Next Article in Journal
Sustainability of the Olive Oil System
Next Article in Special Issue
Differences in the Levels of the Selected Phytoestrogens and Stable Isotopes in Organic vs. Conventional Hops and Beer
Previous Article in Journal
Development of Nervilia fordii Extract-Loaded Electrospun PVA/PVP Nanocomposite for Antioxidant Packaging
Previous Article in Special Issue
Construction of IsoVoc Database for the Authentication of Natural Flavours
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 10
Issue 8
10.3390/foods10081729
Review Report
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

The Provenance of Slovenian Milk Using 87Sr/86Sr Isotope Ratios

Foods 2021, 10(8), 1729; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10081729
by Staša Hamzić Gregorčič 1,2, Nives Ogrinc 1,2, Russell Frew 3, Marijan Nečemer 2, Lidija Strojnik 1,2 and Tea Zuliani 1,2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Foods 2021, 10(8), 1729; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10081729
Submission received: 20 June 2021 / Revised: 15 July 2021 / Accepted: 21 July 2021 / Published: 27 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Food Origin Analysis with Isotope Fingerprints)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall this is important work containing Sr isotope data for the region. However, there are several issues that need to be addressed before publication:

The Sr isotope data are of lower quality (precision) than expected for Nu-Plasma MC-ICP-MS. The reported average value and reproducibility for the standard (NBS 987) is an order of magnitude worse than expected. For example, typically NBS 987 for MC-ICP-MS instruments will be 0.71024 +/-0.00003 (2-sigma error) – in contrast they report 0.71034 +/-0.00026, which is almost 10x worse error. Also not clear if this 0.00026 is 1 or 2 sigma error? Same for the data – the error is also an order of magnitude worse than expected. This is strange and not clear what is the reason? Did you use 86/88 fractionation correction during the analysis or only standard-sample-standard bracketing?  

The above issue of precision affects some of the interpretations/conclusions. For example, looking at the seasonal Sr isotope data in some cases there is difference between summer and winter. However, given the much higher error than typical then the data will be mostly within error. Therefore, the conclusion that there is no difference between summer and winter milk is not quite true (just a result of inferior Sr isotope data)..

Lines 286-288 – this is not true. The trend (if any) is actually opposite: higher 87/86 with higher Sr concentrations for the Quaternary sample. By the way, there are labels for only 3 of the symbols on fig.4. Either label all or remove the 3 labels and state in the captions that the symbols are the same as fig.3.

Lines 406-409 in the conclusions: these are two contradicting sentences. The first states that “Sr isotopes in the milk are “mixed isotope ratio of strontium from the feed and drinking water” then the next sentence states that “Sr is from the drinking water”!!

At the end, although the manuscript is overall understandable the English will need improvement.

Author Response

See attachement.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

See attached pdf file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

See attachement.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

the paper is OK in its current form.

Back to TopTop