4.7 Article

87Sr/86Sr ratio as traceability marker for Modena's balsamic vinegars

期刊

LWT-FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 147, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2021.111571

关键词

n(Sr-87)/n(Sr-86) ratio; Aceto Balsamico Tradizionale di Modena PDO; Aceto Balsamico di Modena PGI; Geographic traceability; MC-ICP/MS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Geographical origin and authenticity of food are key interests for consumers and producers, with the n(Sr-87)/n(Sr-86) isotopic ratio providing useful results in traceability studies. The study focused on the production chains of balsamic vinegars in Modena province, showing the potential to differentiate industrially made Aceto Balsamico di Modena (ABM) from traditional Aceto Balsamico Tradizionale di Modena (ABTM) using this indicator. The results also confirmed the objective link of food products with their raw materials and the territory of origin.
Geographical origin and authenticity of food are topics of interest for both consumers and producers. Among the different indicators used for traceability studies, n(Sr-87)/n(Sr-86) isotopic ratio has provided excellent results. In this study, the production chains of the balsamic vinegars of the Modena province, the Aceto Balsamico Tradizionale di Modena (ABTM) and the industrially made Aceto Balsamico di Modena (ABM) were investigated by using the n(Sr-87)/n(Sr-86) indicator. The geographical origin of the starting raw materials for the ABM production was investigated, as well as the variability of ABM samples of different production years, namely 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2014. The results show no significant variability among ABM samples of different production years and highlight the possibility to distinguish this product from the ABTM. Furthermore, the investigated indicator also confirms an objective link of the food with its starting raw material and the territory of origin of the grapes, assessing the discriminating power of n(Sr-87)/n(Sr-86) ratio for geographical traceability studies.

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