4.4 Article

Isotope Analysis (13C, 18O) of Wine From Central and Eastern Europe and Argentina, 2008 and 2009 Vintages: Differentiation of Origin, Environmental Indications, and Variations Within Countries

期刊

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.638941

关键词

oxygen isotope; carbon isotope; water; alcohol; authenticity; geographic origin

资金

  1. bilateral project (Austria-Montenegro) [ME 05/2011]
  2. bilateral project (Austria - Slovenia) [SI 11/2011]
  3. bilateral project (Austria-Argentina) [AR 12/2013]
  4. bilateral project (Austria-Romania) [RO 07/2009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the stable isotope composition of oxygen and carbon of wines from four Central and Southeastern European countries and from Argentina. Similar trends were observed for wines from Austria, Slovenia, and Romania, while Montenegrin and Argentinean samples showed different results. The speculation is that weather development is similar for the first three countries due to their geographical proximity, while Montenegro and Argentina are influenced by different factors.
In this study, we compare the stable isotope composition of oxygen and carbon of wines from four Central and Southeastern European countries and from Argentina to study the similarities and differences in the isotope signatures and, thus, the potential of differentiation of the various wine-growing countries. We observe similar trends for wines from Austria, Slovenia, and Romania with respect to the vintages 2008 and 2009, which are absent in the Montenegrin and Argentinean samples. It is speculated that the weather develops similarly for Austria, Slovenia, and Romania, as these countries are positioned at a similar latitude and not too far away from each other (general central and eastern European weather situation), whereas Montenegro is not influenced by the latter being situated farther south and dominantly influenced by the Adriatic Sea. Investigations on further vintages are needed to test this assumption.

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

4.4
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