| Literature DB >> 35173233 |
Barbara Tombarkiewicz1, Jacek Antonkiewicz2, Marcin W Lis1, Krzysztof Pawlak1,3, Magdalena Trela1,3, Robert Witkowicz4, Olga Gorczyca5.
Abstract
Spent coffee grounds (SCG) as well as chicken (CES) or duck eggshells (DES) left over from the artificial hatching technology are proposed as potential soil improver and/or organic-mineral fertiliser components. Therefore, it seems interesting and necessary to evaluate the chemical composition of these wastes and their mixtures in terms of their possible use for that purpose. The study was conducted under the incubation experiment conditions using a mixture of SCG and eggshells (10:1 ratio). Macronutrients, i.e. C, N, S, were determined by the catalytic combustion method, while P, K, Mg, Ca, Na by atomic spectrometry. It was found that SCG were rich in C, N, P, and K, while eggshells in Ca, Mg, Na, and S. However, CES compared to DES were richer in deacidifying components (i.e. Ca, Mg, K). At the same time, the content of macronutrients in eggshells decreased gradually along with the embryo development. For this reason, the mixture of SCG and shells of unembryonated chicken eggs (CES I) had the best chemical and usable proprieties. To conclude, the chemical properties of the mixtures of spent coffee grounds and eggshells indicate their possible application in soil bioengineering.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35173233 PMCID: PMC8850578 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-06569-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Basic physicochemical properties of spent coffee grounds and bird eggshells.
| Parameter | Unit | Spent coffee grounds | Eggshells | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chicken | Duck | |||
| Dry matter | % | 43.25 ± | 98.52 ± | 97.45 ± |
| pHH2O | – | 4.97 ± | 9.38 ± | 9.10 ± |
| C | 500.34 ± | 145.43 ± | 167.03 ± | |
| N | 25.61 ± | 8.47 ± | 15.81 ± | |
| P | 1.53 ± | 1.00 ± | 1.43 ± | |
| K | 5.06 ± | 0.66 ± | 0.45 ± | |
| Ca | 1.77 ± | 231.67 ± | 216.63 ± | |
| Mg | 1.48 ± | 2.44 ± | 1.68 ± | |
| Na | 0.13 ± | 0.74 ± | 1.44 ± | |
| S | 0.87 ± | 0.78 ± | 1.34 ± | |
| Cd | 0.01 ± | < 0.01 ± | < 0.01 ± | |
| Pb | 0.19 ± | 0.09 ± | 0.11 ± | |
aPermissible content of pollutants in agricultural lime cannot exceed Cd 8 and Pb 200 mg kg−1 calcium oxide (CaO)[14].
Experimental design.
| No | Object namea | Spent coffee grounds (SCG) | Eggshells | Dates of eggshell collectionb | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (g) | (g) | Chicken | Duck | ||
| 1 | SCG | 200 | – | – | – |
| 2 | CES | – | 200 | (0 d.i.) | – |
| 3 | DES | – | 200 | – | (0 d.i.) |
| 4 | SCG-CES(I) | 200 | 20 | (0 d.i.) | – |
| 5 | SCG-CES(II) | 200 | 20 | (7 d.i.) | – |
| 6 | SCG-CES(III) | 200 | 20 | (14 d.i.) | – |
| 7 | SCG-CES(IV) | 200 | 20 | (21 d.i.) | – |
| 8 | SCG-DES(I) | 200 | 20 | – | (0 d.i.) |
| 9 | SCG-DES(II) | 200 | 20 | – | (9 d.i.) |
| 10 | SCG-DES(III) | 200 | 20 | – | (19 d.i.) |
| 11 | SCG-DES(IV) | 200 | 20 | – | (28 d.i.) |
aSCG spent coffee grounds, CES chicken eggshells, DES duck eggshells, I–IV dates of eggshell collection.
b0 days—prior to incubation, d.i.—day of embryo development (day of egg incubation in a hatchery).
Contents of macronutrients in the study objects after 3-month incubation.
| Objecta | C | N | P | K | Ca | Mg | Na | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| g kg−1 DM | ||||||||
| SCG | 500.34 ± | 25.61 ± | 1.53 ± | 5.06 ± | 1.77 ± | 1.48 ± | 0.13 ± | 0.87 ± |
| CES | 145.43 ± | 8.47 ± | 1.00 ± | 0.66 ± | 231.67 ± | 2.44 ± | 0.74 ± | 0.78 ± |
| SCG-CES(I) | 466.09 ± | 23.62 ± | 1.49 ± | 4.99 ± | 35.98 ± | 1.76 ± | 0.20 ± | 0.84 ± |
| SCG-CES(II) | 458.44 ± | 23.60 ± | 1.47 ± | 4.84 ± | 33.41 ± | 1.68 ± | 0.19 ± | 0.82 ± |
| SCG-CES(III) | 454.48 ± | 23.45 ± | 1.38 ± | 4.81 ± | 32.50 ± | 1.63 ± | 0.18 ± | 0.79 ± |
| SCG-CES(IV) | 442.55 ± | 22.33 ± | 1.35 ± | 4.60 ± | 27.26 ± | 1.53 ± | 0.17 ± | 0.74 ± |
| Mean | 411.23 | 21.18 | 1.37 | 4.16 | 60.43 | 1.75 | 0.27 | 0.81 |
| CV(%) | 30.1 | 28.2 | 13.4 | 39.0 | 131.9 | 19.0 | 83.1 | 7.2 |
| SCG | 500.34 ± | 25.61 ± | 1.53 ± | 5.06 ± | 1.77 ± | 1.48 ± | 0.13 ± | 0.87 ± |
| DES | 167.03 ± | 15.81 ± | 1.43 ± | 0.45 ± | 216.63 ± | 1.68 ± | 1.44 ± | 1.34 ± |
| SCG-DES(I) | 477.17 ± | 24.74 ± | 1.50 ± | 4.86 ± | 32.27 ± | 1.54 ± | 0.25 ± | 1.26 ± |
| SCG-DES(II) | 474.25 ± | 23.68 ± | 1.49 ± | 4.74 ± | 28.05 ± | 1.44 ± | 0.22 ± | 1.15 ± |
| SCG-DES(III) | 462.65 ± | 23.49 ± | 1.44 ± | 4.27 ± | 26.59 ± | 1.32 ± | 0.21 ± | 1.13 ± |
| SCG-DES(IV) | 454.77 ± | 22.89 ± | 1.39 ± | 4.21 ± | 26.07 ± | 1.31 ± | 0.19 ± | 1.09 ± |
| Mean | 422.70 | 22.70 | 1.46 | 3.93 | 55.23 | 1.46 | 0.41 | 1.14 |
| CV(%) | 28.1 | 15.2 | 5.0 | 41.6 | 135.8 | 9.1 | 118.0 | 15.2 |
| SCG | 500.34 | 25.61 | 1.53 | 5.06 | 1.77 | 1.48 | 0.13 | 0.87 |
| CES/DES | 156.23 | 12.14 | 1.22 | 0.56 | 224.15 | 2.06 | 1.09 | 1.06 |
| (I) | 471.63 | 24.18 | 1.49 | 4.93 | 34.13 | 1.65 | 0.22 | 1.05 |
| (II) | 466.35 | 23.64 | 1.48 | 4.79 | 30.73 | 1.56 | 0.21 | 0.98 |
| (III) | 458.57 | 23.47 | 1.41 | 4.54 | 29.54 | 1.48 | 0.19 | 0.96 |
| (IV) | 448.66 | 22.61 | 1.37 | 4.40 | 26.66 | 1.42 | 0.18 | 0.92 |
| LSD for objectb | 6.86 | 0.93 | 0.05 | 0.14 | 2.76 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.07 |
| LSD for shells | 11.88 | 1.60 | 0.09 | 0.23 | 4.78 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.13 |
| LSD for interaction | 16.81 | 2.27 | 0.12 | 0.33 | 6.76 | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.18 |
aExplanations in Table 2.
bLSD Least significant difference.
Figure 1Biplot based on the first two principal component axes for the mineral composition of the mixtures (A) and the distribution of 11 mixtures based on the first two components obtained from the principal component analysis (B). Explanations in Table 2.
Mineral profile comparative analysis (Cohen’s profile similarity coefficient) for mixtures.
pH values of study objects after a 3-month incubation.
| Objecta | pHH20 value | Reactionc |
|---|---|---|
| SCG | 4.93 ± | Extremely acid |
| CES | 9.28 ± | Alkaline |
| SCG-CES(I) | 5.96 ± | Acid |
| SCG-CES(II) | 5.94 ± | Acid |
| SCG-CES(III) | 5.81 ± | Acid |
| SCG-CES(IV) | 5.70 ± | Acid |
| Mean | 6.23 | Slightly acid |
| CV(%) | 22.9 | – |
| SCG | 4.93 ± | Extremely acid |
| DES | 9.03 ± | Alkaline |
| SCG-DES(I) | 5.82 ± | Acid |
| SCG-DES(II) | 5.82 ± | Acid |
| SCG-DES(III) | 5.75 ± | Acid |
| SCG-DES(IV) | 5.63 ± | Acid |
| Mean | 6.16 | Slightly acid |
| CV(%) | 22.1 | – |
| SCG | 4.93 | Extremely acid |
| CES/DES | 9.16 | Alkaline |
| (I) | 5.89 | Acid |
| (II) | 5.88 | Acid |
| (III) | 5.78 | Acid |
| (IV) | 5.66 | Acid |
| LSD for objectb | 0.07 | – |
| LSD for shells | 0.12 | – |
| LSD for interaction | 0.17 | – |
aExplanations in Table 2.
bLSD Least significant difference.
cThe reaction of fertiliser objects (mixtures) was based on the degree of soil acidity.