4.6 Article

The impact of moderate heating on human bones: an infrared and neutron spectroscopy study

期刊

ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE
卷 8, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsos.210774

关键词

human bones; moderate heating; aerobic versus anaerobic heating; FTIR-ATR; INS; forensic and archaeological sciences

资金

  1. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology [UIDB/00070/2020]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed human bones exposed to low/medium temperatures using optical and neutron vibrational spectroscopy techniques. Clear differences were observed between bones heated in aerobic and anaerobic conditions, with specific spectroscopic biomarkers identified at different temperature ranges.
This study aims to analyse human bones exposed to low/medium temperatures (200-650 degrees C) under experimentally controlled conditions, both oxidizing and reducing, using complementary optical and neutron vibrational spectroscopy techniques. Clear differences were observed between the aerobically and anaerobically heated bones. The organic constituents disappeared at lower temperatures for the former (ca 300 degrees C), while they lingered for higher temperatures in anaerobic environments (ca 450-550 degrees C). Unsaturated non-graphitizing carbon species (chars) were detected mainly for anaerobically heated samples, and cyanamide formation occurred only at 650 degrees C in reducing settings. Overall, the main changes were observed from 300 to 400 degrees C in anaerobic conditions and from 450 to 500 degrees C in aerobic environments. The present results enabled the identification of specific spectroscopic biomarkers of the effect of moderate temperatures (less than or equal to 650 degrees C) on human bone, thus contributing to a better characterization of forensic and archaeological skeletal remains subject to heating under distinct environmental settings. In particular, these data may provide information regarding cannibalism or ancient bone boiling and defleshing rituals.

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

4.6
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