Valorisation and physicochemical analysis of Bakery Waste Biocompost

Mugilan Govindaraju^1,2, Shivkanya Fuloria³, Kathiresan V. Sathasivam¹

¹Department of Biotechnology, Faculty of Applied Sciences, AIMST University,

Bedong 08100, Kedah, Malaysia.

²Fairy Food Industries Sdn. Bhd, Plot 6491, Jalan Ayam Didik 2/2,

Kawasan Perindustrian Ringan Taman Ria Jaya, Sungai Petani 08000, Kedah, Malaysia.

³Faculty of Pharmacy, AIMST University, Bedong 08100, Kedah, Malaysia.

*Corresponding Author E-mail: shivkanyafuloria@aimst.edu.my, skathir@aimst.edu.my

ABSTRACT:

Composting is a solid waste management process that is intended to improve soil and enhance organic crop productivity. It is challenging to handle food waste using traditional waste treatment techniques due to its high moisture and oil content as well as its variable composition. In this research, various bakery wastes such as food waste (bread waste and cake waste), paper boxes, eggshells and cow dung, dry leaves and Palm Press Fibre (PPF) were used for production of compost by applying bin composting method. Compost trials were formulated by using different ratios of feedstocks such as creamy and non-creamy bakery waste, paper boxes, eggshells, cow dung, dry leaves and PPF. For the assessment of maturity, stability and quality of the compost, various physicochemical parameters were monitored, namely: temperature, pH, electrical conductivity (EC), moisture content, color, appearance, odor, water holding capacity (WHC), phytotoxicity, total organic carbon (TOC), total nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), C/N ratio, micro and macronutrient analysis. At the end of this research project, it is expected that, cost effective formula will be identified to deal massive waste of bakery generated in bakery industries.

KEYWORDS: Bakery Waste, Compost, Physicochemical Studies, Palm Press Fibre.

INTRODUCTION: 

According to the United Nations, the global population could grow to around 8.5 billion in 2030, 9.7 billion in 2050, and 10.9 billion in 2100. Studies show that every year across the globe around 33% of food produced get wasted¹. It was reported that 278 to 416 million tonnes of food waste were generated annually in Asian countries due to population and economic growth². Toxic elements, namely: halogenated compounds, aromatic compounds, phenols, pesticides, and heavy metals are produced from the leachates in landfills which are formed from decomposition organic material in food waste^3,4. These pollutants affect the survival of aquatic life forms, ecology and food chains which will eventually affect public health⁵.

It is vital to mix fresh food waste with a bulking agent such as sawdust and yard waste that could absorb some of the excess moisture as well as add structure to the mix. Bulking agents with a high C:N ratio are considered good choices⁶. The United Nations (UN) introduced Agenda 2030 in September 2015, which outlines 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) to be achieved in order to promote economic growth, social inclusion, and environmental protection⁷. One of the most significant sectors in the food industry is bakery sector. In 2020, global bakery market was estimated to be worth $216 billion⁸. Bread is an essential part of our daily diet and bread waste is a widespread issue worldwide. An estimated 7 to 10% of overall production of bread goods is wasted. Majority of industrial bakeries have big challenge with processing this food waste⁹. Conversion of bakery waste into compost using palm press fibre (PPF) is rarely reported. In this study an effort was made to add value to bakery waste. Current study included composting of bakery waste, and evaluation of compost based on different physicochemical parameters and phytotoxicity studies.

Table 1: Compost trials Composition

Compost Trials	Non-Creamy Waste	Creamy Waste	Paper Boxes	Cow Dung	Dry Leaves	PPF
F3	2.0 kg	0.6 kg	0.2 kg	1.0 kg	-	0.2 kg
F4	2.0 kg	0.6 kg	0.2 kg	1.0 kg	0.2 kg	-
F5	2.0 kg	0.6 kg	0.2 kg	1.0 kg	0.1 kg	0.1 kg

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Feedstocks Collection:

From the manufacturing site of Fairy Food Industries Sdn. Bhd., the Bakery waste (containing expired breads, cakes, cake skin and cake waste) were separately collected and crushed into particle size of 1-3 mm and mixed for uniformity. Non-biodegradable material like wrappers, plastics and foils were detached. Procurement of paper boxes was done from recycle item storage area in Fairy premises. For composting the plain and non-inked paper boxes were collected, followed by shredding into small pieces and storage in plastic bag. Procurement of cow dung was done through the dairy farm of Sungai Petani, followed by drying for one week. Collection of dried leaves was done from the premise of Fairy and AIMST University, and finally stored in the plastic bags^10-12.

Feedstocks Characteristics:

Feedstock used for composting determined the Potassium, Total Organic Carbon (TOC), Phosphorus, Nitrogen, and C/N ratio¹³. The TOC and nitrogen and results assisted in determination of C/N ratio of each feedstock¹⁴.

Collection system:

Eighteen litre (18L) plastic bins (Figure 2.4a) of similar types with dimension 38cm x 31cm were procured from recycle items storage of Fairy Food Industries Sdn Bhd. The 4 mm sized holes were drilled nearby pails to aid aeration in same way. Collection, separation and preparing the food waste for composting are very important to ensure maximum capture rate of food waste from the sources and to minimize the labour and space requirements¹⁵. Effective collections system is also vital to make sure the non-organic contaminants such as plastics, rubber bands, glass and metals are excluded from the waste materials collected. Due to the moisture content of food scraps, the collection containers were made in a reasonable size for lifting and loading from the production side to the composting site. The collection containers were allowed to be filled to 2/3 capacity to reduce spillage. The collection of food waste from production was done using 18L bins.  The bins were cleaned and dried before use for bakery waste collection from the production line. Totally 12 containers are placed in different departments at the cake departments for the collection of creamy and non-creamy cake waste.

Composting:

Three compost trials were created as shown in the Table 1. Each of the trials were triplicated and therefore totally 9 pails of compost trails were formed¹⁶. Paper boxes, bakery waste, dry leaves, cow dung, and palm press fibre (PPF) were mixed as the stated in table-1.

Electrical Conductivity and pH:

Weekly recording of electrical conductivity and pH of compost was done with HANNA DiST 4 HI98304 electrical conductivity tester and IONIX digital pH meter respectively. Compost solution was prepared via addition of distilled water into sample of compost at w/v 1:10 ratio, followed by keeping solution at 25˚C for 2 hours to dissolve the salts^17,18. Weekly, the moisture content was recorded. 10 grams of compost was dried in oven at 105°C until constant weight was attained. Each time, the moisture content of compost was adjusted by adding water^19-22.

Compost temperature:

Daily compost temperature was recorded using compost thermometer. It was recorded at constant depth at the centre and four other spots surrounding compost. Once no temperature increase was observed after around 90 days of composting, next compost trials were matured to 4 weeks without turning^23,24.

Water holding capacity (WHC):

Water holding capacity is the amount of water retained by dry sample. In this experiment the wet sample with known moisture content was weighed (Wi), soaked in water for two days, followed by filtration through Whatman filter paper No.2, reweighing (Ws) of saturated sample was done¹⁷. WHC estimation was done using following formula.

              (Ws – Wi) + MC xWi

WHC = ----------------------------

                      (1 - MC) x Wi                                 …(1)

Where, Wi is sample initial weight in g, Ws is sample final weight in g, and MC is sample initial moisture content.

Heavy metal and Nutrient Analysis:

ICP-OES Analysis was done for heavy metal (Arsenic, Copper, Chromium, Cadmium, Zinc, Nickel, Lead) and nutrient analysis (Potassium, Phosphorus, Calcium, Magnesium, Iron, Molybdenum, Boron, Manganese)^25,26.

Table 2: Feedstock analysis

Feedstocks	TOC (%)	N (%)	P (%)	K (%)	C/N Ratio
Non-creamy bakery waste	40.60 ± 0.15	1.45 ±0.02	0.49 ±0.02	0.18 ± 0.01	28.07 ±0.24
Creamy bakery waste	31.47 ±0.09	1.21 ±0.02	0.30 ±0.01	0.17 ±0.01	26.09 ±0.47
Dry leaves	31.70 ±0.10	0.73 ±0.02	0.15 ±0.01	0.34 ±0.01	43.46 ±0.81
Paper boxes	34.57 ±0.18	0.24 ±0.01	0.00 ±0.00	0.02 ±0.00	147.10 ±8.57
Cow dung	14.53 ±0.15	1.71 ±0.01	0.43 ±0.02	0.53 ±0.03	8.48 ±0.11
Eggshells	1.80 ±0.06	0.79 ±0.01	0.36 ±0.01	0.05 ±0.00	2.29 ±0.10
Palm Press Fibre	57.27 ± 0.06	0.29 ± 0.01	0.02 ± 0.00	0.20 ± 0.00	199.82 ± 3.87
p-value	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00

Organic Matter Content:

The empty crucible was weight (W1). The crucible was weight again when 5 g of compost sample was added in it (W2). The crucible having compost in it was placed in an oven at 105 ^°C for 4 hours. After drying the sample, the crucibles were placed in muffle furnace at 800 °C for 2 hours. The crucibles contain ash was weight (W3). The percentage of organic matter was determined by subtracting W1 from W2 and W1 from W3²⁷.

Phytotoxicity Determination:

Phytotoxicity analysis for is a prime requirement in assessment of compost quality²⁸. Phytotoxicity was determined based on germination of compost aqueous extracts obtained using 1.5 g of dry solid and 15 ml of distilled water (1:10), followed by shaking for 1 hour at room temperature in orbital shaker, filtration, placement of 5 ml of compost trial extract with 10 seeds of Phaseolus vulgaris in Petri dish, and keeping petri dishes for 72 h at room temperature in dark to finally count the number of germinated seeds and measure the root length²⁹. The relative seed germination (RSG), germination index (GI) and relative root elongation (RRE) were calculated as per the following expression given by Zucconi et al. (1981)³⁰.

    Number of seeds germinated in the aqueous extract

RSG = --------------------------------------------------- × 100

             Number of seeds germinated in control     …  (2)

                    Mean root length in the aqeous extract

RRE (%) = ---------------------------------------------- × 100

                             Mean root length in control       …  (3)

                RSG x RRE

GI(%) = ----------------- x100%

                      100                                                 ……..(4)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

Table 2 presents the analytical results of compost feedstocks. In current experiment, all feedstock expressed large contribution for carbon source in compost. Among all feedstock the PPF exhibited highest TOC and C/N ratio that is 57.30% and 197.59 respectively. Whereas, for nitrogen the waste of non-creamy and creamy bakery, and cow dung contributed maximum. On the other hand, the cow dung, eggshells and bakery wastes exhibited C/N ratio < 30. As paper box, PPF and dry leaves possess high carbon content, so in this study these were used as carbon source for composting. Surprisingly, all feedback contributed less than 1 % of Phosphorus and Potassium.

Compost Temperature Analysis:

Figure 1 presents temperature profile of the compost trials. Increase in temperature was noticed on the second day of composting. Temperature rose above 50^˚C on the third day. Thermophilic phase for F3 continued until 50^th day. After that, temperature dropped below 40^˚C. For F4 and F5, the thermophilic stage maintained until 54^th dan 50^th day respectively. Unlike F3 and F4, the trial F5 attained temperature more than 60^˚C. Maximum temperature reached was 65^˚C. However, the trials F3 and F4 attained maximum temperature 60^oC. One-way ANOVA statistical experiment revealed significant difference among temperature profile of each compost trial. Microbes mineralize organic substances lie sugars during first activation, that lasts for 1-3 days and produces CO₂, heat, and NH₃^32,33. Initial feedstock's composition, aeration provided by turning heap, moisture content of the compost, and addition of additives or bulking agents significantly affect the temperature profile during composting. It has an impact on compost duration, compost quality, and compost maturity, as well as compost sanitization^32,34.

Figure 1: Compost trials temperature profile of during composting

Compost trials pH analysis:

Compost pH is crucial because adding compost to the soil can change its pH, which can then have an impact on the nutrients that plants can access³⁵. pH of compost trials was acidic at the beginning of the composting phase as common for all compost as shown in the Figure 2. The acidic environment in compost piles prolonged for 5th week for F3, 6^th week for F4 and 9^th week for F5. Anaerobic microbe activity caused by low oxygen levels can cause compost to turn acidic. It could be because there are too many greens in the compost pile that are high in nitrogen³⁶. Other possible reason for the lower pH values at the beginning of the composting are inorganic acids and low molecular weight organic acids that are released during the microbial breakdown of organic materials³⁷, the significant change in CO₂ levels during organic matter degradation, acidic species that are released and accumulate inside the pile³⁸. One-way ANOVA experiment determined non-significant difference between compost trials pH. Additionally, post hoc results of Tukey’s test and non-significant difference were noted among compost trials.

Figure 2: Compost trials pH during composting

Compost trials moisture content analysis:

Moisture content has major impact on biodegradation of organic materials. Since moisture content is relatively simple to measure, it is frequently used as a stand-in for other important variables, like the availability of water, which restricts microbial activity in the low moisture range³⁹. For the trials (F3, F4 and F5), the moisture content was maintained below 50% until the temperature of the piles reach the ambient temperature and the turning process stopped as shown on the Figure 3. Moisture content recorded for F3, F4 and F5 was higher compared to studies conducted by Ameen et al. (2016)³⁸, where the moisture content recorded was within 31 to 32%. There was a significant rate of degradation indicated by the decrease in moisture profile during the composting process as the waste was broken down by the active microorganisms²⁸. The composting material's moisture content needs to be between 45 and 65%^40,41. A layer of water envelops the organic particles, housing the bacteria and fungi responsible for composting. According to Chen et al. (2011)⁴¹, if the moisture content is more than 65%, the holes between the particles are filled with water, making it impossible for the microbes to get enough oxygen and if the moisture level is less than 45%, there is not enough water surrounding the particles for the bacteria to survive. The one-way ANOVA experiment exhibited significant difference among compost trials.

Figure 3: Compost trials moisture content during composting

Figure 4 shows electrical conductivity (EC) of compost trials during composting time. The EC of more than 4 mS/cm is deemed harmful to plants due to the potential for soluble salts to adversely impact seed germination⁴². Although its base in food waste composting has not been established, EC has an impact on the compost's quality. Crops that are exposed to high salinity compost on a long-term basis may experience salt stress. Additionally, compost with an excessive salt level may directly result in phytotoxicity⁴³. The EC for F3, F4 and F5 starting from the beginning of the composting recorded value higher than 1.0. After the end of maturation period of 1 month, the average EC values were 1.45 ± 0.05, 2.14 ± 0.58 and 2.87 ± 0.28 for F3, F4 and F5 respectively. One-way ANOVA experiment revealed that no significant difference among compost trials. Past studies revealed that for most plants EC <4.0 mS/cm is optimum^44-47. In case of tender plant, compost may be diluted by 25 to 50 % soil⁴⁸.

Figure 4: EC of compost trials during composting period.

For formula F3, F4 and F5, the finished product TOC reduced from the initial TOC. ANOVA one-way test exhibited significant difference between compost trials’ TOC at the beginning and ending of composting. Some organic matter in compost is resistant to further breakdown, while some is still biologically active. Together, these organic matter account for TOC of compost⁴⁹. The compost trials final TOC ranged from 38.77 ± 0.15 to 46.67 ± 0.58. The final compost had a good degree of stability and maturation, as evidenced by the low level of TOC which revealed existence of high amount of humic acid^50,51. Since microorganisms rely on organic carbon as a source of energy, their respiration and metabolism are primarily responsible for the reduction of carbon during composting⁵². The microbial respiration and degradation of the organic components present in the raw material converts the organic carbon to CO₂⁵³. According to Manna et al. (2001)⁵⁴ and Khan and Sharif (2012)⁵⁵, there is a gradual and continuous drop in the overall carbon concentration throughout decomposition. As the breakdown progresses from 0 to 90 days, Banta and Dev (2009)⁵⁶, observed a drop in the overall carbon concentration. The compost trials’ TOC at the initial and end of composting presented in the Figure 5.

Figure 5: TOC of compost trials. ‘a’ indicates significant difference compared to ‘b’ based on Tukey’s HSD test (p < 0.05). ‘ab’ is nonsignificantly different from ‘a’ and ‘b’. ‘c’ indicate significant difference compared to ‘d’ and ‘e’.

Figure 6, shows the initial and final nitrogen content of compost trials. Based on Malaysian Standard (MS1517:2021)⁵⁷, the Nitrogen content shall not be less than 1.5%. According to Ozores-Hampton (2017)⁵⁸, the optimum range for Nitrogen is 0.5–6.0%, Phosphorous is 0.2–3.0 and Potassium is 0.10–3.5%. From the data obtained in this study, the total nitrogen content increased in the finished compost. All the compost trials showed the similar trend in this study. Similar trend also was noticed in the study conducted by Meena et al. (2021)³³ and Banta and Dev (2009)⁵⁶. The total nitrogen at the end of composting was higher in F3, F4 and F5 which range from 3.06 to 4.53%.

Figure 6: Total nitrogen content of compost trials. ‘a’ indicate significant difference when compared with ‘b’ as per Tukey’s HSD test (p < 0.05). ‘ab’ indicates nonsignificant difference from ‘a’ and ‘b’. ‘c’ indicates significant difference compared to ‘d’ and ‘e’.

Malaysian Standard MS 1517:2012 recommends C/N ratio not more than 25:1⁵⁸. C:N ratio of each compost trial at the end of composting are represented in figure 7. C/N ration of F3 and F5 were 12.66 ± 0.02 and 11.48 ± 0.18 respectively. C/N ratio of F4 was 9.32 +/- 0.18, which lower than the recommended standard value. The C/N values of F3 and F5 fulfilled the standard requirement. All the C/N ratios were significantly different from each other based on ANOVA one-way test. The C:N ratio is one of the indicators used for determining compost maturity. According to the California Compost Quality Council (CCQC)⁴⁹, to qualify as ‘‘mature’’ or ‘‘very mature,’’ a compost must have a C:N ratio of less than or equal to 25. Moreover, C/N ratio is crucial parameter that affect compost microbiology. C/N range between 10 to 20 for matured compost is acceptable ^59-61. Study of Neves et al. (2009) revealed higher lipid constituent food compost to offer C:N ratio of 10 to 18¹⁰. C/N results obtained for all the trial from F3 until F5 are in agreement with studies conducted by other researchers who concluded that the C/N ratio decreases during composting to arrive at a final value below 20 such as from 33.48 to below 15, 20 to between 11 to 14, from 19.73 to 11.26, from 18.65 to 12.26, from 28.34 to 12.15 and from 28.17 to 13.38 and from 29 to 17, from 27 to 19 and from 25 to 15^62-65.

Figure 7: C/N ratio of compost trials. ‘a’ indicate significant difference when compared with ‘b’ and ‘c’ as per Tukey’s HSD test (p < 0.05).

Figure 8, shows percentage of organic matter content in composts produced in this research. Organic matter is defined as present percentage of dry amendment; and less than 30% value indicates that organic matter is mixed with sand or soil, whereas more than 60% values indicates fresh and uncompost material⁶. In general, high-quality compost has at least 50% organic content based on dry weight which is also recommended by Malaysian Standard^62,66. African Organization for Standardization (ASRO) recommends organic matter standard requirement as more than 70%⁶⁷. Based on the Malaysian Standard⁵⁷, compost trials (F3 to F5), comply with standard requirement for organic matter where organic matters required to be above 50%. This results matched with past research conducted on comparison study of compost and natural organic matter samples⁶⁸. The ANOVA one-way test shows that there is significant difference between organic matter content of compost trials F3, F4 and F5.

Figure 8: The organic matter of compost trials. ‘a’ indicate significant difference when compared with ‘b’ and ‘c’ as per Tukey’s HSD test (p < 0.05).

Resultant data presented in figure 9, shows the content of heavy metals in the finished products. Based on the permitted limit of heavy metals by A&L Canada Laboratories., (2004), Malaysian Standard MS 1517:2012 and BioGro (largest certifier of organic produce and products in New Zealand)^57,69, all the compost trials in this study contain quantity of heavy metals below the maximum limit permitted^50,69. ANOVA one-way test shows that there is significant difference between compost trials heavy metals content except for Cd, Cr, Cu and Pb of F4 and F5 trials. The results of heavy metal content shows that the compost produced are free from heavy metal contamination and suitable to be used for crops. The presence of heavy metals in the compost trials but below the maximum limit might be due to the green waste such as cow dung used in the composting. This finding mostly in agreement with study by Kupper et al. (2014)⁷⁰, where the study reported that the amount of heavy metals in composts may have been slightly influenced by the type of input materials used. The products made from green waste showed slightly greater levels of lead, copper, nickel, and zinc. Moreover, Kupper et al. (2014), reported that the treatment technique had no effect on the amount of heavy metals found in the compost given that heavy metals are resistant to both aerobic and anaerobic breakdown processes⁷⁰. The amount if Cu, Pb and Cd in this study mostly match with findings of Samah et al. (2020), who conducted research on food waste composting⁷¹.

Figure 9: The heavy metal analysis of compost trials. Same letters bars are not significantly different as per Tukey’s HSD test (p < 0.05).

Data presented in figure 10, shows the nutrient concentration in the finished compost. All the nutrient concentration for all trials were below the acceptable limit except Molybdenum and statistically difference between compost trials based on ANOVA one-way test. The Molybdenum content in the compost trials with PPF only (F3 and F5) exceeded the permissible limit. The compost trials with PPF only (F3) showed Mo quantity 976.67 mg/kg and compost trials with mix of PPF and dry leaves showed Mo quantity 15.17 mg/kg. The source of high level of Mo might be from the foliar fertilizers applied to the oil palms trees⁷². The Sulphur content of the F1, F2, F3, F4 and F5 higher than 3000 mg/kg and the rest of the compost trials have less quantity than that. Based on EPA (2023)⁷³, typical range for Sulphur in compost is more than 0.3% which is equivalent to 3000 mg/kg. The Sulphur limit should be within 0.25 to 0.8% (2500 to 8000 mg/kg)⁷⁴. The readings obtained in this study are similar with studies conducted by Tesfaye (2017) and Rahman et al. (2020) where higher level of Sulphur was recorded in the compost^75,76. Sulphur deficiency is typically only a concern in sandy soils. Composts typically give enough S to meet plant needs. Compost typically has excessive sulphur levels due to high feedstock content, however oversupply is rarely an issue⁷³.

Figure 10: The compost trials nutrient analysis of. Various letters in lowercase indicates significant differences among compost trials. Same letter bars are non-significantly different as per Tukey’s HSD test (p < 0.05).

The GI value obtained in this study (more than 100%) as shown in the Figure 11 is higher than the finding of Grgas et al. (2023) where the study produced compost using unprocessed food waste collected from households, green waste from municipal biodegradable waste (branches, leaves, wood waste from gardens and parks) and stabilized sewage sludge from wastewater treatment plant⁷⁷. Facts suggest that nutrients presence affects the soil quality and analysis⁷⁸. ANOVA one-way test shows that there is no statistical difference between germination index of compost trials. Post hoc test calculated with Tukey’s test also showed insignificance difference between the compost trials. Study by Zahra et al. (2023) on kitchen food waste resulted in germination index more than 100% similar like in this study⁷⁹. Another research studies on composting vegetable waste obtained GI value more than 80%⁸⁰. From the results obtained, it could be considered that all the compost trials had no adverse effect on plant growth and phytotoxicity. Therefore, it can be categorized that the compost had reached the maturity, stable and phototoxic-free.

Figure 11: Compost trials germination index. Same letters bars are non-significantly different as per Tukey’s HSD test (p< 0.05).

WHC as shown in Figure 12 for the F3, F4 and F5 were 2.98 +/- 0.05g water/g dry material 2.78 +/- 0.20g water/g dry material and 2.56 +/- 0.20g water/g dry material respectively. Reason for low WHC might be due to the higher percentage of bakery waste used for the formulae. The hydrophobic nature of bakery waste reduces water holding capacity of compost trials. Therefore, the less water particles might be present in the compost matrix. Hydrophobic property of oily bakery waste resulted in reduced WHC of the F3, F4 and F5 formulae.

Figure 12: Water holding capacity of compost. ‘a’ indicates significant difference compared to ‘b’ as per Tukey’s HSD test (p < 0.05). ‘ab’ indicates nonsignificant difference between ‘a’ and ‘b’ as per Tukey’s HSD test (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS:

High quantity (65%) of bakery food waste can be composted with dry leaves, cow dung and PPF as bulking agents within 120 days. Based on the results obtained, the F3 and F5 formula will be the best choice for composting bakery waste. It is because all the crucial compost parameters of F3 and F5 formulae were comply with standard requirements. Due to lack of study in bakery waste, we believe that this study would be a cost effective way for bakery indutries to tackel large amount of bakery waste.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

The authors have no conflicts of interest regarding this investigation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:

The authors express sincere appreciation to AIMST University and Fairy Food Industries Sdn. Bhd. for providing the space and utilities for the research purpose.

REFERENCES:

1. Palaniveloo K, Amran MA, Norhashim NA, et al. Food waste composting and microbial community structure profiling. Processes. 2020; 8(6): 723. doi:10.3390/pr8060723

2. Raimi HSM, Tuan Ismail T.N.H., Mohamed Najib M.Z., Mohamed Yusop F. Food waste solution at home: conventional and rapid composting techniques. Food Res. 2020; 4(S6): 1-10. doi:10.26656/fr.2017.4(S6).016

3. Behera SK, Kim DH, Shin HS, Cho SK, Yoon SP, Park HS. Enhanced methane recovery by food waste leachate injection into a landfill in Korea. Waste Management. 2011; 31(9-10): 2126-2132. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2011.05.005

4. Rebello SN, Nandan A, Siddiqui NA. Greenhouse Gases Life Cycle Assessment for Evaluation of Composting as Selected Management Technique of Food and Garden Waste Generated at an Indian Metropolitan Transport Hub. Research Journal of Engineering and Technology. 2015; 6(3): 330-334.

5. Mukherjee S, Mukhopadhyay S, Hashim MA, Sen Gupta B. Contemporary environmental issues of landfill leachate: assessment and  remedies. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology. 2015; 45(5): 472-590. 6doi:10.1080/10643389.2013.876524

6. Shilev S, Naydenov M, Vancheva V, Aladjadjiyan A. Composting of food and agricultural wastes. In: Oreopoulou V, Russ W, eds. Utilization of By-Products and Treatment of Waste in the Food Industry. Springer US. 2007: 283-301. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-35766-9_15

7. Lombardi M, Costantino M. A hierarchical pyramid for food waste based on a social innovation perspective. Sustainability. 2021; 13(9): 4661. doi:10.3390/su13094661

8. Briceño-León M, Pazmiño-Quishpe D, Clairand JM, Escrivá-Escrivá G. Energy efficiency measures in bakeries toward competitiveness and sustainability—case studies in Quito, Ecuador. Sustainability. 2021; 13(9): 5209. doi:10.3390/su13095209

9. Samray MN, Masatcioglu TM, Koksel H. Bread crumbs extrudates: a new approach for reducing bread waste. Journal of Cereal Science. 2019; 85: 130-136. doi:10.1016/j.jcs.2018.12.005

10. Neves L, Ferreira V, Oliveira R. Co-composting cow manure with food waste:the influence of lipids content. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. 2009; 58: 986-991. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.193.3480&rep=rep1&type=pdf

11. Misra RV, Roy RN, Hiraoka H. On-Farm Composting Methods. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2013.

12. Wolka K, Melaku B. Exploring selected plant nutrient in compost prepared from food waste and cattle manure and Its effect on soil properties and maize yield at Wondo Genet, Ethiopia. Environ Syst Res. 2015; 4(1): 9. doi:10.1186/s40068-015-0035-0

13. Kumar M, Lin JG. Co-composting of food waste and green waste in pilot-scale systems: in-vessel and windrow investigations. Global Science Books. 2011; (2).

14. Vakhariya RR, Talokar S, Dhole AR, Mohite SK, Magdum CS. Comparative Standardization Study of Two Marketed Shatavari Churna Formulation. Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical Analysis. 2016; 6(1): 1-6.

15. Saranya V, Madhanraj P, Panneerselvam A. Cultivation, Composting, Biochemical and Molecular Characterization of Calocybe indica (C and A). Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research. 2011; 1(3): 55-57.

16. Prathiba A, Madhanraj P, Panneerselvam A. Cultivation, Composting, Biochemical and Molecular Characterization of Pleurotus platypus (Cooke and Massee) Sacc. Research Journal of Science and Technology. 2011; 3(5): 284-287.

17. Khater ESG. Mathematical model of compost pile temperature prediction. J Environ Anal Toxicol. 2014; 04(06). doi:10.4172/2161-0525.1000242

18. Waqas M, Nizami AS, Aburiazaiza AS, Barakat MA, Ismail IMI, Rashid MI. Optimization of food waste compost with the use of biochar. Journal of Environmental Management. 2018; 216: 70-81. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.06.015

19. Rynk, R. Top soil bulk compost suppliers, logs and firewood. In: Science of Composting. 2008: 24-30. https://www.olus.co.uk/Basic-Science-of-Composting

20. Yadav M, Meena AK, Rao MM, Mangal AK, Chahal A. Physicochemical and Preliminary Phytochemical Studies On the Leaves of Crinum latifolium Linn. Research J. Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry 2011; 3(3): 120-123.

21. Saad NF binti M, Baharin N, Zain SM. Windrow composting of yard wastes and food waste. Aust J Basic & Appl Sci. 2014; 8(19).

22. Mahima Yadav, A. K Meena, M M Rao, A. K Mangal, agbir Chahal. Physicochemical and Preliminary Phytochemical Studies On the Leaves of Crinum latifolium Linn. Research J. Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2011; 3(3): 120-123.

23. Sánchez-Monedero MA, S.T. U, D.D. Cabañas-Vargas, A. K, E.I. Stentiford. Assessing the stability and maturity of compost at large-scale plants. Interamerican Sanitary and Environmental Engineering Association. Published online January 1, 2005. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228498759_Assessing_the_stability_and_maturity_of_compost_at_large-scale_plants

24. Meena AK, Verma SC, Rani R, Rao MM, Panda P, Padhi MM, Devalla RB. Evaluation of Preliminary Phytochemical and Physicochemical Studies on Juniperus Communis L. Fruit Used In Ayurvedic Formulations. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2012; 5(1): 88-91.

25. Wurff AWGVD, Fuchs JG, Raviv M, Termorshuizen A. Handbook for Composting and Compost Use in Organic Horticulture. BioGreenhouse; 2016. doi:10.18174/375218

26. Mohan GVK, Jayaprakash G, Devi KP. Assessment of Heavy Metal Studies in the Eggplant (Solanum melongena) Grown in Municipal Solid Waste (MSW22) Compost Applied Soil. Asian Journal of Research in Chemistry. 2011; 4(10): 1632-1634.

27. Krishnaveni M. Nutrient Analysis of Soil Collected from Panuchakuli Village, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari. Research Journal of Pharamcy and Technology. 2015: 8(7): 857-859.

28. Ameen A, Ahmad J, Raza S. Determination of total organic matter of mature compost prepared by using municipal solid waste. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications. 2016; 6(5).

29. Qurratulane B, Nagendra B. Phytotoxicity Analysis of Different Carpet Dyes and their Fungal Extracted Metabolites (Fungal Degraded Products) through Relative Seed Germination and Seedling Growth Parameters. Research Journal of science and Technology. 6(2): 66-7.

30. Zucconi F, Pera A, M F, Bertoldi MD. Evaluating toxicity of immature compost. BioCycle. 1981; 22(4): 54-57.

31. Barthod J, Rumpel C, Dignac MF. Composting with additives to improve organic amendments. a review. Agron Sustain Dev. 2018; 38(2): 17. doi:10.1007/s13593-018-0491-9

32. Finore I, Feola A, Russo L, et al. Thermophilic bacteria and their thermozymes in composting processes: a review. Chem Biol Technol Agric. 2023; 10(1): 7. doi:10.1186/s40538-023-00381-z

33. Meena AL, Karwal M, Raghavendra KJ, Narwal E. Aerobic vs anaerobic composting: differences and comparison. Food and Scientific Reports. Published online 2021. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.21424.69125

34. Hemidat S, Jaar M, Nassour A, Nelles M. Monitoring of composting process parameters: a case study in Jordan. Waste Biomass Valor. 2018; 9(12): 2257-2274. doi:10.1007/s12649-018-0197-x

35. Carry on composting ~ pH measurement of compost. Carry on Composting. Accessed February 28, 2024. http://www.carryoncomposting.com/416920214

36. Wu D lei, Liu P, Luo Y zhang, Tian G ming, Mahmood Q. Nitrogen transformations during co-composting of herbal residues, spent muushrooms and sludge. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2010; 11(7): 497-505. doi:10.1631/jzus.B0900271

37. An CJ, Huang GH, Yao Y, Sun W, An K. Performance of in-vessel composting of food waste in the presence of coal ash and uric acid. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2012; 203-204: 38-45. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.11.066

38. Chaher NEH, Hemidat S, Thabit Q, et al. Potential of Sustainable Concept for handling organic waste in Tunisia. Sustainability. 2020; 12(19): 8167. doi:10.3390/su12198167

39. Makan A, Assobhei O, Mountadar M. Effect of initial moisture content on the in-vessel composting under air pressure of organic fraction of municipal solid waste in Morocco. J Environ Health Sci Engineer. 2013; 10(1): 3. doi:10.1186/1735-2746-10-3

40. Liang C, Das KC, McClendon RW. The Influence of temperature and, oisture contents regimes on the a=erobic microbial activity of a biosolids cpmmposting blend. Bioresource Technology. 2003; 86(2): 131-137. doi:10.1016/S0960-8524(02)00153-0

41. Chen L, Marti ME de H, Moore A, Falen C. Dairy compost production and use in Idaho: on-farm composting Management. University of Idaho. Published online 2011.

42. Manu MK, Kumar R, Garg A. Performance assessment of improved composting system for food waste with varying aeration and use of microbial inoculum. Bioresource Technology. 2017; 234: 167-177. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2017.03.023

43. Lee CH, Ko KK, Kim SC, et al. Characteristics of Food Waste Composting with Various Particle Sizes of Sawdust. Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University. 2017; 62(1): 123-129. doi:10.5109/1800846

44. Lasaridi K, Protopapa I, Kotsou M, Pilidis G, Manios T, Kyriacou A. Quality assessment of composts in the Greek market: The need for standards and quality assurance. Journal of Environmental Management. 2006; 80(1): 58-65. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.08.011

45. Ahmed M, Idris A, Omar SRS. Physicochemical characterization of compost of the industrial tannery sludge. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology. 2007; 2(1): 81-94. http://jestec.taylors.edu.my/Vol%202%20Issue%201%20April%2007/81-94%20Ahmed.pdf

46. Khater ES. Some Physical and Chemical Properties of Compost. Int J Waste Resources. 2015; 5(1). doi:10.4172/2252-5211.1000172

47. Waqas M, Nizami AS, Aburiazaiza AS, Barakat MA, Ismail IMI, Rashid MI. Optimization of food waste compost with the use of biochar. Journal of Environmental Management. 2018; 216: 70-81. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.06.015

48. A&L Canada Laboratories. Compost Analysis for Available Nutrients and Soil Suitability Criteria and Evaluation.; 2004. https://www.alcanada.com/pdf/Compost_Handbook.pdf

49. Buchanan M. Compost maturity index. J West. Published online 2001.

50. Nada WM. Stability and maturity of maize stalks compost as affected by aeration rate, C/N ratio and moisture content. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2015; (ahead):0-0. doi:10.4067/S0718-95162015005000051

51. Biyada S, Merzouki M, Imtara H, et al. Advanced characterization of organic matter decaying during composting of industrial waste using spectral methods. Processes. 2021; 9(8): 1364. doi:10.3390/pr9081364

52. Aji NAS, Abu Zahrim Yaser, Junidah Lamaming, Mohd Al Mussa Ugak, Sariah Saalah, Mariani Rajin. Production of food waste compost and its effect on the growth of dwarf crape jasmine. jkukm. 2021; 33(3): 413-424. doi:10.17576/jkukm-2021-33(3)-04

53. Karnwal A, Kumar R. Bioconversion of solid waste into nutritional rich product for plants by using Eudrilus eugeniae. Pertanika J Trop Agric Sc. 2019; 42(2): 681-697.

54. Manna MC, Hajra’ JN, Singh AB. Comparative effectiveness of enriched phosphocompost and chemical fertilizer on crop yields and soil biological activity in an alluvial soil. Indian Journal Of Agricultural Research.

55. Khan M, Sharif M. Solubility enhancement of phosphorus from rock phosphate through composting with poultry Litter. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture. Published online 2012.

56. Banta G, Dev SP. Field evaluation of nitrogen enriched phospho-compost prepared from green biomass of Lantana camara in wheat. Indian Journal of Ecology. 2009; 36(1): 39-44.

57. MS 1517 : 2012 Organic Fertilizers - Specification. Published online 2012.

58. Ozores-Hampton M. Guidelines for assessing compost quality for safe and effective utilization in vegetable production. hortte. 2017; 27(2): 162-165. doi:10.21273/HORTTECH03349-16

59. Iglesias-Jimenez E, Perez-Garcia V. Determination of maturity indices for city refuse composts. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 1992; 38: 331-343.

60. Benito M, Masaguer A, Moliner A, Arrigo N, Palma RM. Chemical and microbiological parameters for the characterisation of the stability and maturity of pruning waste compost. Biol Fertil Soils. 2003; 37(3): 184-189. doi:10.1007/s00374-003-0584-

61. Adi AJ, Noor ZM. Waste recycling: Utilization of coffee grounds and kitchen waste in vermicomposting. Bioresource Technology. 2009; 100(2): 1027-1030. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2008.07.024

62. Trisakti B, Lubis J, Husaini T, Irvan. Effect of turning frequency on composting of empty fruit bunches mixed with activated liquid organic fertilizer. IOP Conf Ser: Mater Sci Eng. 2017; 180: 012150. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/180/1/012150

63. Khalib SNB, Zakarya IA, Izhar TNT. The effect of low initial C:N ratio during composting of rice straw ash with food waste in evaluating the compost quality. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci. 2020; 476(1): 012144. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/476/1/012144

64. El-mrini S, Aboutayeb R, Zouhri A. Effect of initial C/N ratio and turning frequency on quality of final compost of turkey manure and olive pomace. J Eng Appl Sci. 2022; 69(1): 37. doi:10.1186/s44147-022-00092-6

65. Al-Nawaiseh AR, Aljbour SH, Al-Hamaiedeh H, El-Hasan T, Hemidat S, Nassour A. Composting of organic waste: a sustainable alternative solution for solid waste management in Jordan. Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering. 2021; 15(3).

66. Ahmed RS, Jalal SY, Ismael HM, Shekha YA. Chemical and biological properties of compost produced from house solid waste. ZJPAS. 2023; 35(3). doi:10.21271/ZJPAS.35.3.13

67. DARS 1490 organic fertilizers - specification. Published online 2018.

68. Zbytniewski R, Kosobucki P, Kowalkowski T, Buszewski B. The comparison study of compost and natural organic matter samples. Environ Sci & Pollut Res. 2002; 9(S1): 68-74. doi:10.1007/BF0298742

69. Biogro organic standards. Published April 5, 2009. Accessed January 25, 2024. https://www.biogro.co.nz/biogro-organic-standards

70. Kupper T, Bürge D, Bachmann HJ, Güsewell S, Mayer J. Heavy metals in source-separated compost and digestates. Waste Management. 2014; 34(5): 867-874. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2014.02.007

71. Samah MAA, Hassan NS, Hussain MRM, Ibrahim Z, Jan NHM, Kamarudin MKA. Determination Of heavy metals concentration In food waste compost on root uptake of capsicum annuum L. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology. 2020; 29(9)

72. Fertilizer management : toxicity. Accessed January 28, 2024. https://aarsb.com.my/category/agro-management/page/5

73. EPA N. NSW environment protection authority (EPA). NSW Environment Protection Authority. Published July 2023. Accessed January 28, 2024. https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/

74. Sullivan DM, Bary AI, Miller RO, Brewer LJ. Interpreting compost analyses. Published online 2018. https://s3.wp.wsu.edu/uploads/sites/2056/2023/05/Interpreting-Compost-Analysis.pdf

75. Tesfaye B. Composition of different composts and vermicompost and effects of their application rates on growth parameters of pot grown tomato. Afr J Agric Res. 2017; 12(18): 1514-1525. doi:10.5897/AJAR2016.11683

76. Rahman MM, Bhuiyan MSH, Rouf MA, Sarker RR, Rashid MH. Quality assessment of municipal solid waste compost. Acta Chemica Malaysia. 2020; 4(1): 33-39. doi:10.2478/acmy-2020-0006

77. Grgas D, Štefanac T, Barešić M, et al. Co-composting of sewage sludge, green waste, and food waste. J sustain dev energy water environ syst. 2023; 11(1): 1-14. doi:10.13044/j.sdewes.d10.0415

78. Kulkarni JA, Patel S. Effects of Nutrients in Soil Analysis of Shirpur Tahasil Region. Asian Journal of Research in Chemistry. 2010; 3(3): 596-599.

79. Zahra K, Farhan M, Kanwal A, et al. Investigating the role of bulking agents in compost maturity. Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1): 16003. doi:10.1038/s41598-023-41891-y

80. Kim EY, Hong YK, Lee CH, Oh TK, Kim SC. Effect of organic compost manufactured with vegetable waste on nutrient supply and phytotoxicity. Appl Biol Chem. 2018; 61(5): 509-521. doi:10.1007/s13765-018-0386-0

Received on 06.04.2024            Modified on 10.05.2024

Accepted on 04.06.2024           © RJPT All right reserved

Research J. Pharm. and Tech 2024; 17(10):4649-4657.

DOI: 10.52711/0974-360X.2024.00716