Food Control 124 (2021) 107866

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Control
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodcont

A traceability-support system to control safety and sustainability indicators

in food distribution
A. Gallo a, R. Accorsi a, *, A. Goh b, H. Hsiao b, c, R. Manzini a
a
Department of Industrial Engineering, Alma Mater Studiorum – University of Bologna, Viale Risorgimento 2, 40136, Bologna, Italy
b
Department of Food Science, National Taiwan Ocean University, Keelung, Taiwan
c
Institute of Food Safety and Risk Management, National Taiwan Ocean University, Taiwan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Whilst policymakers encourage companies to control food distribution and ensure products’ safety and
Traceability compliance with regulations, the fragmentation of food supply chains, made of multiple stages and companies,
Perishables distribution affects synergies and the supervision of such operations. Nonetheless the level of maturity of traceability tech­
Food safety
nologies, several issues still prevent their adoption, diffusion, and integration. To address such a lack, this article
Quality decay
Food operations
illustrates a traceability-support tool that integrates and aligns data from heterogeneous sources and quantifies
Sustainability the impact of the operations on food products aiding data-driven decision-making. This tool builds upon a GIS
infrastructure and manipulates heterogeneous traceability records gathered along the processes of the food
supply chain to calculate a dashboard of multidisciplinary indicators related to three pillars of food systems:
safety, cost, and environmental sustainability. A real-world distribution process regarding three batches of fresh
fruits handled and shipped by a logistic provider located in North Italy is used as a testbed. The tool estimates the
time fence where products experienced unsafe conservation temperatures (i.e. 8% of distribution time) together
with the impact on the product’s shelf life decay and the carbon emissions from transportation. Therefore, this
tool contributes to shedding light on the impacts that occur throughout food distribution and aids decision-
making by logistic managers and quality managers, as well as improving consumers’ awareness products’
shelf life and footprint.

1. Introduction and motivation
As supply chain networks expand globally and food distribution
operations compel longer routes, the control of food safety and envi­
ronmental impacts throughout the supply chain caught the attention of
companies and consumers (Matzembacher et al., 2018). Longer routes
and several actors involved in food distribution increase the risk of
spoilage due to thermal stresses and bacteria proliferation. The frag­
mentation of food supply chains, made of multiple stages and com­
panies, affects synergies and supervision of the operations (Accorsi et al.,
2018). Worldwide, up to 30% of all produced food is wasted before
reaching the final consumers (Kefalidou, 2016). Albeit the supply chain
players cannot completely avoid cold chain disruptions, uncontrolled
distribution conditions result in losses, nearly always threatening com­
panies’ reputation, and often even consumers’ health (Stoecker, 1998).
Critical post-harvest conditions, typical of adverse climate region­
s/seasons, affect the quality and shelf-life of products (Mercier et al.,
2017; Aung & Chang, 2014a, 2014b), and require promptly detec­
ting/predicting incidents, disruptions, and stresses that occurred (Aung
& Chang, 2014a, 2014b).
Policymakers encourage companies to buckle down respecting the
proper conservation conditions of food products and ensure their quality
at destination to protect the consumers (Regattieri et al., 2007; Abad
et al., 2009). Adopting traceability proves the compliance to regulations
and standards (e.g. HACCP analyses, ISO 9001:2000), certifying the
proper conservation conditions of the distributed products (Hajnar et al.,
2004, ISO standard 8402:1994). Indeed, according to the International
Organization for Standardization traceability is “the ability to trace and
follow a food, feed, food producing animal or ingredients, through all stages
of production and distribution” (ISO standard 8402:1994).
Traceability systems have a twofold purpose. They allow (1) con­
trolling supply chain operations and figuring out the way wherein
products are processed, stored, and shipped (i.e. tracking), and (2)
monitoring product-based and process-based characteristics (e.g. level

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: riccardo.accorsi2@unibo.it (R. Accorsi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.107866
Received 25 October 2020; Received in revised form 2 January 2021; Accepted 5 January 2021
Available online 9 January 2021
0956-7135/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Gallo et al. Food Control 124 (2021) 107866

of freshness, quality, energy consumption) throughout the product life Table 1

cycle (i.e. tracing) (Salomie et al., 2008). Tailored and effective trace­ Classification of issues preventing the collection, integration, and alignment of
ability systems provide managerial insight to decision-makers, highlight traceability data.
potential criticalities in their processes, and evaluate the sustainability High Lack of Lack of Missing
of alternative distribution strategies (Manzini & Accorsi, 2013). infrastructure standardization cooperation traceability
The literature embraces this issue illustrating advanced technologies cost data

and ICT applications to improve traceability systems (Panetto et al., Abad et al. ●
2020). The adoption of barcodes (Galimberti et al., 2013), temperature (2009)
Alfian et al.
and humidity sensors, RFID tags (Bibi et al., 2017), wireless sensor ●
(2017)
networks (Li et al., 2015; Xiao et al., 2016), blockchain and the smart Bibi et al. ● ●
contracts (Kim et al., 2018) provide integrated monitoring systems to­ (2017)
ward the Internet-of-Things (IoT) paradigm, with the attempt of Galimberti ●
continuously monitoring the physical flow of products and reporting et al.
(2013)
management, cost and safety stressors (Badia-Melis et al., 2015; Accorsi Hardt et al. ● ●
et al., 2017). (2017)
Despite the level of maturity of such technologies, several issues still Jones et al. ● ●
limit their adoption in supply chains and result in poorly integrated (2005)
Li et al.
traceability systems (Hardt et al., 2017). Firstly, the cost of imple­ ●
(2015)
menting and maintaining ICT infrastructures and hardware is unaf­ Qi et al. ●
fordable for most small and medium companies involved in the food (2014)
industry (Sun et al., 2017). Furthermore, these companies (i.e. 62% of Regattieri ● ● ●
the European food sector) already suffering from unbalanced bargaining et al.
(2007)
power along the supply chain do not trust traceability’s benefits in light
Shanahan ●
of the stated disadvantages (i.e. product recall, fines, legal liability) (Mai et al.
et al., 2010). Secondly, lack of standardization exists among traceability (2009)
systems resulting in heterogeneous output records, and poor alignment Storøy et al. ● ●
(2013)
between acquisition hardware solutions and several data sources
Sun et al. ● ●
(Bosona & Gebresenbet, 2013; Hsiao & Huang, 2016). Third, the scarce (2017)
collaboration between food supply chain players prevents to collect, Zhang and ● ●
store, and share tracked profiles and records. The number of actors and Wang
procedures increases with the need to recur to third party logistics (3 PL) (2009)
Hsiao and
providers for perishable storage and distribution operations. Companies
●
Huang
reluctant to exchange information, generate several independent and (2016)
heterogeneous data sources (Muljarto et al., 2017). Lastly, the poor Badia-Melis ● ● ●
penetration of traceability and monitoring technologies in the food et al.
(2015)
sector due to lack of hard skills and ICT knowledge among the practi­
Kim et al. ● ● ●
tioners results in missing, asynchronous, or incomplete datasets (Xu, (2018)
2017). Table 1 classifies recent articles which explore the issues pre­
venting the penetration of traceability systems thereby providing the
motivation to this paper. throughout food distribution and aids decision-making of logistic man­
Traceability systems adopted in most supply chains solely track and agers and quality managers, as well as improving consumers’ awareness
trace a few and misaligned data which does not cover the whole product of the status and impact of purchased products.
life cycle and not unveil the impacts/stresses brought about operations. Fig. 1 portrays the research framework highlighting the gap in the
This data hardly ever complies with the quality and safety standards literature and states the Research Questions (RQs) addressed by the tool.
imposed by regulation on perishables supply chain (e.g., food, The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces
biomedical, pharmaceutical, feed, seeds). Despite some tested the the materials and the methods used to develop the traceability-support
adoption of surveillance systems of the storage facilities to fill gaps in tool and underlines the novel contribution with respect to the litera­
GPS records (Mao et al., 2015), traceability systems able to collect and ture. Within Section 2, three sub-sections discuss how the main func­
estimate the shelf life of products and other impacts of the distribution tionalities of the tool have been developed, together with the methods
operations are necessary and still lacking. used to calculate the indicators. Section 3 illustrates the application of
To address such needs, this article illustrates a novel traceability- this tool in practice with different profiles of perishable product distri­
support tool that integrates and aligns data from heterogeneous sour­ bution. Section 4 is devoted to discussing the outcomes of the analyses
ces and quantifies the impact of operations on perishables aiding data- and recognizing potential fields of application of the tool, whilst Section
driven decision-making. This tool, developed in C#.NET, builds upon 5 concludes the paper and summarizes final remarks.
a GIS infrastructure, and manipulates heterogeneous traceability re­
cords gathered along the processes of the food supply chain to calculate 2. Materials and methods
a dashboard of multidisciplinary indicators related to three pillars of
food systems: safety, cost, and environmental sustainability. The novelty The food supply chain suffers from low information integration
of this research lies in three functionalities of the tool. It (1) puts among players (i.e., producers, distributors, carriers, retailers) and op­
together and aligns records gathered from heterogeneous sources erations. Some of the main reasons are of economic and organizational
regarding the distribution operations experienced by perishables along nature. Firstly, sensors that track products throughout the distribution
the supply chain; (2) infers missing data by interfacing with routing phases are unfordable for most supply chain players. Secondly, their
systems and weather forecast service; and (3) quantifies the quality return is not certain unless are not embedded into reusable containers.
decay of products, together with food miles, energy consumption and Therefore, undirect traceability is carried out by integrating and align­
carbon emissions resulting from transportation. Therefore, this tool ing heterogeneous records and sources as represented in Fig. 2.
contributes to shedding light on the stresses and impacts that occur Traceability of perishables operations requires geographic references

2
A. Gallo et al. Food Control 124 (2021) 107866

Fig. 1. Traceability issues, impacts and research framework.

Fig. 2. Integration of heterogeneous traceability data sources.

and the measure of the environmental conditions affecting the product
(Baralla et al., 2020). Whilst the first is provided by trucks’ GPS or fa­
cilities’ ERPs (Enterprise Resource Planning systems), sensors collect the
temperature, humidity, vibration wherein products are handled. GPS
coordinates belong to the vehicle, are independent with the load, and
neither recorded as a label of the product from a vehicle to another (Yu
et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020). Sensors are expensive and the low
marginality of food like fresh agricultural varieties does not justify a
broad and capillary network of embedded tags (Sun & Wang, 2019).
From such considerations two RQs arise:

3
A. Gallo et al.
- RQ1. How to align traceability records gathered from heterogeneous
sources along supply chain operations?
- RQ2. How to estimate missing data and face traceability disruption
in perishables distribution?
The literature reveals how this fails to address the claimed RQs. The
need for integrating, fixing, cleaning, and manipulating data collected
throughout the supply chain operations is enabled by the proposed
traceability-support system using external GIS and weather services.
While tracking the whole distribution profile of a product, the proposed
novel tool detects when critical conditions (extreme temperatures) are
experienced, or product-dependent quality thresholds overcome.
Table 2 summarizes recent approaches proposed in the literature to
solve the main traceability issues and highlights the comparison with
our system.
2.1. Integrating heterogeneous data sources
The lack of a standard in traceability systems and the reluctancy in
sharing data between different supply chain actors determine the pro­
liferation of several distributed and heterogeneous data sources, each
owned by a different supply chain actor as shown in Fig. 2. Such inde­
pendent traceability systems may differ in the data architecture, the
information format, the variables/attributes tracked, the accuracy of
data, the sampling rate (Kamilaries et al., 2016). The resulting poor
integration of data profiles limits the awareness of the product conser­
vation state and its location. Furthermore, this fragmented information
affects the overall visibility on the operations and the opportunity for
optimizing storage and distribution operations though devoted strate­
gies already exist (Akkerman et al., 2010; Accorsi et al., 2017, 2018).
The compliance to regulations and safety standards is therefore re­
sponsibility of the single actors and efforts for sharing knowledge are
rare and pushed just in case of recall (Aung & Chang, 2014a, 2014b).
Because traceability results from the combination of technology, infor­
mation systems, partnerships among actors, and organizational patterns,
issues come from practice and scholars are rarely involved in the
development of practice-ready solutions (Storøy et al., 2013).
Some propose an integrated data schema and an Object-Oriented
model for integrating of heterogeneous traceability data into a virtual­
ized environment (Chen et al., 2009). Virtualization avoids duplicating
information along the chain but does not provide physical integration
within a unique dataset. It requires that queries be disaggregated into
sub-queries directed to multiple data sources and real-time access to
distributed sources.
Table 2
Literature survey on traceability issues and proposed approaches.
Traceability Regulations & standards
systems compliance
Abad et al. (2009) ● ●
Alfian et al. (2017) ● ●
Bibi et al. (2017) ● ●
Galimberti et al. (2013) ● ●
Hardt et al. (2017) ● ●
Li et al. (2015) ● ●
Muljarto et al. (2017)
Qi et al. (2014) ● ●
Regattieri et al. (2007) ● ●
Shanahan et al. (2009) ● ●
Storøy et al. (2013) ● ●
Xiao et al. (2016) ● ●
Chen and Liu (2009)
Zhang and Wang ● ●
(2009)
Badia-Melis et al. ● ●
(2015)
Kim et al. (2018) ● ●
This paper ● ●
Food Control 124 (2021) 107866
Conversely, the proposed tool uses a materialized approach to data
integration, forcing the physical integration of data sources (s ∈ S) into
a unique database quickly accessible by the decision-maker or the
practitioner as illustrated in Fig. 2. Data integration is built upon a set of
relevant attributes, namely global schema, defined per record (r ∈ Rs )
including a product (ir ) and a batch code (br ) or a truck (τr ), a timestamp
(tr ), geographic coordinates (latr , longr ), and at least a metric regarding
the environmental conditions (i.e. temperature, Trload ). Data schema
representing the structure of data at each independent source s is filtered
and unified into the global schema within a new integrated database. A
keyword search is carried out within the data sources to find the attri­
butes (i.e. columns) required by the global schema, and format-
dependent (e.g. datasheets, csv, text files, local or online databases)
extraction functionalities properly called. The highest sampling fre­
quency fixes the interval time between two consequent records (i.e. rows
r). Lastly, all the rows are normalized according to a unique unit of
measure and ordered chronologically. New empty records r* are auto­
matically generated considering the greatest common factor of the
gcf
timestamps (i.e. (t )) thereby filling gaps within this discrete
Us∈S r ∈ Rs r
timeline.
On demand, the rows of the final set (R : Us∈S r ∈ Rs Ur* ∈ E) are
clustered according to the batch code br or the product ir to build the
entire traceability profile experienced by a unit load. Whereas sensors
have no embedded GPS, the begin/end of the transportation phase is
deduced from the check-in/check-out tracks carried out at the inbound/
outbound warehousing operations. In such a case, the inbound/
outbound timestamps reveal when a batch (a product or a vehicle and its
entire cargo) achieves or departs from a facility. Thus, the resulting
dataset enables extract traceability profiles pertaining to a single prod­
uct, a unit load, or a vehicle and its entire cargo.
2.2. Estimating missing data
Because the integrated database contains traceability records coming
from heterogeneous sources s, it likely presents uneven sampling in­
tervals and missing records due to data losses/corruption or unsuper­
vised supply chain stages. Estimating missing, empty, or incomplete
attributes is therefore necessary.
Having that a complete knowledge of operations is unfeasible
(Koushanfar et al., 2006), the estimation of missing traceability data is a
broadly debated problem in the literature. Common approaches for data
estimation include data mining techniques (Gruenwald et al., 2007;
Alfian et al., 2017), machine learning and deep neural networks
IT Data Missing data Supply chain
architecture Integration estimation management
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
● ●
●
● ●
●
●
● ●
● ● ●
4
A. Gallo et al.
(Prabowo et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2018) as well as temporal and spatial
correlation (Gao et al., 2015).
With respect to these methods, the proposed tool provides
geographical reference and the measures of environmental conditions
using external GIS and weather services implementing the algorithm
proposed in Fig. 3. An embedded routing service calculates the shortest
path between two geographic locations (both referenced by GPS co­
ordinates or an address) and fills in the geographic coordinates’ columns
(latr , longr ) belonging to the records in between. The average traffic-
dependent speed on the route is used to align the coordinates with the
timestamp of each row r. Then, the timestamp tr and the geographic
coordinates (latr , longr ) are used to query a weather web service which
returns the on-site air temperature, irradiance, and other environmental
features. The developed estimation procedures are further described in
the following sub-sections.
Fig. 3. The proposed framework for this traceability-support tool.
5
Food Control 124 (2021) 107866
2.2.1. Estimation of spatial data
The GPS data gathered by vehicles provides the spatial coordinates of
the load throughout the transportation stages. Missing information oc­
curs from vehicles with no embedded GPS or when the tracing profile is
not downloaded into a facility data repository at the destination. In such
a case, the geographic coordinates (latr , longr ) are estimated through an
external routing service. A historical profile of routes is queried with the
pair of locations (i.e. an origin and a destination) that bound the empty
records. Analyzing past tracked distribution paths identifies visited fa­
cility in between an origin and a destination throughout the supply
chain and contributes to unblind the invisible logistic operations. The
query returns, whether exists, a set of intermediate logistic facilities
visited in the past to connect the origin with the destination. The
timestamp of the previous complete record together with the average
speed over the road network are used to align the time with the spatial
coordinates. Lastly, a routing service calculates the estimated location at
the given time. This tool is based on the grids provided by Open
A. Gallo et al.
StreetMap (OpenStreetMap, 2019) and the routing functions provided
by Itinero (Itinero, 2019). Because the routes are repetitive within a
supply chain, and missing GPS coordinates are usually limited to narrow
batches, the use of waypoints represents a good approximation of the
real routes.
2.2.2. Estimation of environmental data
Perishable products are likely to spoil, decay, or unsafe whereas not
stored properly. Food products have indeed a random shelf-life, mostly
due to the environmental conditions experienced throughout the supply
chains, such as improper handling temperature as well as uncertain
transportation time (Ketzenberg et al., 2018). Albeit sensors track the
temperatures and trace the environmental conditions affecting the
products, they are way expensive and most of the supply chain opera­
tions are still out of control.
The records with no temperature attributes (i.e. r ∈ R : Trload = ()) are
filled in by this tool using an external weather service (World Weather
Online, 2019). It provides environmental temperature Trenv on an hourly
basis from both forecasts and historical series having the spatial co­
ordinates of each record (latr , longr ) and the timestamp tr . Depending on
the characteristics of the shipment (i.e. standard vs. refrigerated) and
the features of vehicle τr methods for predicting Trload given Trenv are
embedded into the tool (see an example in Eq. (1)).
⎛ ⎞
load
( env load
) ⎜ − mAτ ⋅k⋅cτ ⋅(tr − tr− 1 ) ⎟
Tr = Tr− 1 − Tr− 1 ⋅ ⎝1 − e br pir ⎠ + Tr−load1 (1)
Where Aτ is the surface area of the container (or vehicle τr ) (m2), kτ is the
heat transition coefficient of the container (or vehicle τr ) (W/m2K), mbr
is the load mass of batch b tracked at record r (kg), cpir is the specific heat
capacity of the product ir (J/kg K).
When spatial coordinates are unavailable and querying the weather
service is not feasible, linear regression is used to estimate Trload from the
previous and following available records.
2.2.3. Estimation of shelf-life data
Having gathered spatial coordinates and estimated the conservation
temperature Trload per each record r, the tool estimates shelf-life decay for
products over the distribution time. Several microbial growth prediction
models can be easily incorporated within the tool at this stage depending
on the product’s category or variety. For instance, Pseudomonas spp. can
be used as specific spoilage indicator for fresh fruit products (Raposo
et al., 2016). The adoption of this indicator entails microbial growth
curve fitting of the input parameters (initial bacteria concentration, pH,
Aw) as performed at the temperature range of 0 ◦ C to 25 ◦ C in previous
studies (Serradilla et al., 2013; Buyukunal, 2015). The resulting kinetic
parameter are used to estimate the activation energy (Ea (ir )) of the
product ir considering the slope of Arrhenius plot ln(k) versus (1/Trload -
1/Tref) obtained by linear regression (Taoukis, Labuza, & Saguy, 1997)
as in Eq. (2):
( )
( ) Ea (ir ) 1 1
ln(k) = ln kref − ⋅ load − (2)
R Tr Tref
Where kref is the constant growth rate of Pseudomonas spp. at reference
temperature (Δtr − 1), Tref is the reference temperature (e.g. 273.15 K),
Trload is the conservation temperature (K) of record r, Ea (ir ) is the acti­
vation energy of product ir (J/molK) and R is the universal gas constant.
The difference in concentration of spoilage limit (log Nl) and the
initial microbial load (log N0) of Pseudomonas spp. couples with Eq. (2)
to obtain the estimated shelf-life Qr
shelf
reported in Eq. (3) as follows:
6
Food Control 124 (2021) 107866
logNl − logN0
Qshelf
r = ( ) (3)
−
Ea (ir )
R ⋅
1
Trload
− 1
Tref
kref ⋅ e
2.2.4. Estimating logistic impacts
The profiles built at the previous steps by merging and manipulating
records, are used to estimate the impacts of logistic and distribution
operations and hence to label the products with metrics of impacts their
supply chain brought about.
Given the characteristics of vehicle τr , the mass load mbr of the lot br,
the utilization of the truck capacity is calculated for each shipment.
Different road categories, extracted from the routing service per each
path, provide the average traveling speeds used to calculate GHGs
emissions CO2τ , fuel consumption fuelτ , and energy consumption Eτ .
Recently published studies (Stellingwerf et al., 2018; Gharehyakheh
et al., 2020) discussed empirical methods, implemented in this tool, to
estimate carbon emissions, energy, and fuel consumption regarding
refrigerated or standard vehicles. Details about the vehicles and the
emission/consumption performance are gathered from the online
database Lipasto (Lipasto, 2019).
2.3. User interfaces
An effective traceability tool tracks orders, batches and products
throughout processing, packaging, and distribution operations and trace
key metrics of impact that assure to comply with regulations and stan­
dards and to increase consumers’ trust (Gao et al., 2019). At the same
time, practitioners increase visibility on the products’ status to convey
data-driven analysis and decision on the supply chain’s entities and
features (e.g. unit loads, batches, vehicles, labor). Under increased op­
erations control, safety issues can be promptly detected avoiding
corrective actions (e.g. recall) and prevent from risks.
That said, the proposed traceability-support tool, intended for
practitioners, provides a set of Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) written
in C#.NET to extract records from the database and plot queries or KPIs.
The records are extracted, manipulated, and arranged in chronological
order. The GUIs include a GIS plug-in based on OpenStreetMap that
shows the status of several entities (i.e. orders/batches, nodes, and ve­
hicles) over time. A dashboard of KPIs composed of six dynamic charts is
updated at the sampling frequency (Δtr − 1) where different lines refer to
different tracked entities (e.g. a vehicle τr , a unit load, or a batch br of
product i).
Fig. 4 shows the main GUI of this tool. The map reports the route
travelled by a cargo of three pallets of different products (i.e. grape,
peach, and cherry) shipped via truck (namely Vehicle A) from a facility
(warehouse) in Melzo to Orzinuovi. For the traceability profile proposed
in Fig. 4, the available records are gathered at the warehouse in Melzo
and estimated for the transportation process in agreement with the al­
gorithm presented in Fig. 3 given a non-refrigerated truck. The dynamic
charts of this GUI trace over time the value of the load temperature Trload ,
the cumulated travelled distance d τr by truck τ, the percentage quality
shelf
decay Qr , together with the energy Eτ and fuel consumption fuelτ and
the carbon equivalent emissions CO2τ from transportation.
This tool implements two main functionalities (i.e. control vs. anal­
ysis). Under control mode, assuming a network of heterogeneous data
sources (s ∈ S), the tool estimates missing records of a traceability
profile and exploits this profile to control the conservation conditions, to
detect warnings or to make real-time operational decisions (e.g. ship­
ping scheduling, prioritizing loads according to first-expiring-first-out
policy, dispose unsafe products). On the other side, under analysis
mode, the tool extracts historical records from the database, estimates
the missing records, and provides the practitioners with the overall
distribution profile experienced by a product or a batch, thereby aiding
punctual recall actions, or identifying recurrent safety threats occurring
A. Gallo et al. Food Control 124 (2021) 107866

Fig. 4. Main GUI of the proposed traceability-support tool.

throughout the distribution process.

Table 3
Parameters to determine the growth rates of Pseudomonas spp. estimated by
3. Proof of concept statistical fit (DM Fit program) considering isothermal conservation (from 0 ◦ C
to 20 ◦ C). The acceptable limit of Pseudomonas spp. used is at 7 log CFU/g.
An application of this traceability-support tool to the distribution Isothermal Conservation TLoad (◦ C)
operations of a Third-Party Logistics service Provider (3 PL) committed
0 ◦C 5 ◦C 10 ◦ C 15 ◦ C 20 ◦ C
for fresh food logistics at national scale is illustrated in this section. The
tracked supply chain operations concern the distribution of three Cherry
batches of products from a centralized warehouse in Melzo to the N0 (log CFU/g) 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42
Nmax (log CFU/g) 8.26 8.26 8.26 8.26 8.26
retailer distribution center in Orzinuovi, both located in North Italy as k (h− 1) 0.012a 0.024b 0.044c 0.074d 0.116e
shown in Fig. 4. The order must be delivered before 9 a.m. λ (h) 148.38 74.19 40.47 24.06 15.35
Temperature records Trload are collected from the climate-control
Peach
system at the Melzo warehouse. As the non-refrigerated truck is not
N0 (log CFU/g) 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35
equipped with any GPS or temperature sensor, the routing service is Nmax (log CFU/g) 8.26 8.26 8.26 8.26 8.26
enquired by the tool to obtain the spatial coordinates (latr , longr ) over k (h− 1) 0.017a 0.034b 0.061c 0.106d 0.161e
time from origin to destination. Given the spatial coordinate (latr , longr ) λ (h) 107.74 53.37 29.19 16.8 11.06
of the truck τr at each record r, the environmental temperature Trenv is
Grape
gathered from a weather service and the load temperature Trload esti­
N0 (log CFU/g) 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35
mated through Eq. (1). Therefore, Eqs. (2) and (3) estimates the per­ Nmax (log CFU/g) 8.26 8.26 8.26 8.26 8.26
shelf k (h− 1) 0.012a 0.024b 0.044c 0.074d 0.116e
centage of quality decay Qr at each record r, because of the variation
λ (h) 148.38 74.19 40.47 24.06 15.35
of the conservation temperature over time.
Table 3 reports the product-dependent parameters to determine the a-e
Different superscripts in the same row indicate significant differences (p <
growth rates of Pseudomonas spp. estimated by the commercial software 0.05).
DM Fit considering an isothermal conservation from 0 ◦ C to 20 ◦ C. As *N0 initial microbial concentration, Nmax maximum microbial concentration, k
expected, the growth rates of Pseudomonas spp. in the batches of fresh growth rate, λ lag phase.
fruits increase significantly with storage temperatures (p < 0.05). The
parameters of the Arrhenius model for the growth of Pseudomonas spp.
Table 4
and estimated shelf-life are reported in Table 4.
Parameters of the Arrhenius model to determine the growth of Pseudomonas spp.
Given the parameters of Tables 3 and 4, Fig. 5 manipulates the and estimated shelf-life.
traceability profiles built and estimated through this tool and plots the
kref (Tref = Ea(i) (kJ/ R2 TLoad Estimated shelf-
impacts of the temperature variation over time on the quality decay. The 0 ◦ C) (h− 1) mol) (◦ C) life (h)
charts of Fig. 5 draw the quality decay (as growth Pseudomonas spp.)
Cherry 0.012 71.20 0.9974 15 90.9
estimated with different assumptions and prediction models. Among
Peach 0.017 70.81 0.9965 5 122.6
these, the general-purpose Q10 model is implemented together with the Grape 0.012 71.20 0.9891 1 271.3
model of Eq. (3) considering the punctual variation of Trload instead of
isothermal conservation at different temperatures. The quality gap be­
tween the line corresponding the varying temperature and the
isothermal lines justifies the adoption of this tool to track and estimate

7
A. Gallo et al.
Fig. 5. Manipulation of the traceability profiles built and estimated through the tool: Quality decay impacts.
punctual temperature variations throughout the distribution operations
(Fig. 6) (see Fig. 6).
4. Application and discussion
As the traceability systems adopted in most supply chains track and
trace a few and misaligned data (Alfian et al., 2017) owned by different
actors (He & Zhou, 2016), this tool has broad application in food in­
dustry. Indeed, despite the tight constraints imposed by policy makers
and the sector’s regulators (Charlebois et al., 2014), the continuous
control of crucial conservation parameters, e.g. Temperature Tload , is not
mandatory for most fresh food categories, and the planning of the dis­
tribution operations and logistic processes is arbitrarily managed by
SMEs with no commitments to traceability (Li et al., 2015).
Regarding the testbed illustrated in Section 3, the following metrics
reveal the potential of this tool (in control mode) to deal with non-
monitored processes throughout perishables distribution. The overall
dataset (R : Us∈S r ∈ Rs Ur* ∈ E), built from two sources
(s : {Warehouse Melzo, Vehicle A}), counts 556 records, whose 65% is
8
Food Control 124 (2021) 107866
estimated (r* ∈ E) through the procedure of Fig. 3, with a sampling rate
)
gcf
( (tr ) of 25 s. Along the resulting traceability profile, 47
Us∈S r ∈ Rs
warnings (|r : warnr + = 1| ∪ |r : warnr − = 1|) are detected from the tool
because temperature level is out of the safe temperature threshold of
4–8 ◦ C. Therefore, this tool contributes to estimate the time spent by a
batch of product out of the safe conservation temperature range (i.e. 19 ′
35′′ corresponding to 8.45% of the traced profile), and calculates the
related percentage decay of quality.
Adopting the analysis mode, this tool also simulates the safety im­
pacts brought about by different distribution strategies and logistics
decisions. Particularly, the impact of weather seasonality on the quality
decay occurring to perishables during transportation operations is
showcased in the following analysis. Fig. 5 represents the main GUI
drawing the traceability profiles built upon the distribution of two fresh
vegetables (i.e. broccoli above, tomato below) from South Italy to the
North. The packager (i.e. at the origin), the carrier (i.e. responsible for
shipping to the warehouse), the distributor (i.e. committed to storage
and delivery to the retailer) and the retailer are the actors involved in
A. Gallo et al.
Fig. 6. Simulated profiles of vegetables distribution: the impact of weather seasonality on quality decay.
these vegetable supply chains. The partial visibility on the operations
carried out by others and the lack of a traceability system provide the
best-fit scenario for the application of this tool.
Given different origins and destinations, each profile travels a
different route while both crosses a refrigerated consolidation ware­
house in Bologna (Trenv = 3.5 ◦ C). The different lines in the Temperature
◦
C and Quality % charts refer to the same operations carried out in
different months of the year (i.e. one line per month with reference to
the historical temperatures Trenv as of 2019). A marker day is chosen per
each month. The external weather service is queried by the tool with the
spatial coordinates (latr , longr ) from origin to destination. Then, Trload are
estimated assuming that the vehicle was not refrigerated. The carrier
ships the products to the consolidation warehouse in Bologna, where are
handled and prepared for delivery the morning after.
shelf
Based on the simulated distribution profiles, quality decay Qr
is
estimated (through the Q10 model for this instance) for different seasons
(months) of distribution. This simulation has twofold outcomes. On one
side, it enables the retailer to predict the impact of the distribution
operations on the quality decay of perishables and estimate the status of
the received products over the year. On the other, it aids punctual and
evidence-driven decisions on the scheduling of shipping, the features of
the trucks (standard vs. refrigerated), or the route to select by the
packager, the carrier, and the distributor. Properly revised strategies
could avoid losses and reduce shipping costs when refrigeration is not
actually needed.
The outputs of the tool (i.e. traceability records) can feed other
decision-support frameworks (e.g. Accorsi et al., 2017; Chen, 2020)
intended for optimizing perishables logistics and for food supply chain
management.
9
Food Control 124 (2021) 107866
The proposed traceability-support system aids practitioners to
monitor/estimate unsupervised operations throughout the supply chain,
enabling also to prove compliance with regulations. Furthermore, the
set of parameters estimated/quantified along the whole traceability
profile might inform consumers about the impacts behind the distribu­
tion operations of food products. This data, stored within the embedded
database, is easily accessible from all the food supply chain stakeholders
and can be resumed into the package’s label or through QR code (Tarjan
et al., 2014). Therefore, consumers could further rely on supply chain
processes and actors and drive, through their consumption choices, the
enhancement of safety and environmental sustainability of food distri­
bution (Manzini et al., 2014; Matzembacher et al., 2018).
5. Conclusions and future research
The consumers’ need for increasing the control of food distribution
operations and the compliance to regulations often collide with the lack
of transparency and visibility, the scarce diffusion of traceability systems
and technologies, and the little integration and cooperation amongst the
supply chain actors.
This paper focuses on three dimensions – safety, costs and environ­
mental sustainability that are all becoming the new priorities of food
distribution. It illustrates a novel traceability-support tool intended for
integrating heterogeneous data sources throughout the supply chain and
estimating missing parameters to provide a complete multidimensional
traceability profile including food batch quality as well as the environ­
mental conditions experienced along distribution operations.
This tool implements two main functionalities. Under control mode,
it estimates missing records of a traceability profile aimed at detecting
warnings or supporting operational decisions as load disposal. Under
A. Gallo et al.
analysis mode, the tool extracts historical records from the database and
provides the practitioners with the overall supply chain profile experi­
enced by a batch, thereby aiding punctual recall actions, or identifying
recurrent safety threats.
A real-world distribution process regarding three batches of fresh
fruits handled and shipped by a logistic provider located in North Italy is
used of testbed. The tool estimates the time fence where products
experienced unsafe conservation temperatures (i.e. 8% of distribution
time).
The proposed framework is open to future integration with other
quality decay prediction models able to describe the behavior of other
food categories and varieties. Given the multidimensional traceability
profiles generated, this tool might train/educate practitioners and
quality manager, and fuel optimization and support-decision frame­
works that manage logistics planning (e.g. shipments scheduling and
routing, truck choice) according to food safety/quality and environ­
mental sustainability levers.
Declaration of competing interest
We declaire no conflicts of interest.
References
Abad, E., Palacio, F., Nuin, M., Zárate, A. G., Juarros, A., Gómez, J., & Marco, S. (2009).
RFID smart tag for traceability and cold chain monitoring of foods: Demonstration in
an intercontinental fresh fish logistic chain. Journal of Food Engineering, 93(4),
394–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2009.02.004
Accorsi, R., Bortolini, M., Baruffaldi, G., Pilati, F., & Ferrari, E. (2017a). Internet-of-
things paradigm in food supply chains control and management. Procedia
Manufacturing, 11, 889–895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.192
Accorsi, R., Cholette, S., Manzini, R., & Tufano, A. (2018). A hierarchical data
architecture for sustainable food supply chain management and planning. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 203, 1039–1054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.275
Accorsi, R., Gallo, A., & Manzini, R. (2017b). A climate driven decision-support model for
the distribution of perishable products. Journal of Cleaner Production, 165, 917–929.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.170
Akkerman, R., Farahani, P., & Grunow, M. (2010). Quality, safety and sustainability in
food distribution: A review of quantitative operations management approaches and
challenges. Spectrum, 32(4), 863–904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00291-010-0223-2
Alfian, G., Rhee, J., Ahn, H., Lee, J., Farooq, U., Ijaz, M. F., & Syaekhoni, M. A. (2017).
Integration of RFID, wireless sensor networks, and data mining in an e-pedigree food
traceability system. Journal of Food Engineering, 212, 65–75. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2017.05.008
Aung, M. M., & Chang, Y. S. (2014a). Temperature management for the quality assurance
of a perishable food supply chain. Food Control, 40, 198–207. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodcont.2013.11.016
Aung, M. M., & Chang, Y. S. (2014b). Traceability in a food supply chain: Safety and
quality perspectives. Food Control, 39, 172–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodcont.2013.11.007
Badia-Melis, R., Mishra, P., & Ruiz-García, L. (2015). Food traceability: New trends and
recent advances. A review. Food Control, 57, 393–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodcont.2015.05.005
Baralla, G., Pinna, A., Tonelli, R., Marchesi, M., & Ibba, S. (2020). Ensuring transparency
and traceability of food local products: A blockchain application to a smart tourism
region. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience. https://doi.org/
10.1002/cpe.5857
Bibi, F., Guillaume, C., Gontard, N., & Sorli, B. (2017). A review: RFID technology having
sensing aptitudes for food industry and their contribution to tracking and monitoring
of food products. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 62, 91–103. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tifs.2017.01.013
Bosona, T., & Gebresenbet, G. (2013). Erratum to “Food traceability as an integral part of
logistics management in food and agricultural supply chain” [Food Control 33
(2013) 32–48]. Food Control, 34(2), 777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodcont.2013.06.044
Buyukunal, S. K. (2015). Microbiological quality of fresh vegetables and fruits collected
from supermarkets in istanbul, Turkey. Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences, 3(4),
152. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jfns.20150304.13
Charlebois, S., Sterling, B., Haratifar, S., & Naing, S. K. (2014). Comparison of global food
traceability regulations and requirements. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and
Food Safety, 13(5), 1104–1123. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12101
Chen, Y. (2020). Intelligent algorithms for cold chain logistics distribution optimization
based on big data cloud computing analysis. Journal of Cloud Computing, 9(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13677-020-00174-x
Chen, X., & Liu, J. (2009). Research on heterogeneous data integration in the Livestock
Products Traceability System. In International Conference on New Trends in
Information and Service Science, Beijing (pp. 969–972). https://doi.org/10.1109/
NISS.2009.94
10
Food Control 124 (2021) 107866
Galimberti, A., Mattia, F. D., Losa, A., Bruni, I., Federici, S., Casiraghi, M., … Labra, M.
(2013). DNA barcoding as a new tool for food traceability. Food Research
International, 50(1), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2012.09.036
Gao, Z., Cheng, W., Qiu, X., & Meng, L. (2015). A missing sensor data estimation
algorithm based on temporal and spatial correlation. International Journal of
Distributed Sensor Networks, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/435391, 2015.
Gao, K., Liu, Y., Xu, H., & Han, T. (2019). Hyper-FTT: A food supply-chain trading and
traceability system based on hyperledger fabric. Communications in Computer and
Information Science Blockchain and Trustworthy Systems, 648–661. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-981-15-2777-7_53
Gharehyakheh, A., Krejci, C. C., Cantu, J., & Rogers, K. J. (2020). A multi-objective
model for sustainable perishable food distribution considering the impact of
temperature on vehicle emissions and product shelf life. Sustainability, 12(16), 6668.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166668
Gruenwald, L., Chok, H., & Aboukhamis, M. (2007). Using data mining to estimate
missing sensor data. In Seventh IEEE international conference on data mining workshops
(ICDMW 2007). https://doi.org/10.1109/icdmw.2007.103
Hajnal, É., Kollár, G., & Láng-Lázi, M. (2004). IT support and statistics in traceability and
product recall at food logistics providers. Periodica Polytechnica - Chemical
Engineering, 48(1), 21–29.
Hardt, M. J., Flett, K., & Howell, C. J. (2017). Current barriers to large-scale
interoperability of traceability technology in the seafood sector. Journal of Food
Science, 82(S1). https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.13796
He, J., & Zhou, P. (2016). Research on cooperation mechannism evolutionary game
model in FSDN traceability system. In 2016 international conference on machine
learning and cybernetics (ICMLC). https://doi.org/10.1109/icmlc.2016.7860926
Hsiao, H., & Huang, K. (2016). Time-temperature transparency in the cold chain. Food
Control, 64, 181–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.12.020
International Organization for Standardization. (1994). ISO standard 8402. http://www.
iso.org.
Itinero. (2019). http://www.itinero.tech/.
Jones, P., Clarke-Hill, C., Comfort, D., Hillier, D., & Shears, P. (2005). Radio frequency
identification and food retailing in the UK. British Food Journal, 107(6), 356–360.
Kamilaris, A., Gao, F., Prenafeta-Boldu, F. X., & Ali, M. I. (2016). Agri-IoT: A semantic
framework for Internet of things-enabled smart farming applications. In 2016 IEEE
3rd world forum on Internet of things (WF-IoT). https://doi.org/10.1109/wf-
iot.2016.7845467
Kefalidou, A. A. (2016). United nations department of economic and social affairs.
Sustainable energy solutions to ‘cold chain’ food supply issues. Brief for GSDR 2016,
update: 2016.
Ketzenberg, M., Gaukler, G., & Salin, V. (2018). Expiration dates and order quantities for
perishables. European Journal of Operational Research, 266(2), 569–584. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.10.005
Kim, M., Hilton, B., Burks, Z., & Reyes, J. (2018). Integrating blockchain, smart contract-
tokens, and IoT to design a food traceability solution. In 2018 IEEE 9th annual
information technology, electronics and mobile communication conference (IEMCON).
https://doi.org/10.1109/iemcon.2018.8615007
Koushanfar, F., Kiyavash, N., & Potkonjak, M. (2006). Interacting particle-based model
for missing data in sensor networks: Foundations and applications. In 2006 5th IEEE
conference on sensors. https://doi.org/10.1109/icsens.2007.355610
Lipasto. (2019). http://lipasto.vtt.fi/en/index.htm.
Li, Y. N., Peng, Y. L., Zhang, L., Wei, J. F., & Li, D. (2015). Quality monitoring traceability
platform of agriculture products cold chain logistics based on the Internet of things.
Chemical Engineering Transactions, 46, 517–522.
Liu, F., Li, H., & Yang, Z. (2018). Estimation method based on deep neural network for
consecutively missing sensor data. Radioelectronics and Communications Systems, 61
(6), 258–266. https://doi.org/10.3103/s0735272718060043
Mai, N., Bogason, S. G., Arason, S., Árnason, S. V., & Matthíasson, T. G. (2010). Benefits
of traceability in fish supply chains – case studies. British Food Journal, 112(9),
976–1002. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070701011074354
Manzini, R., & Accorsi, R. (2013). The new conceptual framework for food supply chain
assessment. Journal of Food Engineering, 115(2), 251–263, 2013.
Manzini, R., Accorsi, R., Ziad, A., Bendini, A., Bortolini, M., Gamberi, M., Valli, E., &
Gallina Toschi, T. (2014). Sustainability and quality in the food supply chain. A case
study of shipment of edible oils. British Food Journal, 116(12), 2069–2090, 2014.
Mao, B., He, J., Cao, J., Bigger, S. W., & Vasiljevic, T. (2015). A framework for food
traceability information extraction based on a video surveillance system. Procedia
Computer Science, 55, 1285–1292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.07.139
Matzembacher, D. E., Stangherlin, I. D., Slongo, L. A., & Cataldi, R. (2018). An
integration of traceability elements and their impact in consumer’s trust. Food
Control, 92, 420–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2018.05.014
Mercier, S., Villeneuve, S., Mondor, M., & Uysal, I. (2017). Time-temperature
management along the food cold chain: A review of recent developments.
Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 16(4), 647–667. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1541-4337.12269
Muljarto, A. R., Salmon, J., Charnomordic, B., Buche, P., Tireau, A., & Neveu, P. (2017).
A generic ontological network for Agri-food experiment integration – application to
viticulture and winemaking. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 140, 433–442.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2017.06.020
OpenStreetMap. (2019). www.openstreetmap.org.
Panetto, H., Lezoche, M., Hormazabal, J. E., Alemany, M. M., & Kacprzyk, J. (2020).
Special issue on Agri-Food 4.0 and digitalization in agriculture supply chains - new
directions, challenges and applications. Computers in Industry, 116, 103188. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2020.103188
Prabowo, O. M., Mutijarsa, K., & Supangkat, S. H. (2016). Missing data handling using
machine learning for human activity recognition on mobile device. In 2016
A. Gallo et al.
international conference on ICT for smart society (ICISS). https://doi.org/10.1109/
ictss.2016.7792849
Qi, L., Xuc, M., Fu, Z., Mira, T., & Zhang, X. (2014). C2SLDS: A WSN-based perishable
food shelf-life prediction and lsfo strategy decision support system in cold chain
logistics. Food Control, 38, 19–29.
Raposo, A., Pérez, E., Faria, C. T., Ferrús, M. A., & Carrascosa, C. (2017). Food spoilage
byPseudomonas spp.-an overview. Foodborne Pathogens and Antibiotic Resistance,
41–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119139188.ch3
Regattieri, A., Gamberi, M., & Manzini, R. (2007). Traceability of food products: General
framework and experimental evidence. Journal of Food Engineering, 81(2), 347–356.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2006.10.032
Salomie, I., Dinsoreanu, M., Pop, C. B., & Suciu, S. L. (2008). Model and SOA solutions for
traceability in logistic chains. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on
information integration and web-based applications & services - IiWAS. https://doi.org/
10.1145/1497308.1497370, 08.
Serradilla, M. J., Villalobos, M. D., Hernández, A., Martín, A., Lozano, M., &
Córdoba, M. D. (2013). Study of microbiological quality of controlled atmosphere
packaged ‘Ambrunés’ sweet cherries and subsequent shelf-life. International Journal
of Food Microbiology, 166(1), 85–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijfoodmicro.2013.06.006
Shanahana, C., Kernan, B., Ayalewa, G., McDonnell, K., Butler, F., & Ward, S. (2009).
A framework for beef traceability from farm to slaughter using global standards: An
Irish perspective. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 66(1), 62–69.
Stellingwerf, H. M., Kanellopoulos, A., Vorst, J. G., & Bloemhof, J. M. (2018). Reducing
CO 2 emissions in temperature-controlled road transportation using the LDVRP
model. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 58, 80–93. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.11.008
Stoecker, W. F. (1998). Industrial refrigeration handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Storøy, J., Thakur, M., & Olsen, P. (2013). The TraceFood Framework – principles and
guidelines for implementing traceability in food value chains. Journal of Food
Engineering, 115(1), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2012.09.018
11
Food Control 124 (2021) 107866
Sun, S., & Wang, X. (2019). Promoting traceability for food supply chain with
certification. Journal of Cleaner Production, 217, 658–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2019.01.296
Sun, S., Wang, X., & Zhang, Y. (2017). Sustainable traceability in the food supply chain:
The impact of consumer willingness to pay. Sustainability, 9(6), 999. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su9060999
Taoukis, P. S., Labuza, T. P., & Saguy, I. S. (1997). Kinetics of food deterioration and
shelf-life prediction. In K. Valentas, J. Rotstein, & E. R. P. Singh (Eds.), The Handbook
of Food Engineering Practice (pp. 363–405). New York: CRC Press.
Tarjan, L., Šenk, I., Tegeltija, S., Stankovski, S., & Ostojic, G. (2014). A readability
analysis for QR code application in a traceability system. Computers and Electronics in
Agriculture, 109, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2014.08.015
World Weather Online. (2019). https://www.worldweatheronline.com/.
Xiao, X., Fu, Z., Zhang, Y., Peng, Z., & Zhang, X. (2016). Developing an intelligent
traceability system for aquatic products in cold chain logistics integrated WSN with
SPC. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, 40(6), 1448–1458. https://doi.org/
10.1111/jfpp.12730
Xu, D. (2017). Incomplete data chain for food safety traceability method. International
Journal of Wireless and Mobile Computing, 12(2), 124. https://doi.org/10.1504/
ijwmc.2017.084179
Yu, Z., Jung, D., Park, S., Hu, Y., Huang, K., Rasco, B. A., … Chen, J. (2020). Smart
traceability for food safety. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2020.1830262
Zhang, Y., Krogmeier, J. V., Ault, A., & Buckmaster, D. (2020). APT3: Automated product
traceability trees generated from GPS tracks. Transactions of the ASABE, 63(3),
571–582. https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.13384
Zhang, Z. Y., & Wang, L. (2009). Research on traceability integrated logistics system of
dairy products. In 2009 international conference on management and service science,
wuhan (pp. 1–4), 2009.