Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T10:01:27.353Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Municipal solid waste composting: Application as a tomato fertilizer and its effect on crop yield, fruit quality and phenolic content

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 August 2016

Albert Ribas-Agustí ,
Marta Seda ,
Carmen Sarraga ,
Juan I. Montero ,
Massimo Castellari  and
Pere Muñoz
Albert Ribas-Agustí
Affiliation:
IRTA Food Safety Program, Finca Camps i Armet s/n, 17121 Monells, Spain
Marta Seda
Affiliation:
IRTA, Environmental Horticulture Program, Ctra. De Cabrils s/n, 08348 Cabrils, Spain
Carmen Sarraga
Affiliation:
IRTA, Food Technology Program, Finca Camps i Armet s/n, 17121 Monells, Spain
Juan I. Montero
Affiliation:
IRTA, Environmental Horticulture Program, Ctra. De Cabrils s/n, 08348 Cabrils, Spain
Massimo Castellari*
Affiliation:
IRTA Food Safety Program, Finca Camps i Armet s/n, 17121 Monells, Spain
Pere Muñoz
Affiliation:
IRTA, Environmental Horticulture Program, Ctra. De Cabrils s/n, 08348 Cabrils, Spain
*
*Corresponding author: massimo.castellari@irta.cat
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Composting is an appealing way to reutilize the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (MSW). Beyond the obvious advantage of reducing urban waste, the use of MSW compost in agriculture entails other potential benefits, such as reducing the amount of mineral fertilizer applied to the field and providing a potentially higher quality alternative. However, some concerns may arise from its use, such as crop yield and quality alterations. This work studied the effect of fertilizing with compost obtained from the organic fraction of MSW, on crop yield, crop quality and phenolic content of tomato fruit. Experiments were conducted in the Barcelona area, using Solanum lycopersicum L., var. ‘Penjar’, a popular regional tomato. Compared with the use of mineral fertilizer (M), fertilization with MSW compost alone (C) or combined with mineral fertilizer (C + M) had no significant effect on tomato fruit quality characterized by weight, diameter or Brix, nor was there a significant effect on total phenolic content. In contrast, the C treatment altered the phenolic profile by enhancing a kaempferol derivative, and caused a 43 and 48% yield reduction compared with the C + M and M treatments, respectively. Overall, composted MSW + mineral fertilizer appeared to be the best strategy for the reutilization of MSW in tomato culture, as it did not compromise crop yield or fruit quality.

Keywords

municipal solid wastecomposttomatofertilizationPenjarcrop yieldphenolic compoundsfruit quality
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , August 2017 , pp. 358 - 365
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Present address: Food Technology Department, Agrotecnio Research Center, University of Lleida, Alcalde Rovira Roure 191, 25198 Lleida, Spain.

References

Allen, R., Pereira, L., Raes, D., and Smith, M. 1998. Crop Evapotranspiration—Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements. FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Available at Web site http://www.fao.org/docrep/x0490e/x0490e00.htm.Google Scholar
Amlinger, F., Götz, B., Dreher, P., Geszti, J., and Weissteiner, C. 2003. Nitrogen in biowaste and yard waste compost: dynamics of mobilisation and availability—a review. European Journal of Soil Biology 39:107–116.Google Scholar
Brandt, K. and Mølgaard, J.P. 2001. Organic agriculture: does it enhance or reduce the nutritional value of plant foods? Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 81:924–931.Google Scholar
Brandt, K., Leifert, C., Sanderson, R., and Seal, C.J. 2011. Agroecosystem management and nutritional quality of plant foods: The case of organic fruits and vegetables. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 30:177–197.Google Scholar
Bremner, J.M. 1960. Determination of nitrogen in soil by the Kjeldahl method. Journal of Agricultural Science 55:11–33.Google Scholar
Caris-Veyrat, C., Amiot, M.-J., Tyssandier, V., Grasselly, D., Buret, M., Mikolajczak, M., Guilland, J.-C., Bouteloup-Demange, C., and Borel, P. 2004. Influence of organic versus conventional agricultural practice on the antioxidant microconstituent content of tomatoes and derived purees; consequences on antioxidant plasma status in humans. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 52:6503–6509.Google Scholar
Clark, M.S., Horwath, W.R., Shennan, C., Scow, K.M., Lantni, W.T., and Ferris, H. 1999. Nitrogen, weeds and water as yield-limiting factors in conventional, low-input, and organic tomato systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 73:257–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colla, G., Mitchell, J.P., Poudel, D.D., and Temple, S.R. 2002. Changes of tomato yield and fruit elemental composition in conventional, low input, and organic systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 20:53–67.Google Scholar
Cortés-Olmos, C., Leiva-Brondo, M., Roselló, J., Raigón, M.D., and Cebolla-Cornejo, J. 2014. The role of traditional varieties of tomato as sources of functional compounds. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 94:2888–2904.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Council of the European Union. 1991. Council Directive 91/676/ECC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources. Official Journal of the European Union 375:1–8. Available at Web site http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31991L0676 (verified 3 March 2016).Google Scholar
Council of the European Union. 1999. Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (1999). Official Journal of the European Union 182:1–19. Available at Web site http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:31999L0031 (verified 3 March 2016).Google Scholar
Creamer, N.G., Bennett, M.A., Stinner, B.R., and Cardina, J. 1996. A comparison of four processing tomato production systems differing in cover crop and chemical inputs. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 121:559–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crozier, A., Jaganath, I.B., and Clifford, M.N. 2009. Dietary phenolics: chemistry, bioavailability and effects on health. Natural Product Reports 26:965–1096.Google Scholar
Elherradi, E., Soudi, B., Chiang, C., and Elkacemi, K. 2005. Evaluation of nitrogen fertilizing value of composted household solid waste under greenhouse conditions. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 25:169–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erba, D., Casiraghi, M.C., Ribas-Agustí, A., Cáceres, R., Marfà, O., and Castellari, M. 2013. Nutritional value of tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum L.) grown in greenhouse by different agronomic techniques. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 31:245–251.Google Scholar
Figàs, M.R., Prohens, J., Raigón, M.D., Fita, A., García-Martínez, M.D., Casanova, C., Borràs, D., Plazas, M., Andújar, I., and Soler, S. 2015. Characterization of composition traits related to organoleptic and functional quality for the differentiation, selection and enhancement of local varieties of tomato from different cultivar groups. Food Chemistry 187:517–524.Google Scholar
Ghorbani, R., Koocheki, A., Jahan, M., and Asadi, G.A. 2008. Impact of organic amendments and compost extracts on tomato production and storability in agroecological systems. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 28:307–311.Google Scholar
Gómez-Romero, M., Segura-Carretero, A., and Fernández-Gutiérrez, A. 2010. Metabolite profiling and quantification of phenolic compounds in methanol extracts of tomato fruit. Phytochemistry 71:1848–1864.Google Scholar
Hargreaves, J.C., Adl, M.S., and Warman, P.R. 2008. A review of the use of composted municipal solid waste in agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 123:1–14.Google Scholar
International Organization for Standardization. 2005. ISO 14256-2: 2005. Soil quality – determination of nitrate, nitrite and ammonium in field-moist soils by extraction with potassium chloride solution – part 2: Automated method with segmented flow analysis. Available at Web site http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=32399 (verified 23 June 2016).Google Scholar
Keeney, D.R. and Nelson, D.W. 1982. Nitrogen – inorganic forms. In Page, A.L., Miller, R.H. and Keeney, D.R. (eds). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Agronomy No. 9, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI. p. 643–698.Google Scholar
Løvdal, T., Olsen, K.M., Slimestad, R., Verheul, M., and Lillo, C. 2010. Synergetic effects of nitrogen depletion, temperature, and light on the content of phenolic compounds and gene expression in leaves of tomato. Phytochemistry 71:605–613.Google Scholar
Martínez-Blanco, J., Muñoz, P., Antón, A., and Rieradevall, J. 2009. Life cycle assessment of the use of compost from municipal organic waste for fertilization of tomato crops. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 53:340–351.Google Scholar
Martínez-Blanco, J., Colón, J., Gabarrell, X., Font, X., Sánchez, A., Artola, A., and Rieradevall, J. 2010. The use of life cycle assessment for the comparison of biowaste composting at home and full scale. Waste Management 30:983–994.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martínez-Blanco, J., Muñoz, P., Antón, A., and Rieradevall, J. 2011. Assessment of tomato Mediterranean production in open-field and standard multi-tunnel greenhouse, with compost or mineral fertilizers, from an agricultural and environmental standpoint. Journal of Cleaner Production 19:985–997.Google Scholar
Martínez-Blanco, J., Lazcano, C., Christensen, T., Muñoz, P., Rieradevall, J., Möller, J., Antón, A., and Boldrin, A. 2013. Compost benefits for agriculture evaluated by life cycle assessment. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 33:721–732.Google Scholar
Mitchell, A.E., Hong, Y.J., Koh, E., Barrett, D.M., Bryant, D.E., Denison, R.F., and Kaffka, S. 2007. Ten-year comparison of the influence of organic and conventional crop management practices on the content of flavonoids in tomatoes. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 55:6154–6159.Google Scholar
Nijveldt, R.J., van Nood, E., van Hoorn, D.E.C., Boelens, P.G., van Norren, K., and van Leeuwen, P.A.M. 2001. Flavonoids: a review of probable mechanisms of action and potential applications. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 74:418–425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quirós, R., Villalba, G., Gabarrell, X., and Muñoz, P. 2015. Life cycle assessment of organic and mineral fertilizers in a crop sequence of cauliflower and tomato. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 12:3299–3316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riahi, A., Hdider, C., Sanaa, M., Tarchoun, N., Ben Kheder, M., and Guezal, I. 2009. Effect of conventional and organic production systems on the yield and quality of field tomato cultivars grown in Tunisia. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 89:2275–2282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ribas-Agustí, A., Cáceres, R., Gratacós-Cubarsí, M., Sárraga, C., and Castellari, M. 2012. A validated HPLC-DAD method for routine determination of ten phenolic compounds in tomato fruits. Food Analytical Methods 5:1137–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ribas-Agustí, A., Bouchagier, P., Skotti, E., Erba, D., Casiraghi, C., Sárraga, C., and Castellari, M. 2013. Effects of different organic anti-fungal treatments on tomato plant productivity and selected nutritional components of tomato fruit. Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology 88:67–72.Google Scholar
Rosales, M.A., Cervilla, L.M., Sanchez-Rodriguez, E., Rubio-Wilhelmi, M.D., Blasco, B., Rios, J.J., Soriano, T., Castilla, N., Romero, L., and Ruiz, J.M. 2011. The effect of environmental conditions on nutritional quality of cherry tomato fruits: evaluation of two experimental Mediterranean greenhouses. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 91:152–162.Google Scholar
Saxton, K.E., Rawls, W.J., Romberger, J.S., and Papendick, R.I. 1986. Estimating generalized soil-water characteristics from texture. Soil Science Society of America Journal 50:1031–1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Servei Meteorològic de Catalunya. 2015. Meteorological observations database. Available at Web site http://www.meteo.cat/observacions/xema/dades (verified 6 November 2015).Google Scholar
Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N., and Foley, J.A. 2012. Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 485:229–232.Google Scholar
Singleton, V.L. and Rossi, J.A. 1965. Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagents. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 16:144–158.Google Scholar
Slimestad, R. and Verheul, M. 2009. Review of flavonoids and other phenolics from fruits of different tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) cultivars. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 89:1255–1270.Google Scholar
The Ninety-fourth United States Congress. 1976. Resource conservation and recovery act. Available at Web site http://www.epw.senate.gov/rcra.pdf (verified 6 November 2015).Google Scholar
The Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 2002. Decreto 1201/2002, de 20 de noviembre, por el que se regula la producción integrada de productos agrícolas. Boletín Oficial del Estado, Madrid. p. 42028–42040.Google Scholar
Treutter, D. 2010. Managing phenol contents in crop plants by phytochemical farming and breeding-visions and constraints. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 11:807–857.Google Scholar
Vallverdú-Queralt, A., Jáuregui, O., Di Lecce, G., Andrés-Lacueva, C., and Lamuela-Raventós, R.M. 2011. Screening of the polyphenol content of tomato-based products through accurate-mass spectrometry (HPLC-ESI-QTOF). Food Chemistry 129:877–883.Google Scholar
Viaux, P. 2008. Integrated farming systems: a form of low input farming. In Biala, K., Terres, J.-M., Pointereau, P., and Paracchini, M. (eds). Low Input Farming Systems: An Opportunity to Develop Sustainable Agriculture. European Commission-Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Ispra, Italy. p. 39–45.Google Scholar
Zamora-Ros, R., Serafini, M., Estruch, R., Lamuela-Raventós, R.M., Martínez-González, M.A., Salas-Salvadó, J., Fiol, M., Lapetra, J., Arós, F., Covas, M.I., and Andres-Lacueva, C. 2013. Mediterranean diet and non enzymatic antioxidant capacity in the PREDIMED study: Evidence for a mechanism of antioxidant tuning. Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases 23:1167–1174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed