There is a serious nomenclature problem with chlorogenic acids, in that CGA was originally numbered as 3-CQA, which it still is by many manufacturers, but when IUPAC rules were applied in 1976, it turned out that the common form, often referred to as chlorogenic acid, should have been 5-CQA, while the less usual neochlorogenic acid should have been 3-CQA. This Wikipedia article appears to be using the older nomenclature. Unfortunately the real world is a complete mess, with some people using old, and some people using new, ever since 1976, with very poor consensus. The situation is summarized in the following reference: http:////0100-
To help future readers understand the difficulty in interpreting the CGA literature, and define better what they're working with, I wonder whether this article needs clarification. I would like (1) to add a short paragraph explaining the problem, citing the above reference; (2) add 5-CQA etc. to the list of alternative names. I am deeply concerned about this because I don't want to imply that 3-CQA and 5-CQA are the same thing, or that it's acceptable to refer to the same compound interchangeably by either name! Unfortunately, though, that's what's happened, and since this is an encyclopedia describing the world, rather than a prescription of what ought to happen, I think we have to allow for readers searching for CGA by either name.
I will go ahead and add this paragraph in a week or two if no one tells me not to. At the same time, I will tidy the "presence in food" section, and change the wording for Hibiscus from "was discovered" to "has been found", as the former implies that it was first discovered there, while the latter adds Hibiscus to the list of foodstuffs containing CGA ('it has been discovered that Hibiscus contains...' would have been ok too, though a bit too emphatic; we speak a strange language!). Thanks for any input. -- ( talk ) 14:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC) I notice someone's added an extra, and extremely helpful reference to this. It's been marked (by a bot?) as potentially an unreliable reference, but it actually reads with authority and so far as I can tell is correct and valuable. Thanks for adding it, oh anonymous wiki-editor! ( talk ) 10:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Or there is the espresso-and-milk option. Start with a mild espresso coffee composed of inherently low-acid coffees – look for all-Brazil or Brazil-based espresso blends. Click on “Advanced Search” on the Coffee Review home page, choose “Espresso” in the “Type” column and enter “Brazil” in the keywords box. Or perform the same search, but try “Nicaragua” or “Sumatra” in the keywords box. All should give you a list of relatively low-acid espressos. If you don’t buy your coffee by Internet try to find Illy Caffè, a very low-acid espresso, at upscale grocers. Brew this coffee espresso-style in a short shot of an ounce or so and combine it with about three parts hot frothed milk for a beverage that still tastes like coffee but is quite easy on the digestive system (assuming the system’s owner is not lactose intolerant).