4.7 Article

Spatio-temporal trace element fingerprinting of king scallops (Pecten maximus) reveals harvesting period and location

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 697, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134121

关键词

Seafood; Food safety; Traceability; Shellfish; Wild fishery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A rapidly growing human population is increasingly relying on seafood as a source of protein and other essential nutrients. Bivalve shellfish, both from wild populations and aquaculture, will undoubtedly continue to account for a significant portion of overall seafood production, but consumption of such shellfish carries potential health risks. Biotoxins, disease causing organisms and pollution contribute to this risk, as shellfish are indiscriminate, passive filter feeders. While government bodies, industry regulators and producers are capable of managing this risk, counterfeit produce can risk public safety, in turn damaging the reputation of the entire industry. Traceability tools provide a means to uphold food safety standards and mitigate remaining risk to consumers. Here, we show how the use of trace element (TE) signatures in shells and soft tissues of king scallops combined, can predict geographic origin with 100% accuracy. Importantly, we explore the temporal stability of this method, successfully classifying 100% of individuals correctly between two dates just 42 days apart from the same harvesting location. The most important elements in the trace element signatures of the scallops, discriminating between harvesting sites and dates were barium, boron, chromium, lead, manganese, molybdenum and selenium. The traceability tool described here offers a viable method to trace produce to its source, empowering industry regulators, government authorities, aquaculture practitioners and retailers in terms of tracking shellfish throughout the supply chain, which would comply with legislation and boost consumer confidence. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据