4.7 Article

Nitrogen isotope composition of organically and conventionally grown crops

期刊

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 55, 期 7, 页码 2664-2670

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jf0627726

关键词

nitrogen; isotope; organic; conventional; delta N-15

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Authentic samples of commercially produced organic and conventionally grown tomatoes, lettuces, and carrots were collected and analyzed for their delta N-15 composition in order to assemble datasets to establish if there are any systematic differences in nitrogen isotope composition due to the method of production. The tomato and lettuce datasets suggest that the different types of fertilizer commonly used in organic and conventional systems result in differences in the nitrogen isotope composition of these crops. A mean delta N-15 value of 8.1% was found for the organically grown tomatoes compared with a mean value of -0.1% for those grown conventionally. The organically grown lettuces had a mean value of 7.6% compared with a mean value of 2.9% for the conventionally grown lettuces. The mean value for organic carrots was not significantly different from the mean value for those grown conventionally. Overlap between the delta N-15 values of the organic and conventional datasets (for both tomatoes and lettuces) means that it is necessary to employ a statistical methodology to try and classify a randomly analyzed off the shelf sample as organic/conventional, and such an approach is demonstrated. Overall, the study suggests that nitrogen isotope analysis could be used to provide useful intelligence to help detect the substitution of certain organic crop types with their conventional counterparts. However, delta N-15 analysis of a test sample will not provide unequivocal evidence as to whether synthetic fertilizers have been used on the crop but could, for example, in a situation when there is suspicion that mislabeling of conventionally grown crops as organic is occurring, be used to provide supporting evidence.

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