Subscriber access provided by TULANE UNIVERSITY
Agricultural and Environmental Chemistry
Human Urine as a Fertilizer in the Cultivation of Snap Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) and Turnips (Brassica rapa) Madelyn Pandorf, George Hochmuth, and Treavor H Boyer J. Agric. Food Chem., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.8b06011 • Publication Date (Web): 04 Dec 2018 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on December 9, 2018
Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.
is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.
Page 1 of 38
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Human Urine as a Fertilizer in the Cultivation of Snap Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) and Turnips (Brassica rapa) Madelyn Pandorfa,b*, George Hochmuthc, and Treavor H. Boyera aSchool
of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment (SSEBE) Arizona State University P.O. Box 873005, Tempe, Arizona, 85287-3005, USA bDepartment
of Environmental Engineering Sciences Engineering School of Sustainable Infrastructure & Environment (ESSIE) University of Florida P.O. Box 116450, Gainesville, Florida 32611-6450, USA cDepartment
of Soil and Water Sciences Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) University of Florida P.O. Box 116450, Gainesville, Florida 32611-6450, USA *Corresponding author. Tel.: 1-727-417-3764. E-mail addresses
[email protected] (M. Pandorf).
Submitted to Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 27 November 2018
1 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
1
Abstract
2
The main reason for implementing human urine diversion is to produce a local and renewable
3
source of fertilizer for agriculture. Accordingly, the goal of this research was to compare human
4
urine fertilizer and synthetic fertilizer in the cultivation of snap beans and turnips by evaluating
5
the yield, plant tissue chemical composition, nutrient uptake efficiency, soil nutrient content, and
6
leachate nutrient content between plots. Four fertilizer treatments were evaluated: 1) synthetic
7
fertilizer, 2) urine supplemented with synthetic fertilizer, 3) urine-only, and 4) a no-fertilizer
8
control, referred to as treatments 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Plants fertilized by treatments 1 and
9
2 produced the highest yield for fall turnips and spring snap beans. The turnip yield for the urine-
10
only treatment was significantly higher than the no-fertilizer control. Overall, the results showed
11
that supplemented urine fertilizer can be used as an alternative to synthetic fertilizer with
12
comparable yields, and urine-only fertilizer can significantly increase yields over the no-fertilizer
13
control. The results also suggest that nutrients in urine are available in a form favorable for plant
14
uptake.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Keywords: human urine fertilizer, leachate, lettuce, snap beans
2 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 2 of 38
Page 3 of 38
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
24
1. Introduction
25
Agriculture has become increasingly dependent on synthetically derived fertilizers, and has in
26
turn created a burden on Earth’s non-renewable resources, such as phosphate rock and natural
27
gas.1-4 Synthetic fertilizer production has a high energy demand of 78,230, 17,500, and 13,800 kJ
28
of energy per kg of nitrogen, mined phosphate rock, and potash fertilizer produced,
29
respectively.1, 5 Fertilizer demands will continue to rise with the growing populations and
30
increased need of food production. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
31
has predicted that nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) demands, collectively known
32
as NPK, will increase by 1.5, 2.2, and 2.4% per year through 2020.6 The current conventional
33
agriculture system requires synthetic fertilizer inputs to grow crops, which are then consumed by
34
animals and humans with excretion of excess nutrients. The use of alternative fertilizers and soil
35
amendments such as animal waste is well established. However, the use of human waste as a
36
fertilizer is more complicated as illustrated by varying policies on the land application of
37
wastewater biosolids.2, 7
38 39
Urine diversion takes a different approach where urine can be applied directly as an alternative to
40
synthetic fertilizer. The composition of urine partially fulfills the primary macronutrients needed
41
to grow plants (i.e., N, P, and K). Urine has high concentrations of nitrogen, and when used as an
42
N fertilizer would reduce the need for the Haber Bosch process. Therefore, reducing the energy
43
demand, fossil fuel consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions associated with N fixation for
44
synthetic fertilizers. Additional benefits of urine diversion include potable water savings due to
45
reduced toilet and urinal flushing, and a decreased load of N and P to wastewater treatment
46
plants thereby decreasing energy requirements for operation.8-10 A survey in Switzerland showed
3 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
47
42% of farmers were willing to purchase a urine-derived fertilizer product, implying it could be
48
an acceptable alternative to synthetic fertilizer.11 Urine-derived fertilizer could also have
49
significant implications in areas where there is limited access to affordable synthetic fertilizer or
50
waste disposal issues, such as in developing countries.12-13
51 52
Urine has been used to effectively grow a variety of crops around the world, primarily in
53
Northern Europe and Africa, see Table 1. Applying urine as a liquid fertilizer resulted in higher
54
yields of cucumber, cabbage, and amaranth, compared to synthetic fertilizer, indicating urine can
55
provide plants with essential nutrients.14-16 The high concentration of N in urine can allow for
56
adequate crop growth; however, a limitation of urine is the low concentrations of P and K, other
57
key macronutrients. Therefore, several studies have investigated supplementing urine with
58
different materials such as wood ash, gypsum, compost, humanure (human waste), and poultry
59
manure to supply the plant with nutrients that urine is lacking.13, 19-22 Liquid urine was combined
60
with wood ash to provide P, K, calcium, and magnesium and resulted in a higher yield for red
61
beets with supplemented urine compared to urine only and synthetic fertilizer.17 Pradhan et al.,
62
compared three treatments, urine with wood ash, animal manure, and a no-fertilizer control with
63
supplemented urine producing the highest yields for radish, mustard, cauliflower, and cabbage.18
64
A field experiment in Nigeria investigated urine combined with different ratios of compost to
65
grow amaranths and found urine-only fertilizer to outperform the compost combinations and the
66
synthetic fertilizer considering the nutrients in urine are readily available to the plant.16 Fewer
67
studies have investigated combining urine with synthetic P and K fertilizers. Germer et al.,
68
combined urine with triple super phosphate and potassium chloride to grow sorghum and
69
concluded that this combination can fully substitute the synthetic N fertilizer needs of the plant.19
4 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 4 of 38
Page 5 of 38
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
70
Experiments using urine as a liquid fertilizer have been conducted in many regions of the world
71
which are highlighted in the EcoSans Series Report and Table 1.13 However, the performance of
72
urine can be dictated by the soil composition and crop, making it important to assess urine
73
fertilizer under a variety crops and soil types.13
74 75
A salt tolerant crop was desired due to the elevated levels of sodium and chloride found naturally
76
in urine. Snap beans and turnips were chosen as viable salt tolerant crops that have not been
77
previously investigated using urine fertilizer (Table 1).13 The gap in knowledge concerning urine
78
application as a liquid fertilizer is that there are no published studies conducted in the United
79
States. Furthermore, many urine studies have been conducted using pot experiments or
80
greenhouses and are lacking both a positive (synthetic fertilizer) and negative (no fertilizer)
81
control.13 The EcoSanRes report highlights a wide range of studies that have used urine as a
82
liquid fertilizer, e.g., greenhouse studies in South Africa to grow beetroot, cabbage, carrot,
83
maize, spinach, and tomato.13, 20-22 Studies from different countries are important to show that
84
urine can be used effectively in different soil types and climates. In addition, studies from
85
different countries raise awareness in the agriculture community that urine fertilizer can be an
86
alternative to synthetic fertilizers with comparable yields. There is sparse previous research that
87
has supplemented urine to meet the N, P, and K requirements for plant growth to fully satisfy the
88
nutrient demands of the plant. Furthermore, previous studies did not include tissue data, soil
89
analysis, and leachate composition to compute nutrient uptake efficiency. Studies have used
90
lysimeters to collect leachate and evaluate different nutrient leaching rates from synthetic
91
fertilizers; however, leachate data from urine is scarce. To date only one study has evaluated the
92
nutrient leaching rate using cow urine as a liquid fertilizer.23
5 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
93 94
The goal of this study was to compare snap bean and turnip cultivation under three fertilizer
95
treatments of synthetic fertilizer, urine supplemented with synthetic fertilizer (U + Syn), and
96
urine-only fertilizer. The specific objectives of this study were to (i) determine the effectiveness
97
of urine as a liquid fertilizer by comparing yields of snap beans and turnips over two growing
98
seasons; (ii) analyze the plant tissue chemical composition to compare the nutrient content and
99
uptake efficiency between treatments; (iii) analyze soil samples to assess nutrient build up
100
between treatments; and (iv) compare the nutrient leaching rates between treatments.
101 102
2. Materials and Methods
103
Planting provisions and field setup
104
Snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris var. Roma II) (Alachua Farm and Lumber, Gainesville, FL) and
105
turnip (Brassica rapa var. Purple Top White Globe) (Alachua Farm and Lumber, Gainesville,
106
FL) were sown in a plot at the University of Florida’s Plant Science Research and Education
107
Unit in Citra, FL (29°24̍ 21.4̎ N and 82°08̍ 25.5̎ W). Snap beans were planted on August 19,
108
2015 (fall) and April 12, 2016 (spring), and turnips were planted on October 29, 2015 (fall) and
109
February 16, 2016 (spring). A push planter was used to plant the fall beans and turnips along
110
with the spring turnips. A Monosem vacuum planter was used to plant the spring snap beans. The
111
average temperature and total monthly rainfall data from the Florida Automated Weather
112
Network (FAWN) Citra station are presented for each month (August 2015 to June 2016) in
113
Table S1 (Supporting Information (SI)). The four different fertilizer treatments of: synthetic
114
fertilizer, urine supplemented with synthetic fertilizer (U + Syn), urine-only, and a no-fertilizer
115
control were done in triplicate for each crop. The cultivation area was split into twelve 7.32 m
6 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 6 of 38
Page 7 of 38
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
116
(24 ft) by 7.32 m (24 ft) squares. Each square consisted of a different fertilizer treatment in a
117
randomized complete block design that was paired with a drainage lysimeter. Within each
118
square, only two 7.32 m (24 ft) rows were planted and fertilized directly over the lysimeter
119
barrel. The total cultivation area for each crop was 0.016 hectares (0.04 acres or 1728 ft2). A
120
schematic of the south half of the field is given in Figure S1 in SI. There were 0.91 m (3 ft)
121
buffer zones vertically, and 3.7 m (12 ft) buffer zones horizontally between treatments. The fall
122
beans were planted on the south half of the field and the fall turnips were planted on the north
123
half. For the spring growing season the setup was reversed but kept the same fertilizer treatment
124
locations to mimic a typical crop rotation pattern that may be used by farmers.
125 126
Urine collection and composition
127
Urine was collected using source separating collection devices to minimize any cross
128
contamination from feces. The urine was stored for a minimum of 1 month at temperatures
129
ranging from 14°C to 27°C in 30 and 55-gallon drums (114 L and 208 L) with tight sealing lids.
130
All the urine applied as fertilizer had a pH above 9 indicating that it was hydrolyzed. The urine
131
was stirred to homogenize the tank contents and then a diaphragm pump was used to transfer the
132
necessary amount of urine for fertilization into five-gallon (19 L) jugs.
133 134
The composition of the urine was analyzed for each fertilizer treatment applied with the average
135
values reported in Table 2 and details for each trial and dose in Tables S2–S5 in SI. Total dissolved
136
N (TDN) was analyzed on the Shimadzu TOC-VCPH/TNM-1 equipped with an ASI-V autosampler.
137
The urine was acidified using 12 M hydrochloric acid to a pH ≤ 2 in order to convert all the
138
unionized ammonia to aqueous ammonium ions. Ion chromatography (Dionex ICS-3000) was
7 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
139
used to measure K+, Na+, Ca2+, Mg2+, Cl-, NO3-, and SO42-. Analysis for total dissolved P (TDP)
140
followed Standard Method 4500-P using U-2900 UV-visible spectrophotometer (Hitachi High
141
Technologies) at a wavelength of 880 nm and a 1 cm quartz cuvette.24 An Orion High-Performance
142
Ammonia electrode was used to measure NH3-N following Standard Method 4500-NH3. pH was
143
measured using a Fisher Scientific Accumet AP71 meter with pH AP55 electrode. The pH meter
144
was calibrated before each use using 4, 7, and 10 buffer solutions. Conductivity was measured
145
using an Orion 013005MD Conductivity Cell. All analytical stock solutions were prepared using
146
deionized (DI) water and ACS reagent grade purity chemicals. Urine was filtered before testing
147
on instruments using a 0.45 μm nylon syringe filter (Environmental Express).
148 149
Fertilizer treatments
150
The four fertilizer treatments were: synthetic fertilizer (treatment 1), urine supplemented with
151
synthetic fertilizer (U + Syn) (treatment 2), urine-only (treatment 3), and a no-fertilizer control
152
(treatment 4). The rate of NPK nutrients for fall beans and turnips were determined using the soil
153
sample results for P and K combined with the Vegetable Production Handbook for Florida for
154
the amount of N.25 Treatments 1, 2, and 3 were formulated to supply the same amount of N.
155
Treatment 2 had ~14% more P than treatment 1 due to the P already in the urine. Treatment 3
156
plots purposefully received less P and K due to lower concentrations of both constituents in
157
urine. The mineral fertilizer used for the treatment 1 was a blend of ammonium nitrate (30-0-0)
158
from Mayo Fertilizer Inc., Live Oak, FL, triple super phosphate (0-46-0), and potassium chloride
159
(0-0-62) both from Growers Fertilizer Corporation, Trenton, FL. The parenthesis after each of
160
the mineral fertilizers indicates the weight percentage of (N-P2O5-K2O) in each bag of fertilizer,
161
e.g. 30-0-0 specifies that the fertilizer bag composition consists of 30% nitrogen by weight. The
8 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 8 of 38
Page 9 of 38
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
162
synthetic fertilizers used for the P and K additions for treatment 2 were triple super phosphate
163
and potash from Growers Fertilizer Corporation. An application of micronutrients (5% S, 2.4%
164
B, 2.4% Cu, 14.4% Fe, 6% Mn, and 5.8% Zn) was added upfront at a dose of 29 kg/ha to
165
treatments 1 and 2 for fall and spring beans and turnips. All granular fertilizer was applied by
166
hand. Urine was measured in beakers and then poured into watering cans for application. All
167
fertilizer was side dressed along each row (approximately 15 cm) on either side. The irrigation
168
system was turned on after each fertilization to ensure no burning of the leaves occurred. The
169
target fertilizer rates for each season and crop are listed in Table 3. The fall beans were fertilized
170
on cultivation days of 0, 30, and 40 after planting at varying rates depending on the fertilizer
171
treatment and date (see Table S6 in SI). Fall turnips were fertilized on cultivation days of 0, 25,
172
and 59 with details in Table S7 in SI. Spring turnips were fertilized on cultivation days of 0, 35,
173
and 57 with details in Table S8 in SI. The spring snap beans were fertilized on the cultivation
174
days of 0, 23, and 44 with details in Table S9 in SI. The values of P and K in Tables S6–S9 in SI
175
represent P as P2O5 and K as K2O.
176 177
Plant maintenance, tissue analysis, and harvest
178
Fall snap beans were irrigated as needed using a water reel sprinkler that watered for
179
approximately 1 h each time to replace the amount of water lost by evapotranspiration (ET). Fall
180
turnips, spring turnips, and spring beans were all watered with micro-jet sprinklers on 0.30 m (12
181
in) stakes twice a day for either 15 or 30 min depending on the time of year and ET. The
182
irrigation supply line was placed in the center between the two planted rows with sprayers every
183
1.8 m (6 ft). Crop diseases and pests were controlled using recommended herbicides and
184
pesticides based on frequent crop scouting.
9 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
185 186
Throughout the growing season, whole-leaf samples were taken at different stages of growth to
187
determine sufficient nutrient concentrations. Five to eight newly matured leaves were removed
188
per row within each plot. The beans had whole-leaf samples taken when the plants were
189
flowering and small bean pods were emerging. The turnips had whole-leaf samples pulled after
190
the third fertilizer treatment. Whole-plant samples were collected at harvest time for nutrient
191
analyses to determine nutrient uptake totals. All whole-leaf and whole-plant samples were dried
192
for a minimum of a week at 60°C and then ground using a Thomas Scientific 3383-L10 Wiley
193
Mill. The samples were sent to the Analytic Research Laboratory on the campus of University of
194
Florida, for analysis of N, P, and K. Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) was the form on N analyzed
195
for plant tissue.
196 197
Each vegetable crop for both seasons was harvested twice in order to preserve the fully grown
198
vegetable while also allowing the smaller developing turnips/beans to keep growing. For
199
harvesting, each row within each treatment was marked off in three-foot sections that were a
200
minimum of three feet from the end of the row. The same three-foot sections were used for the
201
first and second harvest. The beans were removed from the plant and split into marketable and
202
culls before getting the fresh weights. The same process took place for the second harvest with
203
the addition of all the harvested plants being pulled. After a week in the 60°C drying oven, the
204
dry weights of the marketable and cull beans were measured. All the beans from the two harvests
205
were then combined and ground in a Wiley mill for nutrient concentrations. The whole plants
206
were ground separately for analysis of N, P, and K. For the first harvest of turnips, only the
207
turnips with a diameter larger than 6.35 cm were taken. During the second turnip harvest, turnips
10 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 10 of 38
Page 11 of 38
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
208
were separated into larger (>6.35 cm) and smaller ( 0.05) for fall snap beans due to the suboptimal growing
306
conditions that occurred in the field causing poor snap bean growth. Even though fall beans were
307
not statistically significant, both seasons showed a trend of enhanced biomass production with
308
the addition of urine fertilizer compared to the control (Table 4). This also implies that extra
309
nutrients are still necessary to add even though snap beans can fix their own N from the
310
atmosphere. Hochmuth and Hanlon summarized that N, P, and K are all essential to add for
311
maximum bean yield as long it is not in excess of the recommended amount based on soil
312
sampling.30 The yield results indicate that urine supplemented with P and K could be used as an
313
alternative to traditional synthetic fertilizers. Additional research should be conducted to confirm
314
this result.
315 316
Turnips received the same amount of N for treatments 1–3 (Tables S7 and S8 in SI). In treatment
317
2 urine supplied 100% of the N fertilizer, 19% of P fertilizer, and an average of 25% of the K
318
fertilizer. Treatment 1 resulted in the highest yields for fall and treatment 3 for spring. The turnip
319
yield was affected by the interaction of treatment and season, and the leaf yield by the main
320
effects of season and treatment (Table 5). This interaction can be attributed to plant damage from
321
an herbicide in the spring that reduced the plant growth compared to the fall. For the fall turnip
15 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
322
season, treatments 1 and 2 resulted in higher yields than plants with treatments 3 and 4 (p
11,000 kg/ha and would enhance biomass growth by 143% over no-fertilizer control.
326
Additionally, urine-only increased biomass growth by 35% over the no-fertilizer control. In
327
studies of cabbage, sorghum, red beet, banana, and maize, urine increased the yield over the no-
328
fertilizer control and in some studies outperformed the synthetic fertilizer when supplemented.15,
329
17, 19, 31-32
330
sensitivity to the ammonium form of N, which is the dominant form of N in urine. Simmone
331
found that when ammonium was the dominant N form, the turnip greens showed reduced
332
growth.33 Turnips are also moderately sensitive to salinity, which could have had an effect on
333
their yield considering urine has an elevated salt content.13, 34 Overall, urine resulted in an
334
improved turnip yield over the no-fertilizer control demonstrating that urine is supplying
335
essential nutrients for plant growth, and could be used in areas where synthetic fertilizer is not
336
accessible or affordable.
In this study, the turnip yield fertilized with urine may have been reduced due to turnip
337 338
Plant tissue chemical composition
339
Plant tissue nutrient content between treatments was analyzed to establish the chemical
340
composition of the crops at different growth stages and if urine is able to supply adequate
341
nutrients. Whole-leaf samples were taken to perform plant diagnostics and assess nutrient uptake
342
of N, P, and K (Tables 4-5: Leaf N, P, K). At harvest, whole plant samples were collected for
343
crops to evaluate the nutrient content with different fertilizer treatments. The harvest tissue is
344
labeled as plant N, P, or K for the whole plant samples without the beans and bean N, P, or K for
16 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 16 of 38
Page 17 of 38
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
345
the beans. Harvest turnip tissue is labeled as turnip N, P, or K for marketable turnips (turnip
346
diameter > 6.35 cm), tops N, P, or K for marketable leaves (turnip diameter > 6.35 cm), and
347
biomass N, P, or K for all turnips combined with leaves that were unmarketable.
348 349
The analysis showed that the whole-leaf snap bean samples taken at the time of flowering
350
differed significantly between treatments and seasons for N, P, and K (Table 4). Whole-leaf
351
samples were used to asses if the beans were receiving adequate nutrients at the time of
352
flowering and initial bean production.35 Table 6 shows that N was adequate/high in fall for
353
treatments 1-3 and deficient for all treatments in spring. The bean plants at flowering were
354
deficient in P in the fall season and had adequate to high P in the spring season (Table 6).35
355
Treatments 1 and 2 had high K at flowering in fall and deficient levels in treatments 1 through 4
356
in spring (Table 6).35 However, at time of harvest treatment 1 resulted in the highest N, P, and K
357
content in the snap bean pod followed by treatment 2 for both seasons (Table 4). The statistical
358
analysis showed the bean and plant N (Table 4) data at time of harvest for treatments 1, 2, and 3
359
had resulted in significantly higher N uptake over treatment 4. Treatments 1 and 2 resulted in the
360
highest N and K content in the harvest plants and all plants had similar P content (Table 4). The
361
higher N and K content with treatments 1 and 2 is most likely due to their larger plant size
362
coupled with better overall growth. Similar results for P and K were found in red beets grown
363
with synthetic, urine with wood ash, and urine-only fertilizers. K content was highest in the
364
synthetic and supplemented urine fertilizers and similar between all treatments for P.17 The
365
slightly lower K content in urine fertilized plants could be a result of the high Na concentrations
366
in urine causing cation competition between the K and Na.17, 36 A significant increase of K
367
uptake considering treatments 1 and 2 had the highest dose of K added and therefore the largest
17 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
368
uptake. Snap bean tissue was affected by the significant interaction between season and
369
treatment for leaf N, P, and K and bean P and K illustrating that the treatments performed
370
differently between seasons. Beans in the fall season had increased N uptake in the bean pod,
371
while in the spring there was increased plant P and K uptake across all the treatments. There was
372
an ample amount of P already in the soil (Table S12 in SI) that resulted in no significant
373
difference between treatments for the whole harvest plant P content. Overall, the tissue samples
374
showed different patterns of nutrient uptake but in both seasons, treatments 1 and 2 resulted in
375
higher nutrient uptake for N and K for the bean and whole plant. This implies that the forms of
376
nutrients in urine are favorable for plant uptake, and if supplemented urine were to be used as an
377
alternative to synthetic fertilizer the N, P, and K uptake should remain consistent if the urine is
378
supplemented to meet plant nutrient requirements.
379 380
The fall and spring turnips had different tissue composition results most likely due to the plant
381
damage to the spring crop. Table 7 shows that the fall turnips had adequate to high N, P, and K
382
for all treatments in the initial stages of turnip development. However, treatments 2 and 4 were
383
deficient in N, and treatments 3 and 4 were deficient in K during turnip development in the
384
spring (Table 7). The diagnostic leaf samples showed no significant difference of nutrient uptake
385
of N, P, and K between each treatment (Table 5). This trend continued in the harvest tissue
386
samples for turnip P and K and tops N, P, and K. In the cultivation of red beets with urine there
387
was no significant statistical difference of N content between urine and no fertilizer.17 Treatment
388
1 resulted in the highest turnip N content in the fall and treatment 3 had the highest in the spring.
389
Increased N uptake in the urine-only treatment in spring could be a function of the herbicide
390
damage affecting nutrient uptake and overall growth to the other treatments. This can also be
18 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 18 of 38
Page 19 of 38
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
391
seen by the main effects of season on the N, P, and K of the tops, which shows higher nutrient
392
absorption in the fall season (Table 5). In a urine application to pumpkin, higher N uptake in
393
plant tissue was also observed in the synthetic treatment.29 Lower N uptake in urine fertilized
394
plants could be attributed to N loss through volatilization, slower or reduced nitrification due to
395
the high chloride content, and salt stress effecting overall growth.29, 34, 37-38 There was
396
consistently greater nutrient uptake in fall over spring demonstrating that the herbicide most
397
likely had an impact on nutrient content in the spring.
398 399
Nutrient use efficiency
400
A nutrient use efficiency (NUE) was calculated using an apparent recovery efficiency by
401
difference (RE) approach for N, P, and K for both turnips and snap beans, described in Section
402
2.4 using Equation E1.26 The purpose of the NUE was to investigate if urine is supplying
403
nutrients in a form that plants can uptake resulting in equal or better nutrient use efficiency
404
compared with synthetic nutrient sources. The beans showed a trend of treatment 1 having the
405
largest NUE for N in both seasons. The snap beans had improved growth in the spring and
406
averaged 30%, 26%, and 9% NUE for N and 26%, 21%, and 20% NUE for K in treatments 1, 2,
407
and 3, respectively (Table S11 in SI). The fall turnips had an increased uptake of nutrients over
408
the spring crop due to herbicide damage that influenced turnip growth in the spring. The N NUE
409
for turnips in the fall was 38%, 21%, and 12% compared with 6%, 4%, and 17% in spring for
410
treatments 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Potassium NUE was 38%, 30%, and N/A for fall compared
411
to 22%, 12%, and 42% for spring turnips for treatments 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Table S11 in
412
SI). It has been reported that the N NUE of cereal crops can range from 40–65% and 30–50% for
19 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
413
K.26 Common N NUE values for maize, wheat, and rice were 65%, 57%, and 46%,
414
respectively.26, 39
415 416
Nutrient uptake efficiency in the urine could have been affected by several factors specific to
417
urine such as its high salt content and volatile form of N coupled with the variability in yield
418
between treatments and season. Ammonia is the prominent form of N in hydrolyzed urine and
419
has been shown to have a lower N uptake compare to nitrate. In a study by Haynes and Goh
420
(1976), it was found that in different types of soils, plants had greater N uptake of nitrate over
421
ammonium.40 Kirchmann and Pettersson (1994) also showed lower N uptake and larger gaseous
422
losses in urine fertilized barley over ammonium nitrate fertilizer.41 Considering the high Na+
423
concentrations in urine, it is possible the plants took up sodium ion over potassium ion due to
424
cation competition as seen in studies growing red beet and tomatoes, and it was suggested as a
425
reason for lower K content in red beet and pumpkin.17, 29, 42 In a study done on the responses of
426
different turnip cultivars to salt stress, it was found that an increased salt level had negative
427
effects on plant growth and reduced the uptake of calcium and K, which is seen when comparing
428
the potassium uptake efficiency for treatments one and two.34 The higher K NUE for spring
429
turnips can be a function of the overall small quantity of K that was applied in combination with
430
high yield results. There was variability between seasons and treatments with nutrients taken up
431
in the tissue changing due to smaller growth and plant damage. Treatments 1 and 2 showed
432
similar N NUE for the spring snap beans. Treatment 1 followed by treatment 2 had the largest N
433
NUE for the fall turnips.
434 435
Residual nutrients in soil
20 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 20 of 38
Page 21 of 38
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
436
Soil samples were taken before planting and after harvesting to assess for nutrient build up in the
437
soils (Table S12 in SI). Soil testing results showed that the P in the soil before and after
438
cultivation was high for all fall and spring treatments due to the naturally high levels of P found
439
in the soils. For fall beans, the residual left in the soil was evenly distributed between all
440
treatments except for the levels of K and magnesium (Table S12 in SI). The post-harvest K
441
levels for fall beans fell within a medium range in treatments 1 and 2 and very low for treatments
442
3 and 4, indicating a nutrient buildup of K in the soil for treatments 1 and 2. This can be
443
attributed to the higher levels of K additions along with the smaller than average plants
444
throughout the entire field. Treatment 3 did not result in any nutrient buildup considering the
445
only K applied to the soil was the small amount that is naturally in urine. The spring snap beans
446
showed no buildup of nutrients indicating appropriate levels of nutrients were applied to
447
accomplish adequate plant growth and yield. Turnips had relatively consistent levels of nutrients
448
in the soil between treatments (Table S12 in SI). The constant levels of low K for pre and post-
449
harvest samples indicated that there was little to no nutrient loading across all treatments. In
450
urine fertilizer application of red beet, pumpkin, and spinach it was also found that soil
451
conditions were similar between treatments.17, 22, 29 In general, there was minimal nutrient
452
loading for all treatments, which is important in order to avoid nutrient leaching and loss to the
453
environment.
454 455
Leachate composition
456
Leachate was collected biweekly or as needed depending on rainfall events. Figure 2 shows an
457
average cumulative leaching of N and K between replicates with Tables S13–S16 in SI showing
458
averages by collection date for all components analyzed. There was variability between averages
21 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
459
and treatments due to functionality of the lysimeters and fall data was not included due to
460
lysimeter performance. Potassium followed the expected trend of treatments 1 and 2 having a
461
higher amount of K leaching considering they received the two largest doses of K through
462
fertilization. This is consistent with a study done using lysimeters that looked at cow urine
463
combined with synthetic fertilizers in which they found higher K leaching in the supplemented
464
urine over the no-fertilizer control.23 Naturally occurring N easily leached due to the sandy
465
nature of the soil seen in the no treatment for both bean and turnips (Figure 2). There have been
466
studies investigating the effect of cow urine on nitrogen leaching, but none to the authors’
467
knowledge observing leaching effects of human urine, which has a significantly higher
468
concentration of N compared to cow urine.23, 43-44 This data has an important contribution,
469
considering there is very limited published data on leachate for urine fertilizer studies.
470 471
Implications
472
Urine can have a significant impact as an alternative fertilizer through energy and water savings
473
along with sanitation improvements; however, investigation of pharmaceutical removal and
474
sustainable options to supplement urine are still needed. The removal of pharmaceuticals from
475
urine is an important aspect that was not considered in this study. Ion exchange resins and
476
biochar have shown promising results of pharmaceutical removal in human urine; therefore, a
477
comprehensive study using these as a pretreatment and investigating the fate of pharmaceuticals
478
and the effect on crop growth would be valuable.45-46 Additionally, further studies should be
479
conducted testing different urine matrices such as fresh urine compared to a urea synthetic
480
fertilizer accompanied with a comprehensive nutrient balance and leaching study. Agricultural
481
nutrient runoff has significant effects on the surrounding ecosystems; hence, a nutrient leaching
22 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 22 of 38
Page 23 of 38
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
482
analysis of different alternative fertilizers can provide insight and motivation for using
483
sustainable fertilizer sources. This research provides evidence from field trails over two growing
484
seasons that urine can be used to grow snap beans and turnips with improved yield over the no -
485
fertilizer control and similar yield between synthetic fertilizer and supplemented urine.
486
Additionally, the plant tissue chemical composition showed that urine can deliver nutrients in an
487
uptake ready form, and can provide sufficient levels of N, P, and K when supplemented.
488
Experiments investigating sustainably sourced options to supplement urine such as gypsum,
489
wood ash, and compost exist, however; additional studies looking at other crops and supplements
490
such as anaerobic digester effluent can further close the nutrient loop.16-18, 32 There is a need for
491
alternative methods of supplementing human urine in combination with understanding the effects
492
of alternative fertilizers on nutrient uptake and leaching through a nutrient balance between the
493
plant tissue, soil, and leached water. Urine can increase the yield of crops, which in turn
494
increases a farmer’s income while also mitigating the environmental effects of synthetic fertilizer
495
production through reduced energy use and greenhouse gas production.
496 497
Abbreviations Used
498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508
U+Syn: human urine supplemented with synthetic fertilizer None: no-fertilizer control N: nitrogen P: phosphorus K: potassium TDN: total dissolved nitrogen TDP: total dissolved phosphorus ET: evapotranspiration NUE: nutrient use efficiency RE: nutrient recovery efficiency by difference
509
23 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
510
Acknowledgements
511
The authors would like to thank Buck Nelson, Mike Holder, and Kevin Guinn at the UF IFAS
512
Plant Science Research and Education Unit, Citra, FL, and Avni Solanki for assisting with the
513
graphic design.
514 515
Funding Sources
516
This publication is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation, NSF
517
CAREER grant CBET-1150790 and the University Scholars Program at the University of
518
Florida (2015). Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
519
publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF.
520 521
Supporting Information Description
522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532
Description of lysimeter construction and repair Table S1 average monthly temperature and total rainfall for cultivation periods Tables S2-S5 urine compositions of fertilizer applied to fall snap beans, fall turnips, spring turnips, and spring snap beans Tables S6-S9 breakdown of fertilizer treatments by dose for fall snap beans, fall turnips, spring turnips, and spring snap beans Table S10 dimensions of lysimeter Table S11 nutrient mass balance Table S12 soil analysis summary Table S13-S16 summary of leachate collection averages by date and treatment for each component analyzed Figure S1 layout of the field experiments
24 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 24 of 38
Page 25 of 38
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
References 1. Gellings, C. W.; Parmenter, K. E., Energy efficiency in fertilizer production and use. In Efficient Use and Conservation of Energy, Gellings, C. W., Ed. Eolss Publishers Co. Ltd.: Oxford, United Kingdom, 2016; Vol. II, pp 123-136. 2. Singh, R. P.; Agrawal, M., Potential benefits and risks of land application of sewage sludge. Waste Management 2008, 28 (2), 347-358. 3. Gilbert, N., Environment: the disappearing nutrient. Nature News 2009, 461 (7265), 716718. 4. Filippelli, G. M., Balancing the Global Distribution of Phosphorus With a View Toward Sustainability and Equity. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 2018, 32 (6), 904-908. 5. Helsel, Z. R., Energy and alternatives for fertilizer and pesticide use. Energy in farm production 1992, 6, 177-201. 6. World fertilizer trends and outlook to 2020. Nations, F. a. A. O. o. t. U., Ed. Rome, 2017. 7. Pritchard, D. L.; Penney, N.; McLaughlin, M. J.; Rigby, H.; Schwarz, K., Land application of sewage sludge (biosolids) in Australia: risks to the environment and food crops. Water Science and Technology 2010, 62 (1), 48-57. 8. Larsen, T. A.; Gujer, W., Separate management of anthropogenic nutrient solutions (human urine). Water Science and Technology 1996, 34 (3–4), 87-94. 9. Wilsenach, J.; van Loosdrecht, M., Impact of separate urine collection on wastewater treatment systems. Water Science and Technology 2003, 48 (1), 103-110. 10. Landry, K. A.; Boyer, T. H., Life cycle assessment and costing of urine source separation: Focus on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug removal. Water Research 2016, 105, 487-495. 11. Lienert, J.; Haller, M.; Berner, A.; Stauffacher, M.; Larsen, T. A., How farmers in Switzerland perceive fertilizers from recycled anthropogenic nutrients (urine). Water Science and Technology 2003, 48 (1), 47-56. 12. Winker, M.; Vinneras, B.; Muskolus, A.; Arnold, U.; Clemens, J., Fertiliser products from new sanitation systems: their potential values and risks. Bioresour Technol 2009, 100 (18), 4090-6. 13. Richert, A.; Gensch, R.; Jönsson, H.; Stenström, T. A.; Dagerskog, L., Practical guidance on the use of urine in crop production. SEI: 2010. 14. Heinonen-Tanski, H.; Sjoblom, A.; Fabritius, H.; Karinen, P., Pure human urine is a good fertiliser for cucumbers. Bioresour Technol 2007, 98 (1), 214-217. 15. Pradhan, S. K.; Nerg, A.-M.; Sjöblom, A.; Holopainen, J. K.; Heinonen-Tanski, H., Use of Human Urine Fertilizer in Cultivation of Cabbage (Brassica oleracea)––Impacts on Chemical, Microbial, and Flavor Quality. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2007, 55 (21), 86578663. 16. AdeOluwa, O.; Cofie, O., Urine as an alternative fertilizer in agriculture: effects in amaranths (Amaranthus caudatus) production. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 2012, 27 (04), 287-294. 17. Pradhan, S. K.; Holopainen, J. K.; Weisell, J.; Heinonen-Tanski, H., Human urine and wood ash as plant nutrients for red beet (Beta vulgaris) cultivation: impacts on yield quality. J Agric Food Chem 2010, 58 (3), 2034-2039. 18. Pradhan, S. K.; Piya, R. C.; Heinonen-Tanski, H., Eco-sanitation and its benefits: an experimental demonstration program to raise awareness in central Nepal. Environment, Development and Sustainability 2011, 13 (3), 507-518. 25 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
19. Germer, J.; Addai, S.; Sauerborn, J., Response of grain sorghum to fertilisation with human urine. Field Crops Research 2011, 122 (3), 234-241. 20. Mnkeni, P. N. S.; Kutu, F. R.; Muchaonyerwa, P.; Austin, L. M., Evaluation of human urine as a source of nutrients for selected vegetables and maize under tunnel house conditions in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Waste Management & Research 2008, 26 (2), 132-139. 21. Mnkeni, P.; Austin, A.; Kutu, F. In Preliminary studies on the evaluation of human urine as a source of nutrients for vegetables in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa, ecological sanitation: a sustainable, integrated solution. Conference documentation of the 3rd international ecological sanitation conference, Durban, South Africa, 2005; pp 418-426. 22. Kutu, F. R.; Muchaonyerwa, P.; Mnkeni, P. N., Complementary nutrient effects of separately collected human faeces and urine on the yield and nutrient uptake of spinach (Spinacia oleracea). Waste Management & Research 2011, 29 (5), 532-539. 23. Hogg, D. E., A lysimeter study of nutrient losses from urine and dung applications on pasture. New Zealand Journal of Experimental Agriculture 1981, 9 (1), 39-46. 24. Agency, U. E. P., Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. EPA‐600/4‐79‐020. Cincinnati, Ohio. 1979. 25. Stephen M. Olson, B. S., Vegetable Production Handbook for Florida. University of Florida, IFAS Extension, Gainesville, FL 2011. 26. Fixen, P.; Brentrup, F.; Bruulsema, T.; Garcia, F.; Norton, R.; Zingore, S., Nutrient/fertilizer use efficiency: measurement, current situation and trends. Managing water and fertilizer for sustainable agricultural intensification 2015, 8-38. 27. Rao Mylavarapu, T. O., Kelly Morgan, George Hochmuth, Vimala Nair, Alan Wright, Extraction of Soil Nutrients Using Mehlich-3 Reagent for Acid-Mineral Soils of Florida. 2014. 28. Båth, B., Field trials using human urine as fertilizer to leeks. Manuscript, Department of Ecology and Plant Production Science, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden 2003. 29. Pradhan, S. K.; Pitkänen, S.; Heinonen-Tanski, H., Fertilizer value of urine in pumpkin (Cucurbita maxima L.) cultivation. Agricultural and Food Science 2009, 18, 57-68. 30. Hochmuth, G. J.; Hanlon, E., A Summary of N, P, and K Research with Snapbean in Florida. University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agriculture Sciences, EDIS: 2000. 31. Sridevi, G.; Srinivasamurthy, C.; Bhaskar, S.; Viswanath, S., Studies on the effect of anthropogenic liquid waste (human urine) on soil properties, growth and yield of maize. Crop Research (Hisar) 2009, 38 (1/3), 11-14. 32. Sridevi, G.; Srinivasamurthy, C.; Bhaskar, S.; Viswanath, S., Evaluation of source separated human urine (ALW) as a source of nutrients for banana cultivation and impact on quality parameter. ARPN J Agric Biol Sci 2009, 4 (5), 44-48. 33. Simonne, E. H.; Smittle, D. A.; Mills, H. A., Turnip growth, leaf yield, and leaf nutrient composition responses to nitrogen forms. Journal of plant nutrition 1993, 16 (12), 2341-2351. 34. Noreen, Z.; Ashraf, M.; Akram, N., Salt‐Induced Regulation of Some Key Antioxidant Enzymes and Physio‐Biochemical Phenomena in Five Diverse Cultivars of Turnip (Brassica rapa L.). Journal of agronomy and crop science 2010, 196 (4), 273-285. 35. G. Hochmuth, D. M., C. Vavrina, E. Hanlon, E. Simonne, Plant Tissue Analysis and Interpretation for Vegetable Crops in Florida.
26 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 26 of 38
Page 27 of 38
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
36. Pradhan, S. K.; Holopainen, J. K.; Heinonen-Tanski, H., Stored human urine supplemented with wood ash as fertilizer in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) cultivation and its impacts on fruit yield and quality. J Agric Food Chem 2009, 57 (16), 7612-7617. 37. Kirchmann, H.; Pettersson, S., Human urine - Chemical composition and fertilizer use efficiency. Fertilizer research 1994, 40 (2), 149-154. 38. Rodhe, L.; Richert Stintzing, A.; Steineck, S., Ammonia emissions after application of human urine to a clay soil for barley growth. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 2004, 68 (2), 191-198. 39. Ladha, J. K.; Pathak, H.; Krupnik, T. J.; Six, J.; van Kessel, C., Efficiency of fertilizer nitrogen in cereal production: retrospects and prospects. Advances in agronomy 2005, 87, 85156. 40. Haynes, R.; Goh, K. M., Ammonium and nitrate nutrition of plants. Biological Reviews 1978, 53 (4), 465-510. 41. Kirchmann, H.; Pettersson, S., Human urine-chemical composition and fertilizer use efficiency. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 1994, 40 (2), 149-154. 42. Tuna, A. L.; Kaya, C.; Ashraf, M.; Altunlu, H.; Yokas, I.; Yagmur, B., The effects of calcium sulphate on growth, membrane stability and nutrient uptake of tomato plants grown under salt stress. Environmental and Experimental Botany 2007, 59 (2), 173-178. 43. Silva, R. G.; Cameron, K. C.; Di, H. J.; Hendry, T., A lysimeter study of the impact of cow urine, dairy shed euent, and nitrogen fertiliser on nitrate leaching. Soil Research 1999, 37 (2), 357-370. 44. Silva, R. G.; Cameron, K. C.; Di, H. J.; Jorgensen, E. E., A Lysimeter Study to Investigate the Effect of Dairy Effluent and Urea on Cattle Urine n Losses, Plant Uptake and Soil Retention. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 2005, 164 (1), 57-78. 45. Landry, K. A.; Sun, P.; Huang, C.-H.; Boyer, T. H., Ion-exchange selectivity of diclofenac, ibuprofen, ketoprofen, and naproxen in ureolyzed human urine. Water Research 2015, 68, 510-521. 46. Solanki, A.; Boyer, T. H., Pharmaceutical removal in synthetic human urine using biochar. Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology 2017, 3 (3), 553-565. 47. Heinonen-Tanski, H.; Pradhan, S. K.; Karinen, P., Sustainable Sanitation—A CostEffective Tool to Improve Plant Yields and the Environment. Sustainability 2010, 2 (1), 341353. 48. Amoah, P.; Adamtey, N.; Cofie, O., Effect of Urine, Poultry Manure, and Dewatered Faecal Sludge on Agronomic Characteristics of Cabbage in Accra, Ghana. Resources 2017, 6 (2), 19. 49. Guadarrama, R. O.; Pichardo, N. A.; Morales-Oliver, E. In Urine and Compost Efficiency Applied to Lettuce Cultivation under Greenhouse Conditions, Intemixco, Morelos, Mexico', Proceedings of the First International Conference on Ecological Sanitation, Nanning, China, November 2oo1, 2002. 50. Guzha, E.; Nhapi, I.; Rockstrom, J., An assessment of the effect of human faeces and urine on maize production and water productivity. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C 2005, 30 (11–16), 840-845. 51. Akpan-Idiok, A. U.; Udo, I. A.; Braide, E. I., The use of human urine as an organic fertilizer in the production of okra (Abelmoschus esculentus) in South Eastern Nigeria. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2012, 62, 14-20.
27 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Page 28 of 38
52. Pradhan, S. K.; Pitkänen, S.; Heinonen-Tanski, H., Fertilizer value of urine in pumpkin (Cucurbita maxima L.) cultivation. 2010. Figure Captions Figure 1: (a) Fall and spring snap bean marketable yield in kg/ha. (b) Fall and spring turnip marketable yield in kg/ha. None refers to the no fertilizer control. Letters represent ANOVA Fisher’s Least Significant Difference statistical analysis; yields with same letter mean no statistical difference. Figure 2: Nitrogen and potassium leaching for spring snap beans and turnips. Each date represents the average of collectable leachate from each treatment. Snap beans were fertilized on 8/19/2015, 9/18/2015, and 9/28/2015 for fall and 4/12/2016, 5/5/2016, and 5/26/2016 for spring. Turnips were fertilized on 10/29/2015, 11/23/2015, and 12/27/2015 for fall and 2/16/2016, 3/22/2016, and 4/13/2016 for spring. None refers to the no fertilizer control. Tables Table 1: Summary of studies done using urine as a fertilizer, unless specified all yield is given in t/ha. None refers to the no-fertilizer control. Crop Treatments Yield Plot Region Reference t/ha Type Amaranth
Banana
Beetroot
Urine: 100 kg N/ha Urinea: 100 kg N/ha Compost: 100 kg N/ha Mineral: 100 kg N/ha None Urine Urineb Urinec Urined Urinee Urinef Urineg Urineh Mineral None Urine: 50 kg N/ha Urine: 100 kg N/ha Urine: 200 kg N/ha Urine: 400 kg N/ha Urine: 800 kg N/ha None
58.2 33.9 32.5 34.3 23.2 24.9 28.7 27.4 30.0 23.7 24.9 24.9 24.9 28.4 19.9 7.70 g dry/pot 9.50 g dry/pot 9.50 g dry/pot 15.2 g dry/pot 14.4 g dry/pot 7.30 g dry/pot
Field
Nigeria
16
Field
India 13°02'36.1"N 77°30'02.9"E
32
Greenhouse : Pot
S. Africa
20
28 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 29 of 38
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Crop
Treatments
Yield t/ha
Plot Type
Cabbage
Urine: 180 kg N/ha Mineral: 180 kg N/ha None Urine: 121 kg N/ha Urinei: 121 kg N/ha Urinej: 121 kg N/ha NPKi: 121 kg N/ha None Urinek: 78 kg N/ha Manure: 73 kg N/ha None Urinel: 3.6 Urinel: 6.4 Urinel: 9.4 None Urine: 50 kg N/ha Urine: 100 kg N/ha Urine: 200 kg N/ha Urine:400 kg N/ha Urine: 800 kg N/ha None Urinek: 78 kg N/ha Manure: 73 kg N/ha None
83.6 76.5 55.1 19.8 20.9 21.3 21.1 15.6 638 g/plant 359 g/plant 302 g/plant 89 g/pot 68 g/pot 57 g/pot 27 g/pot 1.30 dry g/pot 2.00 dry g/pot 2.00 dry g/pot 1.60 dry g/pot 0.90 dry g/pot 2.20 dry g/pot 638 g/plant 359 g/plant 302 g/plant
Field
Finland 62.9° N 27.7° E
15, 47
Seeded: Greenhouse Moved to field
Ghana 5°36'42.6"N 0°12'21.1"W
48
Field
Nepal 27.72°N 83.89°E
18
Greenhouse : Pot
South Africa
21
Greenhouse : Pot
South Africa
20
Field
Nepal 27.72°N 83.89°E
18
Cucumber
Urine: 233 kg N/ha Mineral: 34 kg N/ha
30.0 25.0
Finland 60°10N 22°24E
14
Leek
Urine: 150 kg N/ha Urinem: 150 kg N/ha Urinen: 150 kg N/ha None Urine: 150 kg N/ha Urinea:150 kg N/ha Compost: 150 kg N/ha None Urine: 50 kg N/ha Urine: 100 kg N/ha Urine: 200 kg N/ha Urine: 400 kg N/ha Urea: 50 kg N/ha Urea: 100 kg N/ha
51.0 54.0 55.0 17.0 1234 g/plot 905 g/plot 1001 g/plot 334 g/plot 252 g/pot 373 g/pot 536 g/pot 520 g/pot 247 g/pot 368 g/pot
Seeded: Greenhouse Moved to field Field
Sweden
13, 28
Greenhouse : Plot
Mexico 25º 10' 8"N 99º 14' 2"W
49
Greenhouse : Pot
S. Africa
20
Cabbage
Cabbage Cabbage
Carrot
Cauliflower
Lettuce
Maize
29 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Region
Reference
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Page 30 of 38
Crop
Treatments
Yield t/ha
Plot Type
Maize
Urea: 200 kg N/ha Urea: 400 kg N/ha None Urine Mineral Humanureo None
446 g/pot 543 g/pot 128 g/pot 2.76 3.31 3.86 1.65
Field
Zimbabwe
50
Urine Urinec Urinep Urineq Urinee Urinef Urineg Urineh Mineral None Urinek: 78 kg N/ha Manure: 73 kg N/ha None Urine: 45.8 kg N/ha Urine: 68.70 kg N/ha Urine: 91.60 kg N/ha Mineral: 60 kg N/ha None Urinek: 49 kg N/ha Manure: 48 kg N/ha None Urine: 113 kg N/ha Mineral: 113 kg N/ha None Urinek: 52 kg N/ha Manure: 50 kg N/ha None Urine: 133 kg N/ha Urinek : 133 kg N/ha Mineral: 133 kg N/ha None Uriner,s Minerals Minerals,t
8.41 8.47 8.80 8.92 7.91 8.67 8.67 8.81 8.80 4.45 371 g/plant 131 g/plant 135 g/plant 23.5 g/plant 26.2 g/plant 33.8 g/plant 31.5 g/plant 16.2 g/plant 300 g/plant 281 g/plant 311 g/plant 17.1 kg/plot 48.4 kg/plot 11.9 kg/plot 657 g/plant 346 g/plant 348 g/plant 17.8 20.5 16.2 3.30 1.83 1.37 1.50
Field
India 13°4'22.6"N and 77°29'43.5"E
31
Field
Nepal 27.72°N 83.89°E
18
Field
Nigeria 5°30ꞌN 8°24ꞌE
51
Field
Nepal 27.72°N 83.89°E
18
Greenhouse : Plots
Finland 62.9°N and 27.7°E
52
Field
Nepal 27.72°N 83.89°E
18
Field
Finland 62°53'39"N and 27° 37'17" E
17
Field
Ghana 5°47'N 0°7'W
19
Maize
Mustard Okra
Potato Pumpkin Radish Red Beet
Sorghum
30 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Region
Reference
Page 31 of 38
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Crop
Spinach
Spinach
Tomato
Tomato
Treatments
Yield t/ha
Composts,u None Urine: 3.6l Urine: 6.4l Urine: 9.4l None Urine: 200 kg N/ha Urinev: 200 kg N/ha Urinev: 200 kg N/ha Urinev: 200 kg N/ha Urinev: 200 kg N/ha Urinev: 200 kg N/ha Urinev: 200 kg N/ha Urinev: 200 kg N/ha Humanure: 200 kg N/ha Mineral: 200 kg N/ha None Urine: 50 kg N/ha Urine: 100 kg N/ha Urine: 200 kg N/ha Urine: 400 kg N/ha Urea: 50 kg N/ha Urea: 100 kg N/ha Urea: 200 kg N/ha Urea: 400 kg N/ha None Urine: 135 kg N/ha Urinek: 135 kg N/ha Mineral: 135 kg N/ha None
2.34 0.57 56 g/pot 70 g/pot 40 g/pot 18 g/pot 162 g/pot 129 g/pot 139 g/pot 152 g/pot 143 g/pot 170 g/pot 159 g/pot 179 g/pot 123 g/pot 150 g/pot 88.9 g/pot 63.0 g/pot 41.2 g/pot 67.0 g/pot 166 g/pot 43.4 g/pot 58.3 g/pot 113 g/pot 106 g/pot 74.5 g/pot 86.4 79.7 110 20.4
Plot Type
Region
Reference
Greenhouse : Pot
South Africa
21
Greenhouse :pot
South Africa 32°47'9.3"S 26°50'54.8 "E
22
Greenhouse : Pot
S. Africa
20
Greenhouse : Pot
Finland 62.9° N and 27.7° E
36
a: Urine was supplemented with compost b: Urine was applied as fertilizer 30 days after planting c: Urine was supplemented with gypsum d: Urine was supplemented with gypsum and applied 30 days after planting e: 40% of the total recommended nitrogen was through urine and 60% was from urea f: 40% of the total recommended nitrogen was through urine and 60% was from urea with the addition of gypsum g: 60% of the total recommended nitrogen was through urine and 40% was from urea h: 60% of the total recommended nitrogen was through urine and 40% was from urea with the addition of gypsum i: Urine supplemented with dewatered fecal sludge j: Fertilizer supplemented with poultry manure 31 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Page 32 of 38
k: Urine was supplemented with wood ash l: Total nitrogen applied is in units of gram of nitrogen added per week to each 10 L pot. Urine was diluted 1:3 m: Urine used as fertilizer every two weeks n: Urine used as fertilizer every two weeks and supplemented with potassium o: Humanure was supplemented with urine p: Urine was split into 6 doses q: Urine was split into 6 doses with the addition of gypsum r: Urine was supplemented with Triple Super Phosphate and Potassium Chloride s: 100 kg/ha of nitrogen was the fertilizer dose the first year, it was then reduced to 50 kg N/ha the other two years t: Water was added to mineral fertilizer dose u: Compost was supplemented with Triple Super Phosphate and Potassium Chloride v: Humanure and urine were combined at different ratios to achieve 200 kg N/ha Table 2: Average urine composition for each crop and growing season Crop
Fall Snap Bean Fall Turnip Spring Snap Bean Spring Turnip
TDN mg N/L 5909 6736 7650 6782
TDP mg PO4-P/L 437 409 478 442
Na mg/L
Ca mg/L
Mg mg/L
K mg/L
Cl mg/L
1897 1754 1878
26 23 12
16 N/A N/A
1961 1927 1475
3089 2888 3019
1481 1613 1505
9.32 9.37 9.22
56 34 40
1768
13
N/A
1631
3014
1559
9.18
40
Table 3: Target fertilizer application rates (kg/ha)a Crop
Season
Snap Bean Turnip Snap Bean Turnip
Fall Fall Spring Spring
a Multiply
N kg/ha 111 133 111 133
P2O5 kg/ha 78 95 0 0
K2O kg/ha 294 227 121 166
by 0.437 to convert from P2O5 to P and 0.833 to convert K2O to K.
32 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
SO4 mg/L
pH
Conductivity mS/cm
Page 33 of 38
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Table 4: Summary of significant interactions between season and treatment and significant main effects of season and treatment for snap beans. Means followed by same letter are not significantly different by Fisher’s Protected LSD (0.05). A * indicates means that are significantly different by p < 0.05, and a ** indicates means that are significantly different by p