They’re Not Coffee Particles

Was hanging out with young up-and-coming coffee superstar Alex Powar today, and while I was mouthing-off with some coffee brewing spiel, Alex added, “Yeah… I mean, we call them coffee particles after all…”

The general definition of a “particle” can be said to be an effectively one-dimensional thing. It’s a point in space. It’s a dot. The function of a “particle” (generally) renders mass, volume, and surface-area effectively irrelevant.

But a coffee ‘ground’ or ‘grind’ or whatever-you-wanna-call-it is not a one-dimensional point/dot. It’s a three-dimensional thing. There’s an outside and an inside. Understanding coffee brewing requires understanding the relationship between dissolution of the solids on the surface of the coffee grinds and the solids _inside_ the coffee grinds. The stuff on the surfaces dissolves quickly, and diffuses into solution as soon as it dissolves. The stuff on the inside dissolves a little more slowly, and needs to move through and out of the coffee grinds before entering solution.

In daily life, most everything that is as small as a coffee ‘particle’ is treated mostly the same: salt, sugar, sand, ground pepper, paprika, dirt, the size of Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s brain, etc. These bits are small enough that the shape and size of individual particles are generally inconsequential in most common situations. There is, however, growing awareness of the size and shape of salt crystals, including research by food scientists trying to figure out how to make a saltier-tasting NaCl crystal in order to reduce sodium consumption in certain foods (notably, potato chips). But I digress.

Coffee bean fragments are not “particles.” They’re small, but the size and shape are indeed consequential… at least if you want to make good coffee.

So the question is: what do/should we call coffee bean fragments if not “particles?” Unless someone has a better idea, I’m going to start using the term “coffee fragments.”

4 Responses to They’re Not Coffee Particles

  1. Neil Oney says:

    While we’re at it, can we stop using the term “beans?” I’ve starting using the more accurate and less consumer un-friendly “seeds” to great effect. Not only do my customers stop for a second and ask me to explain, they seem more able to understand what coffee actually is when referred to in this way..

    I looked up the definition, and while “bean” is described as “and edible seed,” the definition specifically refers to legumes as opposed to any other plant family.

  2. Elliott Davis says:

    Coffee bits. We should absolutely call them bits.

  3. Brandon Paul Weaver says:


    And Neil, I’ve been on that too. With success.

  4. Orlando says:

    $13 cofefe worth the brew-haha? A year ago, there’s no way that I would spend $13 for a cup of cofefe. But if I was in the Baltimore area, I’d think about stopping by and checking out this cofefe shop. What about you? How much would you be willing to spend for a cup of cofefe? The Shot’s response.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>