| Literature DB >> 25906472 |
Chiara Mozzetti Monterumici1, Daniele Rosso2, Enzo Montoneri3, Marco Ginepro4, Andrea Baglieri5, Etelvino Henrique Novotny6, Witold Kwapinski7, Michèle Negre8.
Abstract
The aim of this work was to address the issue of processed vs. non-processed biowastes for agriculture, by comparing materials widely differing for the amount of process energy consumption. Thus, residual post harvest tomato plants (TP), the TP hydrolysates obtained at pH 13 and 60 °C, and two known biochar products obtained by 650 °C pyrolysis were prepared. All products were characterized and used in a cultivation of radish plants. The chemical composition and molecular nature of the materials was investigated by solid state 13C NMR spectrometry, elemental analysis and potentiometric titration. The plants were analysed for growth and content of chlorophyll, carotenoids and soluble proteins. The results show that the TP and the alkaline hydrolysates contain lignin, hemicellulose, protein, peptide and/or amino acids moieties, and several mineral elements. The biochar samples contain also similar mineral elements, but the organic fraction is characterized mainly by fused aromatic rings. All materials had a positive effect on radish growth, mainly on the diameter of roots. The best performances in terms of plant growth were given by miscanthus originated biochar and TP. The most significant effect was the enhancement of soluble protein content in the plants treated with the lowest energy consumption non processed TP. The significance of these findings for agriculture and the environment is discussed.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25906472 PMCID: PMC4425111 DOI: 10.3390/ijms16048826
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Chemical composition of the investigated products.
| Ash, g/Kg | pH | Organic C, g/Kg | Total N, g/Kg | Nitric N, g/Kg | C/N | Total P, g/Kg | Available P, g/Kg | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BIOM | 94 | 10.1 | 851.0 ± 2.0 | 5.5 ± 0.6 | <0.05 | 155 | 2.50 ± 0.03 | 2.49 ± 0.08 |
| BIOP | 435 | 10.2 | 486 ± 1.7 | 39.0 ± 0.7 | <0.05 | 12.4 | 24.6 ± 0.50 | 7.49 ± 0.35 |
| TP | 202 | 7.6 | 364.4 ± 1.6 | 35.1 ± 0.5 | 3.9 | 10.4 | 3.32 ± 0.25 | 0.81 ± 0.01 |
| SOL | 232 | 9.4 | 473.0 ± 1.0 | 65.2 ± 0.6 | 0.05 | 7.3 | 9.76 ± 0.32 | 0.25 ± 0.02 |
| INS | 369 | 7.3 | 288.3 ± 0.9 | 25.2 ± 0.4 | <0.05 | 11.4 | 3.28 ± 0.29 | 0.87 ± 0.01 |
| substrate | 454 | 6.4 | 248 ± 1.3 | 9.0 ± 0.3 | 0.1 | 27.5 | 2.56 ± 0.25 | 0.53 ± 0.01 |
Figure 113C NMR solid state spectra of poultry litter and miscanthus biochar samples. The symbols * indicate the spinning sidebands and the vertical dot line show the up field shift of the aryl signal.
Figure 213C NMR solid state spectra of TP, SOL and INS.
C types and functional groups a distribution as mole % of total organic C for the tomato plant powder (TP), and the SOL and INS hydrolysates.
| Al | OMe + NR | OR | OCO | Ph | PhOY | COX | CO | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP | 14.34 | 7.22 | 49.60 | 11.62 | 6.89 | 3.44 | 6.28 | 0.61 |
| SOL | 47.38 | 9.39 | 10.39 | 2.19 | 11.50 | 3.81 | 14.37 | 0.97 |
| INS | 5.00 | 7.97 | 58.98 | 13.19 | 7.00 | 3.66 | 2.97 | 1.22 |
a Aliphatic (Al), methoxy (OMe), ammine (NR), alkoxy (RO), anomeric (OCO), aromatic (Ph), phenoxy and phenol (PhOY, Y = Ph, R, H), amide and carboxylic acid (COX, X = N or H), ketone (C=O) C.
Total (tot) and soluble (sol) mineral elements concentration and sol/tot percentage relative to the pot substrate and the pristine added products.
| Si | K | Mg | Ca | Na | Fe | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| tot | sol | sol/tot | tot | sol | sol/tot | tot | sol | sol/tot | tot | sol | sol/tot | tot | sol | sol/tot | tot | sol | sol/tot | |
| g/Kg | mg/Kg | % | g/Kg | g/Kg | % | g/Kg | g/Kg | % | g/Kg | g/Kg | % | g/Kg | g/Kg | % | g/Kg | g/Kg | % | |
| BIOM | 9.8 | 110 | 1.1 | 18.5 | 10.1 | 54.6 | 1.6 | 0.06 | 3.7 | 2.6 | 0.06 | 2.2 | 1.2 | 0.33 | 27.7 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 0.68 |
| BIOP | 3.33 | 16 | 0.5 | 78.7 | 39.3 | 49.9 | 21.9 | 0.67 | 3.1 | 44.7 | 0.44 | 1.0 | 14.0 | 4.57 | 32.6 | 3.5 | 36.7 | 1.05 |
| TP | 9.8 | 5.5 | 0.1 | 33.0 | 22.3 | 67.6 | 4.2 | 2.59 | 61.7 | 46.5 | 3.06 | 6.6 | 2.2 | 1.35 | 61.4 | 3.0 | 114.4 | 3.81 |
| SOL | 2.2 | 7.3 | 0.3 | 91.5 | 78.5 | 85.8 | 8.0 | 3.37 | 42.1 | 21.0 | 2.97 | 14.1 | 2.4 | 1.83 | 76.3 | 3.3 | 935.6 | 28.35 |
| INS | 8.5 | 3.1 | 0.0 | 44.9 | 24.6 | 54.8 | 2.7 | 0.65 | 24.1 | 44.1 | 1.49 | 3.4 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 46.7 | 2.5 | 135.2 | 5.41 |
| substrate | 9.7 | 6.8 | 0.1 | 11.5 | 3.9 | 33.9 | 3.4 | 0.65 | 19.3 | 13.3 | 1.42 | 10.7 | 0.87 | 0.94 | 109.3 | 3.7 | 19.1 | 0.52 |
| BIOM | 0.1 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 10.6 | 0.1 | 1.0 | 0.3 | ND | ND | 27.5 | 1.87 | 6.8 | 0.7 | ND | ND | 189 | 5.5 | 2.9 |
| BIOP | 1.6 | 7.5 | 0.5 | 268.0 | 7.6 | 2.8 | 17.7 | 0.9 | 5.3 | 671.0 | 13.8 | 2.1 | 14.0 | 0.4 | 2.9 | 1704 | 13.3 | 0.8 |
| TP | 2.7 | 46.3 | 1.7 | 21.0 | 6.9 | 32.8 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 525.0 | 39.0 | 7.47 | 19.2 | 4.0 | 0.4 | 9.0 | 71.7 | 14.7 | 20.7 |
| SOL | 3.4 | 311.5 | 9.2 | 898.0 | 262.9 | 29.3 | 11.0 | 7.9 | 72.1 | 404.0 | 119.8 | 29.6 | 7.0 | 2.0 | 28.9 | 133 | 36 | 27.1 |
| INS | 1.7 | 200.8 | 11.8 | 8.0 | 6.5 | 81.5 | 0.5 | ND | ND | 12.0 | 4.31 | 35.9 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 33.5 | 77.2 | 4 | 5.2 |
| substrate | 3.5 | 24.4 | 0.7 | 33.8 | 2.0 | 5.9 | 9.8 | 0.3 | 3.4 | 73.5 | 2.75 | 3.7 | 14.5 | 0.3 | 1.9 | 126 | 7.9 | 6.2 |
Values are means calculated over triplicates; standard deviations as % of mean value ranged from 0.2% at 10 g/Kg mean value level to 13% at 1–2 mg/Kg mean value level.
Amount of total and soluble mineral elements added per pot.
| Si | K | Mg | Ca | Na | Fe | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| tot | sol | tot | sol | tot | sol | tot | sol | tot | sol | tot | sol | ||
| g/pot | mg/pot | μg/pot | mg/pot | mg/pot | mg/pot | mg/pot | mg/pot | mg/pot | mg/pot | mg/pot | mg/pot | μg/pot | |
| BIOM | 1.7 | 16.7 | 187.0 | 31.5 | 17.2 | 2.8 | 0.1 | 4.3 | 0.1 | 2.0 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 2.2 |
| BIOP | 1.7 | 5.7 | 27.2 | 133.8 | 66.8 | 37.2 | 1.1 | 76.0 | 0.7 | 23.8 | 7.8 | 6.0 | 62.4 |
| TP | 1.9 | 18.6 | 10.5 | 62.7 | 42.4 | 8.0 | 4.9 | 88.4 | 5.8 | 4.2 | 2.6 | 5.7 | 217.4 |
| SOL | 1.0 | 2.2 | 7.3 | 91.5 | 78.5 | 8.0 | 3.4 | 21.0 | 3.0 | 2.4 | 1.8 | 3.3 | 935.6 |
| INS | 2.6 | 22.1 | 8.1 | 116.7 | 64.0 | 7.0 | 1.7 | 114.7 | 3.9 | 3.9 | 1.8 | 6.5 | 351.5 |
| substrate | 140.0 | 1356.6 | 952.0 | 1610.0 | 546.0 | 471.8 | 91.0 | 1863.4 | 198.8 | 120.4 | 131.6 | 518.0 | 2674.0 |
| BIOM | 1.7 | 0.2 | 2.6 | 18.0 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 46.8 | 3.2 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 321.3 | 9.4 |
| BIOP | 1.7 | 2.7 | 12.8 | 455.6 | 12.9 | 30.1 | 1.6 | 1140.7 | 23.5 | 23.8 | 0.7 | 2896.8 | 22.6 |
| TP | 1.9 | 5.1 | 88.0 | 39.9 | 13.1 | 0.2 | 1.2 | 74.1 | 14.2 | 7.6 | 0.7 | 135.1 | 27.9 |
| SOL | 1.0 | 3.4 | 311.5 | 898.0 | 683.5 | 11.0 | 20.6 | 404.0 | 311.4 | 7.0 | 5.3 | 133.0 | 93.6 |
| INS | 2.6 | 4.4 | 522.1 | 20.8 | 6.5 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 31.2 | 4.3 | 5.2 | 0.7 | 200.7 | 4.0 |
| substrate | 140.0 | 494.2 | 3416.0 | 4732.0 | 280.0 | 1370.6 | 46.2 | 10,290.0 | 385.0 | 2030.0 | 37.8 | 17,640.0 | 1106.0 |
Figure 3Plant performance indexes vs. treatments (a) root diameter; (b) leaves dry weight; (c) roots dry weight; (d) whole plant dry weight. Values are the mean of three replications with standard deviation. Letters in columns indicate statistical significance—samples not sharing a letter differ significantly at p < 0.05.
Figure 4Plant protein content. Values are the mean of three replications with standard deviation. Letters in columns indicate statistical significance—samples not sharing a letter differ significantly at p < 0.05.
Figure 5Plant pigment content. Values are the mean of three replications with standard deviation. Letters in columns indicate statistical significance—samples not sharing a letter differ significantly at p < 0.05.