020 sensory study of drip-brew fractions the earlier fractions were more bitter and more sour, and the later ones sweeter and more floral.9 The textbook speaks of the whole cup at higher yields, the study of separate 30 s fractions, so the two describe different things.
Share or cite this entry

Change log

  • – The contested item on particle swelling, which rested on a 2021 conference e-poster, was removed. Reason: Conference posters are not accepted as sources (editorial ruling, 20 Oct 2026).

Sources

  1. 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
  2. A/BSpecialty Coffee Association (2021). SCA Standard 310-2021 Home Coffee Brewers: Specifications and Test Methods. Specialty Coffee Association (document © 2022).
  3. ASantanatoglia, A.; Cespi, M.; Perinelli, D. R.; Fioretti, L.; Sagratini, G.; Vittori, S.; Caprioli, G. (2023). Impact of the human factor on the reproducibility of different coffee brewing methods. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 124, 105698. doi:10.1016/j.jfca.2023.105698 · other copies
  4. ASantanatoglia, A.; Alessandroni, L.; Fioretti, L.; Sagratini, G.; Vittori, S.; Maggi, F.; Caprioli, G. (2023). Discrimination of Filter Coffee Extraction Methods of a Medium Roasted Specialty Coffee Based on Volatile Profiles and Sensorial Traits. Foods 12(17), 3199. doi:10.3390/foods12173199 · other copies
  5. AFrost, S. C.; Ristenpart, W. D.; Guinard, J.-X. (2019). Effect of basket geometry on the sensory quality and consumer acceptance of drip brewed coffee. Journal of Food Science (early-view version, accepted 17 May 2019). doi:10.1111/1750-3841.14696 · other copies
  6. 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
  7. APark, E.; Young, M.; Mathijssen, A. J. T. M. (2025). Pour-over coffee: Mixing by a water jet impinging on a granular bed with avalanche dynamics. Physics of Fluids (AIP Publishing), April 2025. doi:10.1063/5.0257924 · other copies
  8. ABatali, M. E.; Ristenpart, W. D.; Guinard, J.-X. (2020). Brew temperature, at fixed brew strength and extraction, has little impact on the sensory profile of drip brew coffee. Scientific Reports 10, 16450. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-73341-4 · other copies
  9. ABatali, M. E.; Frost, S. C.; Lebrilla, C. B.; Ristenpart, W. D.; Guinard, J.-X. (2020). Sensory and monosaccharide analysis of drip brew coffee fractions versus brewing time. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 100(7), 2953–2962. doi:10.1002/jsfa.10323 · other copies
  10. ASmrke, S.; Wellinger, M.; Suzuki, T.; Balsiger, F.; Opitz, S. E. W.; Yeretzian, C. (2018). Time-Resolved Gravimetric Method To Assess Degassing of Roasted Coffee. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 66(21), 5293–5300. doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.7b03310 · other copies
  11. BYeretzian, C.; Blank, I.; Wyser, Y. (2017). Protecting the Flavors – Freshness as a Key to Quality (chapter 14). The Craft and Science of Coffee (ed. B. Folmer), Academic Press, 329–353. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-803520-7.00014-1 · other copies
  12. BFolmer, B.; Blank, I.; Hofmann, T. (2017). Crema – Formation, Stabilization, and Sensation. In: Folmer, B. (ed.), The Craft and Science of Coffee, Academic Press, ch. 17, pp. 399–417. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-803520-7.00017-7 · other copies
  13. ARendón, M. Y.; dos Santos Scholz, M. B.; Bragagnolo, N. (2018). Physical characteristics of the paper filter and low cafestol content filter coffee brews. Food Research International 108, 280–285. doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2018.03.041 · other copies
  14. 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

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”.

Suggest a change

On Pour-over technique. Tell us what you would change and why. A source that supports it helps most.