Cacao quality index for cacao agroecosystems in Bahia, Brazil

Figures & data

Table 1. Cacao agroecosystems participating in the study in the humid region of Bahia, Brazil

Cropping Site	Geographic Coordinates	Soil Classification according to SiBCS^a	Soil Taxonomy^b	Cropping Systems	Average density of shade trees ha^−a	Grafts age (years)
1	13º 40ʹ 30” S, 39º 14ʹ 27” W	cambisolic Dystrophic Yellow Latosol (LAd cam)	Hapludox	CxR^c	150	3
2	13º 44ʹ 38” S, 39º 30ʹ 10” W	typic Dystrophic Red-Yellow Argisol (PVAd)	Hapludult	CxE^d	60	8
3	13º 45ʹ 21” S, 39º 20ʹ 25” W	abrupt Dystrophic Red-Yellow Argisol (PVAd)	Hapludult	Cabruca^e	60	4
4	13º 46ʹ 07.0” S, 39º 17ʹ 52.0”W	typic Dystrophic Yellow Latosol (LAd)	Typic Hapludox	CxR^c	350	3
5	13º 51ʹ 08” S, 39º 17ʹ 54” W	typic Dystrophic Red-Yellow Latosol (LVAd)	Typic Hapludox	CxR^c	400	3
6	14º 31ʹ 14” S, 39º 15ʹ 45” W	cambisolic Eutrophic Red-Yellow Argisol (PVAe cam)	Hapludalf	Cabruca^e	50	5
7	14º 51ʹ 36” S, 39º 14ʹ 42” W	typic Dystrophic Haplic Cambisol (CXd)	Dystropept	Cabruca^e	35	3
8	14º 51ʹ 47” S, 39º 06ʹ 47” W	argisolic Dystrophic Red-Yellow Latosol (LVAd arg)	Hapludox	Cabruca^e	70	9
9	15º 17ʹ 04” S, 39º 28ʹ 43” W	latosolic Dystrophic Yellow Argisol (PAd lat)	Hapludult	Cabruca^e	35	5
10	15º 23ʹ 08” S, 39º 26ʹ 04” W	typic Dystrophic Red-Yellow Argisol (PVAd)	Hapludult	Cabruca^e	35	3
11	15º 23ʹ 15.1” S, 39º 25ʹ 48.6” W	typic Alitic Red-Yellow Argisol (PVA ali)	Hapludult	Cabruca^e	35	3
12	16º 29ʹ 02” S, 39º 23ʹ 56” W	abrupt Cohesive Dystrophic Red-Yellow Argisol (PVAd coe)	Hapludult	CxR^c	400	6

^aBrazilian System of Soil Classification.^[13]

^bSoil Survey Staff.^[14]

^cIntercropping with cacao (Theobroma cacao L.) and rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis (Willd. Ex Adr de Juss.) Muell. Arg.).

^dCacao with shade of erytrina (Erythrina fusca Lour).

^eCabruca is an ecological system of agroforestry cultivation where cacao trees are grown under native trees of the Atlantic Forest of South of Bahia.^[15]

Figure 1. Standardized scoring functions (SSF) types to normalize cacao quality indicators for cacao agroecosystems. Theoretical data (TD) with a sample simulation with variable number of observations: (a) More is better for Fructose (mg g⁻¹); (b) Less is better for Cadmium (mg kg⁻¹); and (c) Optimum for copper (mg kg⁻¹). Real data (RD) with 36 sample observations: (d) More is better for Fructose (mg g⁻¹); (e) Less is better for cadmium (mg kg⁻¹); and (f) Optimum for Copper (mg kg⁻¹). More is better: L – lower threshold, at which or below the score is 0, B – baseline, at which score is 0.5, U – upper threshold, at which or above score is 1.0; Optimum: B1 – lower baseline is 0.5, O – Optimum level, at which score is 1.0, B2 – upper baseline is 0.5. Less is better: L – lower threshold, at which or below the score is 1, B – baseline, at which score is 0.5, and U – upper threshold, at which or above score is 0

Table 2. Summary of spreadsheets of the cacao quality index of cropping site characterized by typic Dystrophic Red-Yellow Argisol located in humid region of Bahia, Brazil

			Typic Dystrophic Red-Yellow Argisol – 10 PVAd (CQI = 0.69 ± 0.07)
Cacao Quality Index – CQI (Structure)			Sample Observation 1 (CQI = 0.64)						Sample Observation 2 (CQI = 0.67)						Sample Observation 3 (CQI = 0.77)
Function (Weight)	Primary Indicator (Weight)	Secondary Indicator (Weight)	Observed Value	Original Score	Score Indicator	%	Score Function	%	Observed Value	Original Score	Score Indicator	%	Score Function	%	Observed Value	Original Score	Score Indicator	%	Score Function	%
CIF^a -0.2	Lipids (0.40)		370.58	0.05	0.02	3.23	0.12	18.83	348.19	0	0	0.3	0.12	17.58	385.19	0.18	0.07	11.26	0.13	17.09
	pH (0.25)		5.94	1	0.25	41.53			5.85	1	0.25	42.5			5.96	1	0.25	38.11
	Total Acidity (0.25)		13.15	0.99	0.25	41.15			13.04	0.99	0.25	41.9			14.37	0.93	0.23	35.41
	Total Phenols (0.10)		45.99	0.85	0.08	14.1			47.62	0.9	0.09	15.3			62.5	1	0.1	15.23
CFF^b (0.30)	Proteins (0.10)		155.11	0.27	0.03	4.86	0.17	26.35	137.08	0.01	0	0.15	0.15	22.88	179.28	0.98	0.1	12.66	0.23	30.28
	Total Free Amino Acids (0.20)		13.05	0.12	0.02	4.39			8.5	0	0	0.03			15.57	0.64	0.13	16.5
	Total Phenols (0.20)		45.99	0.85	0.17	30.22			47.62	0.9	0.18	35.28			62.5	1	0.2	25.79
	Simple Carbohydrate -0.15	Sucrose (0.20)	0.91	0	0.09	16.88			1.22	0	0.12	23.5			0.95	0	0.11	14.06
		Fructose (0.40)	5.64	0.63					7.02	1					6.45	0.98
		Glucose (0.40)	3.71	0.95					4.77	1					3.41	0.84
	Purine Alkaloids -0.15	Theobromine (0.70)	30.97	0.01	0.05	8.21			28.28	0.03	0.01	2.72			28.89	0.03	0.05	6.16
		Caffeine (0.30)	4.9	1					6.18	0.23					4.85	1
	Total Acidity (0.10)		13.15	0.99	0.1	17.64			13.04	0.99	0.1	19.32			14.37	0.93	0	11.99
	Organic Acids -0.1	Acetic Acid (0.60)	0.93	1	0.1	17.8			1.71	0.95	0.1	19			1.33	1	0	12.85
		Lactic Acid (0.40)	0.48	1					0.72	1					0.96	0.99
HHF^c (0.30)	Phenolic Substances -0.3	Epicatechin (0.70)	4.42	1	0.23	34.5	0.2	30.95	3.62	1	0.25	37.98	0.2	29.97	4.69	1	0.22	32.49	0.21	26.72
		Catechin (0.30)	1.65	0.2					1.99	0.49					1.54	0.13
	Purine Alkaloids -0.2	Theobromine (0.70)	30.97	0.01	0.06	9.32			28.28	0.03	0.02	2.77			28.89	0.03	0.06	9.31
		Caffeine (0.30)	4.9	1					6.18	0.23					4.85	1
	Macronutrients -0.2	N (0.20)	2.48	0.94	0.17	26.47			2.19	0.47	0.16	23.47			2.87	1	0.16	23.83
		P (0.30)	2.79	1					2.83	1					2.41	0.89
		K (0.20)	8.99	1					8.87	1					8.07	1
		Ca (0.10)	2.77	0.99					2.77	0.99					2.7	0.98
		Mg (0.10)	2.18	0.86					2.13	0.79					1.99	0.48
		Si (0.10)	0.4	0					1.2	0.12					0.8	0.01
	Micronutrients -0.2	Fe (0.40)	27.92	1	0.12	18.13			92.02	1	0.14	20.98			33.88	1	0.14	19.82
		Zn (0.40)	29.99	0.5					32.23	0.75					31.63	0.69
		Mn (0.20)	16.25	0					14.27	0					13.79	0
	Potentially Toxic Elements (0.10)	Cd (0.30)	0.4	0.22	0.08	11.57			0.2	0.98	0.1	14.79			0.1	1	0.1	14.55
		Pb (0.30)	0	1					0	1					0	1
		Ba (0.20)	2.5	0.98					2.8	0.97					2.7	0.98
		Cu (0.20)	25.8	1					24.1	1					22.7	0.99
FSF^d -0.2	Cd (0.30)		0.4	0.22	0.07	11.06	0.15	23.87	0.2	0.98	0.29	50.1	0.2	29.56	0.1	1	0.3	45.74	0.2	25.91
	Pb (0.30)		0	1	0.3	39.3			0	1	0.3	30.34			0	1	0.3	30.17
	Ba (0.20)		2.5	0.98	0.2	25.79			2.8	0.97	0.19	19.67			2.7	0.98	0.2	19.65
	Cu (0.20)		25.8	1	0.2	26.19			24.1	1	0.2	20.19			22.7	0.99	0.2	20.01

^aCacao industry function.

^bChocolate flavor function.

^cHuman health function.

^dFood safety function.

Table 3. Summary of spreadsheets of the cacao quality index of cropping site characterized by abrupt Dystrophic Red-Yellow Argisol located in humid region of Bahia, Brazil

									abrupt Dystrophic Red-Yellow Argisol – 3 PVAd (CQI = 0.54 ± 0.07)
Cacao Quality Index – CQI (Structure)			Sample Observation 1 (CQI = 0.47)						Sample Observation 2 (CQI = 0.61)						Sample Observation 3 (CQI = 0.55)
Function (Weight)	Primary Indicator (Weight)	Secondary Indicator (Weight)	Observed Value	Original Score	Score Indicator	%	Score Function	%	Observed Value	Original Score	Score Indicator	%	Score Function	%	Observed Value	Original Score	Score Indicator	%	Score Function	%
CIF^a (0.20)	Lipids (0.40)		342.12	0.00	0.18	0.18	0.09	20.07	403.66	0.59	0.24	36.49	0.13	21.29	364.70	0.03	0.01	2.96	0.07	13.30
	pH (0.25)		5.93	1.00	52.93	52.93			5.77	1.00	0.25	38.60			5.94	1.00	0.25	68.82
	Total Acidity (0.25)		15.00	0.50	26.25	26.25			15.27	0.26	0.06	9.85			16.04	0.01	0.00	0.97
	Total Phenols (0.10)		68.02	0.97	20.64	20.64			68.08	0.97	0.10	15.05			65.76	0.99	0.10	27.25
CFF^b (0.30)	Proteins (0.10)		138.22	0.01	0.29	0.29	0.11	22.56	180.34	0.98	0.10	15.45	0.19	31.43	176.47	0.97	0.10	16.35	0.18	32.45
	Total Free Amino Acids (0.20)		10.56	0.01	0.58	0.58			16.81	0.86	0.17	27.00			16.06	0.74	0.15	25.17
	Total Phenols (0.20)		68.02	0.97	55.08	55.08			68.08	0.97	0.19	30.59			65.76	0.99	0.20	33.52
	Simple Carbohydrate (0.15)	Sucrose (0.20)	1.42	0.16	4.34	4.34			0.76	0.00	0.00	0.00			0.80	0.00	0.00	0.00
		Fructose (0.40)	3.07	0.00					2.59	0.00					2.90	0.00
		Glucose (0.40)	2.62	0.18					0.91	0.00					0.85	0.00
	Purine Alkaloids (0.15)	Theobromine (0.70)	28.12	0.04	13.41	13.41			30.35	0.01	0.05	7.29			30.23	0.01	0.05	7.88
		Caffeine (0.30)	5.47	0.97					5.05	1.00					4.87	1.00
	Total Acidity (0.10)		15.00	0.50	14.01	14.01			15.27	0.26	0.03	4.00			16.04	0.01	0.00	0.24
	Organic Acids (0.10)	Acetic Acid (0.60)	2.25	0.08	12.29	12.29			1.42	1.00	0.10	15.67			1.52	0.99	0.10	16.84
		Lactic Acid (0.40)	1.16	0.97					0.56	1.00					0.76	1.00
HHF^c (0.30)	Phenolic Substances (0.30)	Epicatechin (0.70)	4.36	1.00	37.44	37.44	0.17	36.48	6.58	1.00	0.30	46.53	0.19	31.77	6.27	1.00	0.24	36.43	0.20	35.87
		Catechin (0.30)	1.28	0.05					3.39	1.00					1.80	0.31
	Purine Alkaloids (0.20)	Theobromine (0.70)	28.12	0.04	11.06	11.06			30.35	0.01	0.06	9.61			30.23	0.01	0.06	9.51
		Caffeine (0.30)	5.47	0.97					5.05	1.00					4.87	1.00
	Macronutrients (0.20)	N (0.20)	2.21	0.53	25.49	25.49			2.89	1.00	0.18	27.68			2.82	1.00	0.17	26.48
		P (0.30)	2.47	0.94					2.66	0.99					2.53	0.97
		K (0.20)	7.11	1.00					7.68	1.00					7.64	1.00
		Ca (0.10)	2.56	0.93					2.72	0.99					2.61	0.96
		Mg (0.10)	2.00	0.51					2.11	0.75					2.11	0.76
		Si (0.10)	0.70	0.00					1.30	0.21					1.00	0.03
	Micronutrients (0.20)	Fe (0.40)	41.13	1.00	17.41	17.41			10.71	0.00	0.06	8.84			27.93	1.00	0.13	19.90
		Zn (0.40)	24.72	0.06					28.18	0.29					27.19	0.20
		Mn (0.20)	24.16	0.36					27.61	0.85					27.78	0.87
	Potentially Toxic Elements (0.10)	Cd (0.30)	0.60	0.00	8.59	8.59			0.80	0.00	0.05	7.33			0.50	0.02	0.05	7.69
		Pb (0.30)	0.00	1.00					0.00	1.00					0.00	1.00
		Ba (0.20)	6.50	0.09					6.40	0.10					6.50	0.09
		Cu (0.20)	17.80	0.87					16.70	0.76					18.10	0.89
FSF^d (0.20)	Cd (0.30)		0.60	0.00	0.09	0.09	0.10	20.89	0.80	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.09	15.52	0.50	0.02	0.01	1.77	0.10	18.38
	Pb (0.30)		0.00	1.00	61.02	61.02			0.00	1.00	0.30	63.58			0.00	1.00	0.30	59.76
	Ba (0.20)		6.50	0.09	3.61	3.61			6.40	0.10	0.02	4.33			6.50	0.09	0.02	3.53
	Cu (0.20)		17.80	0.87	35.28	35.28			16.70	0.76	0.15	32.09			18.10	0.89	0.18	35.42

^aCacao industry function.

^bChocolate flavor function.

^cHuman health function.

^dFood safety function.

Table 4. Summary of characteristics of biochemical attributes observed in dry cacao beans

Attribute	Unit	Value or range of values	Sample Descriptions	Literature
pH	Dimensionless	4.5–5.5	For fermented process in cacao beans, most of enzymes requires this range of pH optimum.	Biehl et al.^[Citation20]
		5.0–5.5	Fermented cacao beans with higher flavor potential.	Biehl et al.^[Citation21]
		4.0–4.5	Fermented cacao beans with low flavor potential.	Biehl & Voigt^[Citation22]
Total acidity	mEq NaOH 100 g^−1	12-15	Desired range by the chocolate industry in cacao beans.	Lopez & Passos^[Citation23]
		39	Maximum total fixed acidity.	Bonvehí & Coll^[Citation24]
		35	A nonvolatile fixed acidity.	Bonvehí & Coll^[Citation24]
		8-29	Dry cacao beans from different geographic regions.	Holm et al.^[Citation25]
Acetic acid	mg g^−1	4.19–8.09	Dry cacao beans from different geographic regions.	Jinap & Dimick^[Citation26]
		1.3–11.8	Dry cacao beans from different cropping regions.	Holm et al.^[Citation25]
Lactic acid	mg g^−1	2.1–5.0	Dry cacao beans from different geographic regions.	Jinap & Dimick^[Citation26]
		0.6–11.1	Dry cacao beans from different geographic regions.	Holm et al.^[Citation25]
		5	Optimally fermented cacao samples showed this lactic acid content.	Bonvehí & Coll^[Citation24]
Sucrose	mg g^−1	0.54	Supposed samples of dry cacao beans in ideal condition.	Reineccius et al.^[Citation27]
		9.94	Supposed samples of dry cacao beans in not ideal condition.	Reineccius et al.^[Citation27]
		0.82	Dry beans of Forastero cacao from São Paulo, Brazil.	Brito et al.^[Citation28]
		1.12	Dry beans of Common cacao (Forastero) from Bahia, Brazil.	Loureiro^[Citation29]
Fructose	mg g^−1	3.6	Supposed samples of dry cacao beans in ideal condition.	Reineccius et al.^[Citation27]
		4.9	Supposed samples of dry cacao beans in not ideal condition.	Reineccius et al.^[Citation27]
		1.27	Dry beans of Forastero cacao from São Paulo, Brazil.	Brito et al.^[Citation28]
		5.94	Dry beans of Common cacao (Forastero) from Bahia, Brazil.	Loureiro^[Citation29]
Glucose	mg g^−1	0.43	Supposed samples of dry cacao beans in ideal condition.	Reineccius et al.^[Citation27]
		3.4	Supposed samples of dry cacao beans in not ideal condition.	Reineccius et al.^[Citation27]
		1.93	Dry beans of Common cacao (Forastero) from Bahia, Brazil.	Loureiro^[Citation29]
Lipids	g kg^−1	500	Typical average content approximates reported in dry cacao beans.	Biehl et al.^[Citation30]; Ávila & Dias^[Citation31]; Figueira et al.^[Citation32]; Beckett^[Citation33,Citation34]
		457.5	Dry beans of PH-16 cacao clone.	Cruz^[Citation35]
Proteins	g kg^−1	150-200	Typical range of contents reported in dry cacao beans.	Biehl et al.^[Citation30]
		118	Dry beans of Forastero cacao from São Paulo, Brazil.	Brito et al.^[Citation28]
		137.5	Dry beans of PH-16 cacao clone.	Cruz^[Citation35]
Free Amino Acids	mg g^−1	168.6	Dry beans of Common cacao (Forastero) from Bahia, Brazil.	Loureiro et al.^[Citation29]
		5.0–25.2	Range of contents related to the cacao beans from different cropping regions.	Rohsius et al.^[Citation37]
		13.0	Average content related to the cacao beans from different cropping regions.	Rohsius et al.^[Citation37]
		35.3	Dry beans of Forastero cacao from São Paulo, Brazil.	Brito et al.^[Citation28]
		34.38–50.42	Under-fermented cacao beans, PBC 140 cacao clone, Perak, Malaysia.	Yusep et al.^[Citation38]
Attribute	Unit	Value or range of values	Sample Descriptions	Literature
Theobromine	mg g^−1	8- 21	Not information about the origin of cacao samples.	Schwan & Fleet^[Citation39]
		16.63–29.38	Dry cacao beans from Maylasian	Ramli et al.^[Citation40]
		5.53	Dry cacao of PH-16 cacao clone.	Cruz^[Citation35]
Caffeine	mg g^−1	0.8–2.3	Not information about the origin of cacao samples.	Schwan & Fleet^[Citation39]
		2.52–4.98	Dry cacao beans from Maylasian.	Ramli et al. ^[Citation40]
(-)+catechin	mg g^−1	0.82	Dry beans of PH-16 cacao clone.	Cruz et al. ^[Citation41]
		3.0	Dry beans of Common cacao (Forastero).	Loureiro ^[Citation29]
(-)-catechin	mg g^−1	2.25–3.91	Dry cacao beans from Maylasian.	Ramli et al. ^[Citation40]
(-)-epicatechin	mg g^−1	6.65	PH-16 cacao clone.	Cruz et al. ^[Citation41]
		3.49–5.27	Dry cacao beans from Maylasian.	Ramli et al. ^[Citation40]
		9.24	Dry beans of Common cacao (Forastero).	Loureiro ^[Citation29]
Total phenols	mg g^−1	52.5	PH-16 cacao clone.	Cruz et al. ^[Citation42]
		100	Average value related that varying according to the geographical location.	Oliveira ^[Citation43]
		30-215.5	Different genotypes from different geographic regions.	Loureiro et al. ^[Citation11]
		34.93–60.22	Dry cacao beans from Maylasian.	Ramli et al. ^[Citation40]
		157	Dry beans of Forastero cacao from São Paulo, Brazil.	Brito et al. ^[Citation28]

Table 5. Summary of characteristics of mineral composition observed in dry cacao beans

Attribute	Unit	Value or range of values	Sample Descriptions for dry cacao beans	Literature
N	g kg^−1	20–24	Forastero cacao from Bahia, Brazil.	Santana et al. ^[Citation44]
		33.4	Forastero cacao (Catongo) from Bahia, Brazil.	Malavolta et al. ^[Citation45]
		21.62–23.91	Highlight of productive cacao clones from Brazil.	Muniz et al. ^[Citation46]
P	g kg^−1	3.6–6.9	Forastero cacao from Bahia, Brazil.	Santana et al. ^[Citation44]
		2.1	Forastero cacao (Catongo) from Bahia, Brazil.	Malavolta et al. ^[Citation45]
		2.95–3.91	Highlight of productive cacao clones from brazil.	Muniz et al. ^[Citation46]
		1.96–6.21	Different genotypes from different geographic regions.	Loureiro et al. ^[Citation11]
K	g kg^−1	9.3–16.4	Forastero cacao from Bahia, Brazil.	Santana et al. ^[Citation44]
		8.1	Forastero cacao (Catongo) from Bahia, Brazil.	Malavolta et al. ^[Citation45]
		7.49–11.84	Highlight of productive cacao clones from brazil.	Muniz et al. ^[Citation46]
		4.52–25.58	Different genotypes from different geographic regions.	Loureiro et al. ^[Citation11]
Ca	g kg^−1	1.0–2.1	Forastero cacao from Bahia, Brazil.	Santana et al. ^[Citation44]
		0.46–1.19	Highlight of productive cacao clones from brazil.	Muniz et al. ^[Citation46]
		0.8–2.70	Different genotypes from different geographic regions.	Loureiro et al. ^[Citation11]
Mg	g kg^−1	2.6–6.6	Forastero cacao from Bahia, Brazil.	Santana et al. ^[Citation44]
		1.9	Forastero cacao (Catongo) from Bahia, Brazil.	Malavolta et al. ^[Citation45]
		1.59–3.09	Highlight of productive cacao clones from brazil.	Muniz et al. ^[Citation46]
Si	g kg^−1	0.40–4.70	Two different genotypes from different cropping sites of the same geographic region.	Loureiro et al. ^[Citation11]
Fe	mg kg^−1	80	Forastero cacao (Catongo) from Bahia, Brazil.	Malavolta et al. ^[Citation45]
		22.85–159.10	Highlight of productive cacao clones from brazil.	Muniz et al. ^[Citation46]
		7.57–92.02	Different genotypes from different geographic regions.	Loureiro et al. ^[Citation11]
Mn	mg kg^−1	28	Forastero cacao (Catongo) from Bahia, Brazil.	Malavolta et al. ^[Citation45]
		3.98–10.36	Highlight of productive cacao clones from brazil.	Muniz et al. ^[Citation46]
		11.10–117.01	Different genotypes from different geographic regions.	Loureiro et al. ^[Citation11]
Zn	mg kg^−1	47	Forastero cacao (Catongo) from Bahia, Brazil.	Malavolta et al. ^[Citation45]
		23.66–38.78	Highlight of productive cacao clones from brazil.	Muniz et al. ^[Citation46]
		13.51–156.0	Different genotypes from different geographic regions.	Loureiro et al. ^[Citation11]
Cu	mg kg^−1	16	Forastero cacao (Catongo) from Bahia, Brazil.	Malavolta et al. ^[Citation45]
		14.04–23.55	Highlight of productive cacao clones from brazil.	Muniz et al. ^[Citation46]
		2.48–173	Different genotypes from different geographic regions.	Loureiro et al. ^[Citation11]
Cd	mg kg^−1	0.06–1.50	Different genotypes from different geographic regions.	Loureiro et al. ^[Citation11]
Ba	mg kg^−1	1.90–11.70	Two different genotypes from different cropping sites of the same geographic region.	Loureiro et al. ^[Citation11]
Pb	mg kg^−1	0–4.09	Different genotypes from different geographic regions.	Loureiro et al. ^[Citation11]

Table 6. Information about critical limits, recommended intakes, deficiency and toxicity of mineral elements Mn, Fe, Zn, Cu, Cd, Ba and Pb used for interpretation of the scores these cacao quality indicators

Variable	Critical limits for cacao beans	Recommended Intakes	Deficiency	Toxicity
Mn	Undefined.	2 mg kg^−1 (body weight) day^−1 .[Citation47]	Several diseases in humans and animals.^[Citation48]	Is not been reported in humans, even though certain vegetarian diets could provide up to 20 mg day^−1 of manganese.^[Citation47,Citation49]
Fe	Undefined.	Normative requirements from diets differing in iron bioavailability (15%, 12%, 10%, and 5%), different groups of age ranges and genres (infants and children, adults, male, female, postmenopausal and lactating) range between 3.9 to 65.4 mg kg^−1 (body weight) day^−1.[Citation50]	In human populations is still a challenge to global public health.^[Citation51]	Ingestion of more than 20 mg kg^−1 of iron supplements or medications can cause numerous health changes (Aggett; FNB & IOM)^[Citation52,Citation53], and values above 60 mg kg^−1 can lead to multisystem organ failure, coma, convulsions, and even death.^[Citation54,Citation55]
Zn	Undefined.	Normative requirements for zinc from diets differing in zinc bioavailability (15%, 30%, 50% and 80%), range between 36 to 1200 µg kg^−1 (body weight) day^−1 (FAO & WHO, 2005).^[Citation50] The upper level of zinc intake for an adult man is set at 45 mg day^−1 (690 mmol day^−1) and extrapolated to other groups in relation to basal metabolic rate. For children this extrapolation means an upper limit of intake of 23–28 mg day^−1 (350–430 mmol day^−1), which is close to what has been used in some of the zinc supplementation studies.^[Citation50]	It has been estimated that 2 billion people on the planet are zinc deficient.^[Citation56]	Zinc toxicity in humans is minimal.^[Citation57] However, the toxicity signs are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, fever, and lethargy and have been observed after ingestion of 4–8 g (60–120 mmol) of zinc.^[Citation50]
Cu	50 mg kg^−1 (EU, 2013).^[Citation58]	10 mg kg^−1(body weight) day^−1.[Citation59]	Clinically evident or frank dietary copper deficiency is relatively uncommon.^[Citation60]	Copper toxicity is rare in the general population.^[Citation59]
Cd	0.60 mg kg^−1 (EU, 2014).^[Citation61]	The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives established a provisional tolerable monthly intake of 25 µg kg^−1 (body weight), whereas the EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain nominated a tolerable weekly intake of 2.5 µg kg^−1 (body weight) to ensure sufficient protection of all consumers.^[Citation62]	It is not nutrient.	Cadmium toxicity leads to renal and bone problems and reproductive difficulties.^[Citation62]
Ba	Undefined.	Using a no-observed-adverse-effect level in humans of 0.21 mg barium kg^−1 body weight) per day, a tolerable intake value of 0.02 mg kg^−1 (body weight) day^−1 for barium and barium compounds has been recommended.^[Citation63]	It is not nutrient.	The critical end-points in humans for toxicity resulting from exposure to barium and barium compounds appear to be hypertension and renal function.^[Citation63] However, also may cause gastroenteritis (vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain), hypopotassemia, cardiac arrhythmias, and skeletal muscle paralysis.^[Citation63]
Pb	10 mg kg^−1 (EU, 2006).^[Citation64]	Lead is considered one of the most toxic metals and is undesirable in every type of food.^[Citation65]	It is not nutrient.	The toxicity of lead has been widely reported, including the numerous symptoms of lead poisoning.^[Citation66]

Table 7. Baseline values and threshold limits and curve slope of the standardized scoring functions (SSF) for cacao quality indicators in cacao quality index

Quality Indicador	Unit	Function	L	B	U	B1	O	B2	Curve Signal	Curve Slope
pH	Dimensionless	More is better^a	4.00	5.00	6.00				+	2.634
Total Acidity	meq NaOH 100 g^−1	Optimum^b	10.00		17.00	12.00	13.50	15.00	+ and -	1.112
Acetic Acid	mg g^−1	Less is better^c	1.00	2.00	3.00				-	2.781
Lactic Acid	mg g^−1	Less is better^c	0.40	2.20	5.00				-	0.715
Sucrose	mg g^−1	More is better^a	1.00	1.50	2.00				+	5.005
Fructose	mg g^−1	More is better^a	2.00	5.50	9.00				+	0.834
Glucose	mg g^−1	More is better^a	0.50	3.00	5.00				+	1.001
Lipids	g kg^−1	More is better^a	300.00	400.00	500.00				+	0.025
Proteins	g kg^−1	More is better^a	120.00	160.00	200.00				+	0.063
Amino Acids	mg g^−1	More is better^a	5.00	15.00	25.00				+	0.250
Catechin	mg g^−1	More is better^a	0.50	2.00	4.00				+	1.001
Epicatechin	mg g^−1	More is better^a	0.50	2.00	4.00				+	0.834
Total Phenols	mg g^−1	Optimum^b	20.00		100.00	40.00	60.00	80.00	+ and -	0.072
Theobromine	mg g^−1	Less is better^c	5.00	20.00	40.00				-	0.125
Caffeine	mg g^−1	Less is better^c	4.00	6.00	8.00				-	1.001
Nitrogen	g kg^−1	More is better^a	1.50	2.20	3.00				+	2.503
Phosphorus	g kg^−1	More is better^a	1.50	2.20	3.00				+	1.854
Potassium	g kg^−1	More is better^a	4.00	6.00	8.00				+	1.001
Calcium	g kg^−1	More is better^a	1.50	2.30	3.00				+	2.634
Magnesium	g kg^−1	More is better^a	1.00	2.00	3.00				+	1.221
Silicon	g kg^−1	More is better^a	0.50	1.50	3.00				+	1.788
Iron	mg kg^−1	More is better^a	10.00	20.00	30.00				+	0.167
Zinc	mg kg^−1	More is better^a	15.00	30.00	50.00				+	0.125
Copper	mg kg^−1	Optimum^b	5.00		50.00	15.00	28.00	40.00	+ and -	0.173
Manganese	mg kg^−1	More is better^a	10.00	25.00	40.00				+	0.14
Barium	mg kg^−1	Less is better^c	1.00	5.00	8.00				-	0.371
Cadmium	mg kg^−1	Less is better^c	0.10	0.35	0.60				-	7.150
Lead	mg kg^−2	Less is better^c	0.00	0.50	1.00				-	2.503

^aMore is better: L – lower threshold, at which or below the score is 0, B – baseline, at which score is 0.5, U – upper threshold, at which or above score is 1.0

^bOptimum: B1 – lower baseline is 0.5, O – Optimum level, at which score is 1.0, B2 – upper baseline is 0.5.

^cLess is better: L – lower threshold, at which or below the score is 1.0, B – baseline, at which score is 0.5, and U – upper threshold, at which or above score is 0.

Table 8. Summary of scores of the cacao quality index and its functions (cacao in 12 cropping sites characterized by soil types cultivated with PH-16 cacao clone in the humid region of Bahia, Brazil

				Functions
				Cacao Industry (0.20)	Chocolate Flavor (0.30)	Human Health (0.30)	Food Safety (0.20)
Rank	Cropping sites^a	Cacao Quality Index (1.0)	Classification	Average ± Standard Deviation (n = 3)
1	10 PVAd	0.692 ± 0.067	Regular^b	0.1231 ± 0.0072	0.1847 ± 0.042	0.2012 ± 0.0036	0.1831 ± 0.0264
2	1 LAd cam	0.6579 ± 0.0061		0.1073 ± 0.02	0.1695 ± 0.0147	0.1867 ± 0.014	0.1944 ± 0.0069
3	4 LAd	0.6372 ± 0.0379		0.1361 ± 0.0427	0.1667 ± 0.0191	0.1732 ± 0.0059	0.1611 ± 0.0314
4	7 CXd	0.6283 ± 0.0959		0.1305 ± 0.0636	0.1934 ± 0.0374	0.1895 ± 0.02	0.1148 ± 0.0249
5	12 PVAd coe	0.5878 ± 0.0264		0.1154 ± 0.0119	0.1435 ± 0.0127	0.2026 ± 0.0184	0.1264 ± 0.016
6	11 PVA ali	0.5871 ± 0.0716		0.1079 ± 0.0196	0.1785 ± 0.0386	0.1799 ± 0.0104	0.1207 ± 0.0159
7	9 PAd lat	0.5633 ± 0.0269		0.1043 ± 0.015	0.1291 ± 0.0069	0.1902 ± 0.0142	0.1397 ± 0.0095
8	5 LVAd	0.5605 ± 0.0361		0.1012 ± 0.0259	0.148 ± 0.035	0.1579 ± 0.0132	0.1535 ± 0.0272
9	2 PVAd	0.5533 ± 0.0309		0.0922 ± 0.0229	0.1414 ± 0.0296	0.2004 ± 0.0154	0.1193 ± 0.0301
10	6 PVAe cam	0.5513 ± 0.0363		0.0801 ± 0.0238	0.145 ± 0.0359	0.1887 ± 0.0183	0.1376 ± 0.0257
11	8 LVAd arg	0.5428 ± 0.0241		0.0711 ± 0.0027	0.1658 ± 0.0328	0.2024 ± 0.0184	0.1035 ± 0.0022
12	3 PVAd	0.5417 ± 0.0689		0.0989 ± 0.0287	0.1582 ± 0.0455	0.1869 ± 0.0133	0.0977 ± 0.003

^aCropping sites characterized as soil types by Brazilian System of Soil Classification^[13]: cambisolic Dystrophic Yellow Latosol (1 LAd cam); typic Dystrophic Red-Yellow Argisol (2 PVAd); abrupt Dystrophic Red-Yellow Argisol (3 PVAd); typic Dystrophic Yellow Latosol (4 LAd); typic Dystrophic Red-Yellow Latosol (5 LVAd); cambisolic Eutrophic Red-Yellow Argisol (6 PVAe cam); typic Dystrophic Haplic Cambisol (7 CXd); argisolic Dystrophic Red-Yellow Latosol (8 LVAd arg); latosolic Dystrophic Yellow Argisol (9 PAd lat); typic Dystrophic Red-Yellow Argisol (10 PVAd); typic Alitic Red-Yellow Argisol (11 PVA ali); abrupt Cohesive Dystrophic Red-Yellow Argisol (12 PVAd coe).

^bWhen the values are between 0.31 and 0.69.

dos Santos, H. G.; Jacomine, P. K. T.; Dos Anjos, L. H. C.; de Oliveira, V. Á.; Lumbreras, J. F.; Coelho, M. R.; de Almeida, J. A.; Cunha, T. J. F.; de Oliveira, J. B. Sistema Brasileiro de Classificação de Solos, 3rd ed.; Embrapa: Brasilia, DF, 2013.

 Google Scholar

Soil Survey Staff. Keys to Soil Taxonomy; US Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2006.

 Google Scholar

Lobão, D. É.; Setenta, W. C.; de Lobão, É. S. P.; Curvelo, K.; Valle, R. R. Cacau Cabruca - Sistema Agrossilvicultural Tropical. In Ciência, tecnologia e manejo do cacaueiro; Valle, R. R., Ed.; MAPA: Brasilia, DF, 2012; pp 467–506.

 Google Scholar

Biehl, B.; Meyer, B.; Crone, G.; Pollmann, L.; Said, M. B. Chemical and Physical Changes in the Pulp during Ripening and Post-harvest Storage of Cocoa Pods. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1989, 48(2), 189–208. DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.2740480207.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Biehl, B.; Brunner, E.; Passern, D.; Quesnel, V. C.; Adomako, D. Acidification, Proteolysis and Flavour in Fermenting Cocoa Beans. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1985, 36(7), 583–598. DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.2740360710.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Biehl, B.; Voigt, J. Biochemical Approach to Raw Cocoa Quality Improvement: Comparison of Seed Proteins and Proteases in Their Ability to Produce Cocoa Aroma Precursors. Malaysian International Cocoa Conference. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Oct 20–21, 1994. .

 Google Scholar

Lopez, S. A. F.; Passos, F. M. L. Factors Influencing Cacao Bean Acidity-fermentation, Drying and the Microflora. IX International Cocoa Research Conference. Lagos, Nigeria, Cocoa Producer’s Alliance, 1984, 701–704.

 Google Scholar

Bonvehí, J. S.; Coll, F. V. Parameters Affecting the Quality of Processed Cocoa Powder: Acidity Fraction. Z Leb. Unters Forsch A. 1997, 204(4), 287–292. DOI: 10.1007/s002170050079.

 Google Scholar

Holm, C. S.; Aston, J. W.; Douglas, K. The Effects of the Organic Acids in Cocoa on the Flavour of Chocolate. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1993, 61(1), 65–71. DOI: 10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0010.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jinap, S.; Dimick, P. S. Acidic Characteristics of Fermented and Dried Cocoa Beans from Different Countries of Origin. J. Food Sci. 1990, 55(2), 547–550. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.1990.tb06806.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Reineccius, G. A.; Andersen, D. A.; Kavanagh, T. E.; Keeney, P. G. Identification and Quantification of the Free Sugars in Cocoa Beans. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1972, 20(2), 199–202. DOI: 10.1021/jf60180a033.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

de Brito, E. S.; Pezoa García, N. H.; Gallão, M. I.; Cortelazzo, A. L.; Fevereiro, P. S.; Braga, M. R. Structural and Chemical Changes in Cocoa (Theobroma cacao L) during Fermentation, Drying and Roasting. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2001, 81(2), 281–288. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0010%2820010115%2981%3A2<281%3A%3AAID-JSFA808>3.0.CO%3B2-B.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

de A. Loureiro, G. A. H. Atributos qualitativos de solo e amêndoas de cacau comum: revisão, análises e interpretação de relações. Monography; Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, State University of Santa Cruz: Ilhéus, Brazil, 2012.

 Google Scholar

Biehl, B.; Passern, U.; Passern, D. Subcellular Structures in Fermenting Cocoa Beans. Effect of Aeration and Temperature during Seed and Fragment Incubation. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1977, 28(1), 41–52. DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.2740280107.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ávila, M. G.; Dias, J. C. Características de qualidade do cacau comercial da Amazônia brasileira; CEPLAC/SUPOR: Belém, Pará, 1993.

 Google Scholar

Figueira, A., Lambert, S., Carpenter, D., Pires, J. L., Cascardo, J. C. M., & Romanczyk, L. The similarity of cocoa flavour of fermented seeds from fingerprinted genotypes of Theobroma cacao L. from Brazil and Malaysia. Trop. Agric., 1997, 74, 132–139.

 Google Scholar

Beckett, S. T. Industrial Chocolate Manufacture and Use; London: Chapman and Hall, 2009.

 Google Scholar

Beckett, S. T. The Science of Chocolate; Royal Society of Chemistry: London, 2008.

 Google Scholar

Cruz, J. F. M. Caracterização das sementes de variedade de cacau Theobroma cacao L. resistentes à vassoura de bruxa durante a fermentação e após a secagem. Masters dissertation, Faculty of Pharmacy, Federal University of Bahia: Salvador, Brazil, 2012. .

 Google Scholar

Rohsius, C.; Matissek, R.; Lieberei, R. Free Amino Acid Amounts in Raw Cocoas from Different Origins. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2006, 222(3–4), 432–438. DOI: 10.1007/s00217-005-0130-y.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yusep, I.; Jinap, S.; Jamilah, B.; Nazamid, S. Influence of Carboxypeptidases on Free Amino Acid, Peptide and Methylpyrazine Contents of Under-fermented Cocoa Beans. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2002, 82(13), 1584–1592. DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.1232.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Schwan, R. F.; Fleet, G. H. Cocoa and Coffee Fermentations; CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, 2015.

 Google Scholar

Ramli, N.; Yatim, A. M.; Said, M.; Hok, H. C. HPLC Determination of Methylxanthines and Polyphenols Levels in Cocoa and Chocolate Products. Malaysian J. Anal. Sci. 2001, 7(2), 377–386.

 Google Scholar

Cruz, J. F. M.; Leite, P. B.; Soares, S. E.; Bispo, E. D. S. Bioactive Compounds in Different Cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) Cultivars during Fermentation. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 35, 279–284. DOI: 10.1590/1678-457X.6541.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cruz, J. F. M.; Leite., P. B.; Soares, S. E.; da S. Bispo, E. Assessment of the Fermentative Process from Different Cocoa Cultivars Produced in Southern Bahia, Brazil. African J. Biotechnol. 2013, 12(33), 5218–5225. DOI: 10.5897/AJB2013.12122.

 Google Scholar

Oliveira, M. A.; Extração de polifenóis da semente de cacau (Theobroma cacao). Masters dissertation, Technological Center, Federal University of Santa Catarina: Florianópolis, Brazil, 2005.

 Google Scholar

Loureiro, G. A. H. A.; Araujo, Q. R.; Sodré, G. A.; Valle, R. R.; Souza, J. O., Jr.; Ramos, E. M. L. S.; Comerford, N. B.; Grierson, P. F. Cacao Quality: Highlighting Selected Attributes. Food Rev. Int. 2017, 33(4), 382–405. DOI: 10.1080/87559129.2016.1175011.

 Google Scholar

Santana, M. B. M.; Cabala Rosand, P.; de Santana, C. J. L. Exigências nutricionais do cacaueiro. In Exigências nutricionais e uso de fertilizantes em sistemas de produção de cacao; CEPEC/CEPLAC: Ilhéus, Brazil, 1984.

 Google Scholar

Malavolta, E.; Malavolta, M.; Cabral, C. Nota sobre as exigências minerais do cacaueiro. An. da Esc. Super. Agric. “Luiz Queiroz”. 1984, 41, 243–255. DOI: 10.1590/S0071-12761984000100014.

 Google Scholar

Muniz, M. R. A.; de A. Silveira, R. L. V.; dos Santos, P. S. R.; Malta, A.; Sorice, L. S. D. Exportação de nutrientes pelos frutos de cacau de diferentes clones cultivados nas Fazendas Reunidas Vale do Juliana. Addubare RR Agroflorest. 2013, 24, 5–9.

 Google Scholar

FNB, IOM. Manganese. Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin A, Vitamin K, Boron, Chromium, Copper, Iodine, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel, Silicon, Vanadium, and Zinc; National Academy Press: Washington, 2001.

 Google Scholar

Linus Pauling Institute. Micronutrient Information Center. Manganese, Oregon State University. 2014. http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/minerals/manganese.

 Google Scholar

Keen, C.; Zidenberg-Cherr, S. Manganese Toxicity in Humans and Experimental Animals. In Manganese in Health and Disease; Klimis-Zacas, D., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 1994; pp 193–205.

 Google Scholar

FAO, WHO. Vitamin and Mineral Requirements in Human Nutrition, 2nd ed.; WHO: Geneva, 2005.

 Google Scholar

Stoltzfus, R. J. Defining Iron-deficiency Anemia in Public Health Terms: A Time for Reflection. J. Nutr. 2001, 131, 565S–567S. DOI: 10.1093/jn/131.2.565S.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

FNB, IOM. Iron. Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin A, Vitamin K, Arsenic, Boron, Chromium, Copper, Iodine, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel, Silicon, Vanadium, and Zinc; National Academy Press: Washington, 2001.

 Google Scholar

Aggett, P. J. Iron. In Present Knowledge in Nutrition, 10th ed.; Erdman, J. W., Macdonald, I. A., Zeisel, S. H., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Washington, DC, 2012; pp 506–520.

 Google Scholar

Manoguerra, A. S.; Erdman, A. R.; Booze, L. L.; Christianson, G.; Wax, P. M.; Scharman, E. J.; Woolf, A. D.; Chyka, P. A.; Keyes, D. C.; Olson, K. R.; et al. Iron Ingestion: An Evidence-based Consensus Guideline for Out-of-hospital Management. Clin. Toxicol. 2005, 43(6), 553–570. DOI: 10.1081/CLT-200068842.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chang, T. P.-Y.; Rangan, C. Iron Poisoning. Pediatr. Emergency Care. 2011, 27(10), 978–985. DOI: 10.1097/PEC.0b013e3182302604.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Prasad, A. S. Discovery of Human Zinc Deficiency: 50 Years Later. J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. 2012, 26(2–3), 66–69. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtemb.2012.04.004.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

ul Islam, E.; Yang, X.-E.; He, Z.-L.; Mahmood, Q. Assessing Potential Dietary Toxicity of Heavy Metals in Selected Vegetables and Food Crops. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. B. 2007, 8(1), 1–13. DOI: 10.1631/jzus.2007.B0001.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

EU. Comission Regulation (EU) No 1275/2013 of 6 December 2013 Amending Annex I to Directive 2002/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as Regards Maximum Levels for Arsenic, Cadmium, Lead, Nitrites, Volatile Mustard Oil and Harmful Botanical Imp. Off. J. Eur. Union. 2013, 328, 86–92.

 Google Scholar

FNB, IOM. Copper. Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin A, Vitamin K, Boron, Chromium, Copper, Iodine, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel, Silicon, Vanadium, and Zinc; National Academy Press: Washington, 2001.

 Google Scholar

Linus Pauling Institute. Micronutrient Information Center. Copper, Oregon State University, 2014. http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/minerals/copper.

 Google Scholar

EU. Comission Regulation (EU) No 488/2014 of 12 May 2014 Amending Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 as Regards Maximum Levels of Cadmium in Foodstuffs. Off. J. Eur. Union. 2014, 138, 75–79.

 Google Scholar

EFSA. Cadmium Dietary Exposure in the European Population. Efsa J. 2012, 10, 2551. DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2551.

 Google Scholar

WHO. Barium and Barium Compounds. Concise International Chemical Assessment Document 33; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2001.

 Google Scholar

EU. Commission Regulation No. 1881/2006 (19 December 2006) Setting Maximum Levels for Certain Contaminants in Foodstuffs. Off. J. Eur. Union.. 2006, 364, 5–24.

 Google Scholar

ATSDR. Toxicological Profile for Lead; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, ATSDR: U.S., 2007.

 Google Scholar

LEAD. Health Impacts of Lead Poisoning. A Preliminary Listing of the Health Effects & Symptoms of Lead Poisoning; The LEAD Group Inc: Australia, 2011.

 Google Scholar