# Combining bio-based fertilizers with amendment and fertilizing value as a sustainable way for cherry tomato production

Lelenda Florent Kebalo, Laure Vieublé Gonod, Patricia Garnier, Sabine Houot

► To cite this version:

Lelenda Florent Kebalo, Laure Vieublé Gonod, Patricia Garnier, Sabine Houot. Combining bio-based fertilizers with amendment and fertilizing value as a sustainable way for cherry tomato production. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 2025, 21, pp.101843. 10.1016/j.jafr.2025.101843. hal-05080123

HAL Id: hal-05080123

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05080123v1

Submitted on 22 May 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Combining bio-based fertilizers with amendment and fertilizing value as a sustainable way for cherry tomato production

Lelenda Florent Kebalo*, Laure Vieblé Gonod, Patricia Garnier, Sabine Houot

Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, AgroParisTech, UMR EcoSys, 91120, Palaiseau, France

## ARTICLE INFO

**Keywords:**
* compost
* Digestate
* human urine
* tomato
* Trace element

## ABSTRACT

Producing tomatoes using combinations of bio-based fertilizers (BBFs) with either fertilizing (large availability of nutrients, eg. human urine) and amendment value (potential contribution to soil organic carbon stocks, eg. composts) can contribute to increase both yield and soil organic carbon. A greenhouse pot experiment was conducted to investigate the impact of combining BBFs of fertilizing and amending properties on cherry tomato productivity and trace element uptake. The treatments included combinations of either green or food waste compost with either food waste digestate or human urine or synthetic fertilizer; manure and synthetic fertilizer; commercial organic fertilizer (COF); synthetic fertilizer only (SF), and a treatment without any application. Overall, the fertilization application rate was 100 mg kg⁻¹dry soil (equivalent to 200 kg mineral N ha⁻¹). BBF treatments resulted in similar tomato fresh yield, number of fruits, and average fruit weight per plant compared to the SF and COF treatments. All fertilized treatments exceeded the unfertilized treatment, increasing yield by 113–129 %, number of fruits by 68–90 %, and average fruit weight by 24–31 %. The trace element contents in tomato fruits were all below the threshold set by the European Commission and did not differ significantly among treatments, except for cadmium, which had higher values in the SF treatment. The use of BBFs also increased the soluble solids content of tomatoes. Overall, BBFs did not negatively impact the productivity and quality of tomatoes and suggest that combined application of BBFs can be considered for tomato production without adverse effects.

## 1. Introduction

Organic waste recycling in local agriculture is widely recognized as an effective method to promote sustainability and circularity principles [1]. Nowadays, recycling encompasses various types of organic waste that are applied to the field, processed or not, collected from various locations including urban peri-urban areas and globally referred to as bio-based fertilizers (BBFs) [2]. The BBFs include “amendments” such as composts and animal manure given their capacity to enhance soil organic carbon stocks and physical properties and “fertilizers” such as human urine and digestate due to their ability to supply readily available nutrients for crops [3]. Depending on the type of feedstock, the post-production handling, and the processes involved, BBFs exhibit various characteristics such as their form (liquid or solid), nutrient, carbon, trace element or pathogen content, which can positively or negatively affect plants or soil[4–7].

The application of BBFs has been shown to reduce reliance on

synthetic fertilizers (SFs) while enhancing overall crop production and quality, particularly in the case of widely cultivated and consumed vegetables such as tomatoes (*Solanum lycopersicum*) [8,9]. Barzee et al. [10] found that tomato fruits grown using food waste digestate in subsurface drip irrigation exhibited similar fruit yields compared to those grown with SFs when applied at the same nitrogen rate. Moreover, the study revealed an increase in tomato soluble solids when digestate was used compared to synthetic fertilizer application. In greenhouse experiments, Pradhan et al. [11] demonstrated that plants fertilized with stored human urine produced an equal number of tomato fruits compared to plants fertilized with SFs at the same nitrogen rate, and 4.2 times more fruits than non-fertilized plants. Compost applications have also been shown to enhance yield compared to unfertilized treatments [12]. While several studies have pointed to a combination of compost and SFs as the best strategy for tomato production in terms of crop yield, fruit quality, and soil fertility sustainability [13–15], there is a lack of research that combines composts, including newer types, with fertilizers

This article is part of a special issue entitled: fertilizer and fertilization in crop production published in Journal of Agriculture and Food Research.

* Corresponding author.

E-mail address: lelenda_florent.kebalo@cirad.fr (L.F. Kebalo).
such as human urine or food waste digestate for assessing tomato growth. Furthermore, the addition of compost to human urine or digestate could increase the soil organic matter, especially in areas recently converted from arable cropping to vegetable production.

Despite their potential positive impact on yield and fruit quality, the use of BBFs for vegetable production could present some challenges. The concerns include, among others, the potential transfer of trace elements to tomato fruits. Nevertheless, several studies have demonstrated limited uptake of these elements by tomato fruit from various organic amendments including composts or manure which did not exceed established thresholds [12,16,17], but highlighted a positive relationship of trace element concentrations in the fruits and in the amendments. Consequently, extensive research is necessary to further support these findings, especially in the context of combined application of BBFs.

Therefore, the present study aimed to assess the effects of combined application of different BBFs collected in Parisian peri-urban areas on tomato growth, fruit yield, nutrient content and trace element uptake. The BBFs were food waste compost, green waste compost, cow manure, stored human urine, and pasteurized food waste digestate. We hypothesized similar or better fruit yield and quality from combinations as compared to synthetic fertilizer or commercial organic fertilizer, attributable to additional mineral N and other nutrients from composts or manure mineralization.

## 2. Materials and methods

### 2.1. Bio-based fertilizers (BBFs)

#### 2.1.1. Source

All the BBFs used in this study were collected from the Parisian region in France. The green waste compost (GWC) was sourced from a local farmer who used windrow composting for six months, turning the pile three times before screening it to 10 mm. Food waste compost (FWC) was produced over two months using static pile composting with forced aeration and screened with a 25 mm mesh. The feedstocks used were a 1:3 (w/w) blend of restaurant food waste and shredded wood. Cow manure (MAN), a mix of dung and straw used as animal bedding, was collected from a farm and stored on an open platform for over a year. The digestate (D) used was sourced from a waste management company that processed food waste via anaerobic digestion for one month. The resulting digestate was then pasteurized at 70 °C for 1 h. Human urine (HU) was collected from a university's waterless urinal system and stored in an airtight tank for over two years to facilitate pathogen die-off, stabilize nutrients such as nitrogen, and reduce odors, making it safer and more effective as a bio-based fertilizer [5].

#### 2.1.2. Characterization

All BBFs were sampled and analyzed in triplicate one week before the application. Depending on the specific analyses to be conducted, the samples were either used in their fresh or dry form. The dry matter content was determined from oven-drying at 105 °C for 24 h (NF EN 13040; [18]). The organic matter content using the calcination method, involved heating the samples at 480 °C for 6 h (NF EN 13039; [19]). The total carbon content was determined using the Dumas method (catalytic combustion at 900 °C). The organic carbon (Corg) content was calculated by subtracting 12 % of the lime content from the total carbon content. The lime content was estimated using the Bernard calorimetry method (NF EN ISO 10693; AFNOR, 2014). Total nitrogen (TN) content was determined using the Dumas method for composts and manure [20], while the Kjeldahl method was used for human urine and digestate [21]. Ammonium (NH₄⁺) and nitrate (NO₃⁻) contents were determined in liquid fraction (KCl extraction for solid BBFs) of fresh samples using the Berthelot (reaction of ammonia with phenol and hypochlorite to form a blue complex, with absorbance measured spectrophotometrically) and Griess (reaction of nitrites with sulfanilic acid and α-naphthylamine by forming a red azo compound measured spectrophotometrically)

methods, respectively. Organic nitrogen (Norg) content was calculated by subtracting the mineral nitrogen (NH₄⁺ + NO₃⁻) from the TN. Electrical conductivity (EC) and pH were determined in ground and dry samples of manure and composts after extraction in a 1:10 water ratio, followed by filtration and measurement using a conductivity meter (NF EN 13038; [22]) or a pH meter (NF EN 13037, [23]), respectively. The same method was applied to fresh samples of human urine and digestate. Phosphorus (P), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), and trace elements such as cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), molybdenum (Mo) and zinc (Zn) were determined in ground dry matter of all the BBFs. This was achieved by extracting the samples with aqua regia under reflux for 2 h, followed by ICP-AES analysis (NF EN ISO 11885; [24]). The arsenic (As), mercury (Hg) and selenium (Se) contents were measured after extraction and analysis by atomic absorption spectrophotometry with the generation of hydrides.

In order to determine the kinetics of Corg and Norg mineralization in soil over a period of 91 days, the BBFs including food waste compost, green waste compost and cow manure were incubated under laboratory conditions. Human urine and digestate were not incubated given their low OM content. The incubation process was conducted following the protocol FD U44-163 [25] and detailed in Kebalo et al. [4]. The soil used for incubation was the same as the soil on which plants were grown.

### 2.2. Greenhouse experiment

From April 15th to July 26th, 2022, a pot experiment was conducted in a glass greenhouse located at INRAE, Thiverval-Grignon, Ile de France, France (48°50'21.7"N 1°57'06.2"E). The used soil was the upper layer (0–30 cm) of a luvisol with a clay loam texture (24 % clay, 66 % silt, 10 % sand) collected from a field adjacent to the greenhouse where maize was previously grown. The main soil physico-chemical characteristics were: 13 g kg⁻¹ for Corg; 1.36 g kg⁻¹ for total N; 4 g kg⁻¹ for CaCO₃; pH 8; 8.67 mS m⁻¹ for EC, 17.53 cmol⁺ kg⁻¹ for CEC (Cobalt-tihexamine); 0.03, 0.14, 3.4 and 0.14 g kg⁻¹ for available Olsen-P, exchangeable K, Ca and Mg, respectively.

The experiment was designed as a randomized complete block design with ten treatments, as presented in Table 1. These treatments included a control with no fertilizer application, a synthetic fertilizer, a commercial organic fertilizer and a combination of amendments (green waste compost, food waste compost, manure) with fertilizers (human urine, food waste digestate, synthetic fertilizer).

Each treatment was replicated four times, resulting in a total of 40 pots. The COF used was Guano containing 30 N (with 3 N in organic form), 26.4 P and 83 K g kg⁻¹. The SF used was NPK (100 N, 35 P, 166 K g kg⁻¹). Both were purchased from the local market. They were both used as positive controls due to their high prevalence in the region.

In each pot, a mixture of soil and fertilizer treatments was prepared, and a single tomato seedling was planted. The pots made of polypropylene, had dimensions of 24.8 cm in diameter and 27 cm in height, and contained 8 kg of soil. The soil was air-dried and sieved through a 7

<table><caption>**Table 1**
Treatments applied in the study.</caption><thead><tr><th>Amendments</th><th>Fertilizers</th><th>Treatments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>Control</td></tr><tr><td>-</td><td>Commercial organic fertilizer (COF)</td><td>COF</td></tr><tr><td>-</td><td>Synthetic fertilizer (SF)</td><td>SF</td></tr><tr><td>Cow manure (MAN)</td><td>Synthetic fertilizer (SF)</td><td>MAN_SF</td></tr><tr><td>Green waste compost (GWC)</td><td>Synthetic fertilizer (SF)</td><td>GWC_SF</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Food waste digestate (D)</td><td>GWC_D</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Human urine (HU)</td><td>GWC_HU</td></tr><tr><td>Food waste compost (FWC)</td><td>Synthetic fertilizer (SF)</td><td>FWC_SF</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Food waste digestate (D)</td><td>FWC_D</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Human urine (HU)</td><td>FWC_HU</td></tr></tbody></table>
mm sieve before applying the different treatments.

Fertilization was carried out twice to match the amount of fertilizer typically used in open-field conditions in the study area, as recommended by the guidelines of the local agricultural institutions, considering the soil quantity present on 1 ha at a depth of 20 cm (equivalent to 2000 t of dry soil ha⁻¹, with a bulk density of 1 g cm⁻³). All the BBFs were applied in their raw fresh form. During the first application on April 15th, 2022, the fertilizers were added at a total dose of 85 mg mineral N kg⁻¹ of soil, equivalent to 170 kg N ha⁻¹. In combined fertilization treatments, composts and manure were initially applied at a rate of 2 g C kg⁻¹ soil (equivalent to 4 t C ha⁻¹), followed by the addition of either synthetic fertilizer, digestate or human urine to reach the desired rate of 170 kg N ha⁻¹, accounting for the mineral N already provided by the composts and manure. The soil and treatments were thoroughly mixed in a larger container before being transferred to the pots. On May 31st, 49 days following planting, a second fertilization was conducted in response to a decrease in soil mineral N levels, as indicated by soil analysis. This involved applying 15 mg mineral N kg⁻¹ of dry soil (equivalent to 30 kg N ha⁻¹ in the field) using human urine, digestate, synthetic fertilizer, or commercial organic fertilizer depending on the treatment. This application was made at the soil surface and lightly incorporated by raking to a depth of 2 cm. In total, 200 kg mineral N ha⁻¹ (100 mg mineral N kg⁻¹ of dry soil) was applied.

Tomato seedlings of the "Crokini" variety, aged 45 days, were transplanted on April 15th along with their potting soil (synthetic fertilizer-enriched organic matter) and grown for 102 days. The amount of mineral N brought by the potting soil was also determined by multiplying the mineral N content by the mass of the potting soil. Before planting, the soil was watered to 70 % of its field capacity (determined with a pressure plate apparatus at pF = 2.5) using deionized water. After planting, additional watering was performed to maintain 100 % water-holding capacity. Subsequently, all treatments received the same amount of irrigation. Soil moisture was consistently maintained at 18–20 % (w/w, equivalent to 70 % of field water-holding capacity) throughout the experiment by adding deionized water as necessary. The greenhouse temperature was maintained between 17 and 21 °C, and natural light was utilized without supplementary lighting. The relative humidity was between 60 and 75 %, and the photoperiod varied between 6 and 12 h. Bamboo stakes were used to support the plants (Fig. S1).

## 2.3. Plant analyses

The fruits were harvested whenever their color matched a 10 on the color code developed by a national legume company [26]. A total of 15 harvests were conducted throughout the duration of the experiment. All harvested fruits were stored in a refrigerator at a temperature of 4 °C. The total fruit yield per plant was determined by summing the yield from each harvest. The weight of the roots and remaining shoot was measured on the final harvest day. The shoot and water-washed roots (excluding fruits) were then oven-dried at 80 °C for 72 h to obtain their dry weight. The fruit dry matter was also obtained by oven-drying at 40 °C for 72 h.

During the growth period, the height and diameter of the plants were measured on the planting day (April 15th), as well as on May 4th (day 19), May 31st (fruiting stage, day 46), and July 26th (last harvesting day, day 102). After 10 harvests, 100 g of fresh fruits (sampled based on uniformity in color, weight, size, firmness and harvest location on the plant) were ground and homogenized. The soluble solid (SS) content of the homogenized samples was analyzed using a manual refractometer. On the fruit dry matter, total N was determined using the Dumas method. The nutrients P, K, Ca, Mg, and trace elements (total Cu, Cd, Cr, Hg, Pb, and Zn) were extracted with aqua regia under reflux for 2 h and then quantified using ICP-AES.

The nutrient use efficiency was assessed using different parameters. The nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) is an indicator of the nitrogen use

from applied fertilizers and was calculated according to equation (1). NUE was expressed as the percentage of total nitrogen (NUEtot) or mineral nitrogen (NUEmin) applied.

$$NUE(\%) = \frac{Ut - Uc}{Total N or Min N} \times 100 \quad (1)$$

where Ut was the nitrogen uptake (mg plant⁻¹) by fruits in fertilized pots; Uc, the nitrogen uptake (mg plant⁻¹) in non-fertilized control pots, Total N and Min N were the total and mineral nitrogen applied, respectively (mg pot⁻¹).

The mineral fertilizer equivalent (MFE) was also calculated as presented in equation (2). It represents the equivalent of SF leading to the same N use as the BBFs.

$$MFE (\%) = \frac{NUE BBF}{NUE SF} \times 100 \quad (2)$$

Where NUE SF and NUE BBF represent the nitrogen use efficiency based on total nitrogen applied from SF or from BBFs, respectively.

## 2.4. Soil mineral nitrogen (SMN) analysis

Throughout the entire growth period of the tomato plants, soil samples were collected the same period plant height and diameter were measured: day 0, 19, 46, 102 after planting. To determine the nitrate (NO₃⁻-N) and ammonium (NH₄⁺-N) content in the soil, fresh soil samples, were extracted using a 0.01 mol L⁻¹ KCl solution (in a ratio of 10:1 v/w) and analysis of NO₃⁻-N concentration using the Berthelot colorimetric method, and NH₄⁺-N using the Griess colorimetric method. The mineral nitrogen stocks (mg pot⁻¹) in each pot were calculated by multiplying the nitrogen content (NH₄⁺ + NO₃⁻) by the mass of the soil in the pot.

## 2.5. Data analyses

The data were presented as the mean values with standard deviations. One-way ANOVA was performed to compare the effects of different fertilization treatments on tomato yield and fruit quality. Differences at the 5 % significance level were compared using Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test by the mean of R software (version 2021.09.0 + 351). To evaluate the impact of bio-based fertilizers on tomato growth, a hierarchical cluster analysis was conducted using the measured variables: fruit weight, yield, number and plant total fresh biomass. A Euclidean distance matrix was computed to quantify dissimilarities between treatments, and the Ward's method was applied for agglomerative clustering, which minimizes the total within-cluster variance.

# 3. Results

## 3.1. BBF characteristics and amount of nutrients applied

The BBFs' characteristics including trace elements contents are shown in Table 2.

Composts and manure showed higher organic carbon (OC) (between 80 and 200 kg kg⁻¹) than HU and D whereas the opposite was observed with mineral N, particularly ammonium (5–6 g kg⁻¹) (see Table 2). Regarding the total N content, composts recorded higher values than MAN, HU and D (6.5–7 g kg⁻¹). Composts and manure had similar C: Norg and C: total N, much higher than for D and HU. Regarding the other nutrients, composts and manure had higher contents in potassium than HU and D. FWC had the highest P and Ca contents. Mg contents were quite similar in composts and manure and almost absent in D and HU. All the BBFs had alkaline pH above 8. The electric conductivity of HU and D was relatively higher (around 40 mS cm⁻¹) than in composts and manure. All BBFs presented low CaCO₃ contents. All trace elements were below the French standards set for organic amendments such as
<caption>**Table 2**</caption>

Physico-chemical characteristics of BBFs expressed on fresh matter basis except for trace element contents expressed on dry matter basis. Values represent the mean ± the standard deviation of three observations. NF U 44–051 is the French standard for organic amendments.

<table><thead><tr><th>BBFs</th><th>Green waste Compost (GWC)</th><th>Food waste compost (FWC)</th><th>Cow manure (MAN)</th><th>Food waste digestate (D)</th><th>Human urine (HU)</th><th>Threshold defined by NF U 44–051</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Dry matter (g kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>512 ± 27 b</td><td>578 ± 4 a</td><td>255 ± 16 c</td><td>29 ± 0 d</td><td>13 ± 0 d</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Organic matter (g kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>230 ± 2 b</td><td>399 ± 7 a</td><td>158 ± 17 c</td><td>14 ± 0 d</td><td>3 ± 0 d</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Organic carbon (g kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>120 ± 0 b</td><td>200 ± 0 a</td><td>80 ± 10 c</td><td>7 ± 0 d</td><td>2 ± 0 d</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Total nitrogen (g kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>11.3 ± 0.6 b</td><td>18.3 ± 0.6 a</td><td>6.5 ± 0.9 c</td><td>7.0 ± 0.2 c</td><td>7.1 ± 0.1 c</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Organic nitrogen (g kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>11.1 ± 0.2 b</td><td>17.1 ± 0.7 a</td><td>6.4 ± 0.9 c</td><td>&lt;0.1 ± 0.0</td><td>&lt;0.1 ± 0.0</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>C: total N ratio</td><td>10.6 ± 0.1 b</td><td>10.9 ± 0.6 b</td><td>12.3 ± 0.4 a</td><td>1.0 ± 0.0 c</td><td>0.3 ± 0.0 c</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>C: organic N ratio</td><td>10.8 ± 0.5 b</td><td>11.7 ± 0.0 a</td><td>12.5 ± 0.4 a</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>N-NH<sub>4</sub><sup>+</sup> (g kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>&lt;0.1 ± 0.0</td><td>&lt;0.1 ± 0.0</td><td>0.4 ± 0.0 c</td><td>5.2 ± 0.0 b</td><td>6.5 ± 0.0 a</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>N-NO<sub>3</sub><sup>-</sup> (g kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>0.1 ± 0.0 b</td><td>0.8 ± 0.0 a</td><td>&lt;0.06 ± 0.0</td><td>&lt;0.02 ± 0.0</td><td>&lt;0.02 ± 0.0</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>pH</td><td>8.7 ± 0.1 c</td><td>8.1 ± 0.1 e</td><td>9.7 ± 0.0 a</td><td>8.9 ± 0.0 c</td><td>9.6 ± 0.1 b</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>EC (mS cm<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>2.2 ± 0.1 d</td><td>4.3 ± 0.1 c</td><td>4.1 ± 0.4 c</td><td>39.7 ± 0.1 b</td><td>41.2 ± 0.3 a</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>CaCO<sub>3</sub> (g kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>28.0 ± 0.0</td><td>26 ± 0.0</td><td>10.6 ± 0.0</td><td>23.0 ± 0.0</td><td>24.0 ± 0.0</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>P (g kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>1.8 ± 0.1 b</td><td>5.0 ± 0.0 a</td><td>1.6 ± 0.3 b</td><td>0.8 ± 0.0 c</td><td>0.4 ± 0.0 d</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>K (g kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>8.3 ± 0.0 a</td><td>7.8 ± 0.3 a</td><td>6.7 ± 0.1 b</td><td>1.7 ± 0.0 c</td><td>1.9 ± 0.0 c</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Ca (g kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>19.6 ± 0.8</td><td>25.6 ± 0.3</td><td>5.9 ± 0.5</td><td>2.1 ± 0.1</td><td>&lt;0.1 ± 0.0</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Mg (g kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>1.7 ± 0.1 a</td><td>1.6 ± 0.1 a</td><td>1.1 ± 0.1 b</td><td>0.1 ± 0.0 c</td><td>0.0 ± 0.0 c</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7">Trace elements (expressed on dry matter basis)</td></tr><tr><td>As (mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>4.7 ± 0.2 a</td><td>&lt;1.5 ± 0.0</td><td>&lt;1.4 ± 0.0</td><td>&lt;2.2 ± 0.0</td><td>&lt;4.9 ± 0.0</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>Cd (mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>0.4 ± 0 b</td><td>0.3 ± 0.0 c</td><td>0.2 ± 0.0 d</td><td>1.0 ± 0.0 a</td><td>&lt;0.5 ± 0.0</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Cr (mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>17.4 ± 1.1a</td><td>8.1 ± 1.3 c</td><td>6.7 ± 0.4 c</td><td>13.2 ± 0.4 b</td><td>&lt;4.9 ± 0.0</td><td>120</td></tr><tr><td>Hg (mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>0.2 ± 0.0 a</td><td>&lt;0.2 ± 0.0</td><td>&lt;0.2 ± 0.0</td><td>&lt;0.2 ± 0.0</td><td>&lt;0.5 ± 0.0</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Ni (mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>10.7 ± 1.0 a</td><td>5.3 ± 0.1 c</td><td>5.8 ± 0.3 c</td><td>8.6 ± 0.1 b</td><td>&lt;4.9 ± 0.0</td><td>60</td></tr><tr><td>Pb (mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>55.6 ± 2.9 a</td><td>20.1 ± 1.5 a</td><td>3.7 ± 0.5 d</td><td>9.3 ± 0.3 c</td><td>&lt;12.0 ± 0.0</td><td>180</td></tr><tr><td>Se (mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>&lt;0.5 ± 0.0</td><td>&lt;0.6 ± 0.0</td><td>&lt;0.5 ± 0.0</td><td>1.4 ± 0.1 b</td><td>2.2 ± 0.1 a</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Co (mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>4.0 ± 0.7 a</td><td>1.6 ± 0.2 b</td><td>1.4 ± 0.3 b</td><td>&lt;0.1 ± 0.0</td><td>&lt;0.1 ± 0.0</td><td>/</td></tr><tr><td>Cu (mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>&lt;0.1 ± 0.0</td><td>&lt;0.1 ± 0.0</td><td>&lt;0.03 ± 0.0</td><td>214.5 ± 6.0 a</td><td>&lt;2.4 ± 0.0</td><td>300</td></tr><tr><td>Mo (mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>1.7 ± 0.0 a</td><td>&lt;1.6 ± 0.0</td><td>&lt;0.1 ± 0.0</td><td>&lt;0.1 ± 0.0</td><td>&lt;0.1 ± 0.0</td><td>/</td></tr><tr><td>Zn (mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>188.4 ± 6.9 b</td><td>125.8 ± 9.7 c</td><td>127.5 ± 14.1 c</td><td>504.6 ± 17.7 a</td><td>29.3 ± 1.0 d</td><td>600</td></tr></tbody></table>

composts and manure.

The total amounts of fertilizers applied per pot are detailed in Table 3. A total of 800 mg of mineral N pot⁻¹ was applied, excluding the mineral N in the potting soil, which was estimated at 315 mg N pot⁻¹. The amounts of Norg, P, K, Ca and Mg applied varied among treatments, excluding the potting soil content, which was not assessed in this study. Norg ranged from 0 in the SF treatment to 1368 mg pot⁻¹ in FWC treatments. P varied from 250 in the GWC_HU treatment to 704 mg pot⁻¹ in the COF treatment. K ranged from 834 in the FWC_HU treatment to 2576 mg pot⁻¹ in the MAN_SF treatment.

The biodegradability of Corg in the BBFs was assessed in controlled conditions (Fig. 1A). The FWC was the most biodegradable with more than 10 % of C mineralized after 91 days and without reaching a plateau of mineralization. The GWC and the manure presented more stable organic matter with only 7 and 5 % of Corg mineralized, respectively.

Regarding nitrogen (Fig. 1B), organic nitrogen in manure and FWC was mineralized (around 2.5 %) whereas a slight N immobilization from the soil was observed with the GWC (1 %). Considering the mineralization percentages at day 91 (11 days before the harvest assuming same mineralization as in the lab), it was only 34 mg pot⁻¹ for composts and 31 mg pot⁻¹ for manure. The immobilization in GWC represented 13 mg pot⁻¹, representing a small amount of the mineral N applied.

## 3.2. Plant growth and harvest characteristics

### 3.2.1. Biomass, fruit yield, number, average weight

In our study, we applied the different fertilizer treatments at the same mineral N rate, excepting for a noticeable impact of the amendments included in some treatments on plant characteristics. The application of BBFs resulted in significant mean increases of 121 % in total fruit yield, 72 % in the number of tomatoes and 28 % in the weight of each fruit, compared to the control treatment (Fig. 2A, B, C). Combined

fertilizers displayed similar values as the reference practices of SF and COF treatments regarding these fruit parameters. The shoot and root weight were also increased with all the fertilized treatments and higher than the control. Regarding fertilized treatments, combination of manure and synthetic mineral fertilizer displayed a higher value compared to the commercial organic fertilizer.

Following the hierarchical cluster analysis, the control treatment formed a distinct cluster, indicating a significant difference in growth variables compared to the fertilized treatments (Fig. S2). The analysis revealed two major treatment clusters: one comprising FWC_SF and MAN_SF, which were highly similar and showed consistent growth-promoting effects, and another containing the remaining treatments. Within this second cluster, COF and GWC_D were closely related, suggesting similar growth outcomes, while FWC_D and FWC_HU formed another subgroup with similar performance.

### 3.2.2. Plant growth

The stem diameter and the plant height values were influenced by the BBFs application (Table S2, Fig. S3). All the fertilized treatments led to statistically similar and higher increase regarding the variation in stem diameter as compared to control during the entire experiment. Less variation was observed in plant height with a slightly higher plant in the control treatment compared to fertilized treatments. No significant difference was observed among the fertilized treatments.

### 3.2.3. Nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) and mineral fertilizer equivalent (MFE)

The NUE and MFE based on tomato fruit N exports were affected by the treatments (Table 4). Overall, in the combinations involving composts, the trend for NUEmin (nitrogen use efficiency based on mineral N applied) was HU > SF > D. Additionally, combinations with GWC seemed to exhibit lower NUEmin values compared to those with FWC.
<table><caption>**Table 3**
Amount of BBFs (expressed on fresh matter basis) and nutrients (nitrogen N, phosphorus P, potassium K, calcium Ca, magnesium Mg) applied per pot in the different treatments: control, unfertilized treatment; COF, commercial organic fertilizer; SF, synthetic fertilizer; MAN_SF: manure + synthetic fertilizer, GWC_SF: green waste compost + synthetic fertilizer, FWC_SF: food waste compost + synthetic fertilizer; GWC_D, green waste compost + digestate; GWC_HU, green waste compost + human urine; FWC_D, food waste compost + digestate; and FWC_HU, food waste compost + human urine.</caption><thead><tr><th>Date of application</th><th>Mass of composts or manure applied</th><th>Mass of SF, HU, D or COF</th><th>Additional mass of SF, HU, D or COF</th><th>Mineral N added with composts or MAN</th><th>Mineral N added with SF, HU, D</th><th>Mineral N added with SF, HU, D</th><th>Total mineral N added</th><th>Mineral N in the potting soil</th><th>Total Norg with the treatments*</th><th>P*</th><th>K*</th><th>Ca*</th><th>Mg*</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Units</td><td>April 15th</td><td>April 15th</td><td>May 31st</td><td>April 15th</td><td>April 15th</td><td>April 15th</td><td>April 15th</td><td>April 15th</td><td>April 15th</td><td>April 15th</td><td>April 15th</td><td>April 15th</td><td>April 15th</td></tr><tr><td>g FM pot<sup>-1</sup></td><td>g FM pot<sup>-1</sup></td><td>g FM pot<sup>-1</sup></td><td>mg pot<sup>-1</sup></td><td>mg pot<sup>-1</sup></td><td>mg pot<sup>-1</sup></td><td>mg pot<sup>-1</sup></td><td>mg pot<sup>-1</sup></td><td>mg pot<sup>-1</sup></td><td>mg pot<sup>-1</sup></td><td>mg pot<sup>-1</sup></td><td>mg pot<sup>-1</sup></td><td>mg pot<sup>-1</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Treatments</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Control</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>315</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>COF</td><td>0.0</td><td>22.7</td><td>4.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.0</td><td>120.0</td><td>800</td><td>315</td><td>24</td><td>704</td><td>2213</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>SF</td><td>0.0</td><td>6.8</td><td>1.2</td><td>0.0</td><td>680.0</td><td>120.0</td><td>800</td><td>315</td><td>0</td><td>282</td><td>1328</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>MAN_SF</td><td>196.5</td><td>6.4</td><td>1.2</td><td>39.3</td><td>640.7</td><td>120.0</td><td>800</td><td>315</td><td>1257</td><td>586</td><td>2576</td><td>1172</td><td>224</td><td>224</td></tr><tr><td>GWC_SF</td><td>115.2</td><td>6.7</td><td>1.2</td><td>11.2</td><td>668.8</td><td>120.0</td><td>800</td><td>315</td><td>1278</td><td>485</td><td>2265</td><td>2265</td><td>194</td><td>194</td></tr><tr><td>GWC_D</td><td>115.2</td><td>128.9</td><td>23.0</td><td>11.2</td><td>668.8</td><td>120.0</td><td>800</td><td>315</td><td>1278</td><td>335</td><td>1221</td><td>2589</td><td>203</td><td>203</td></tr><tr><td>GWC_HU</td><td>115.2</td><td>100.4</td><td>18.0</td><td>11.2</td><td>668.8</td><td>120.0</td><td>800</td><td>315</td><td>1278</td><td>250</td><td>1182</td><td>2265</td><td>194</td><td>194</td></tr><tr><td>FWC_SF</td><td>80.0</td><td>6.1</td><td>1.2</td><td>64.0</td><td>616.0</td><td>120.0</td><td>800</td><td>315</td><td>1368</td><td>655</td><td>1839</td><td>2045</td><td>125</td><td>125</td></tr><tr><td>FWC_D</td><td>80.0</td><td>117.9</td><td>23.1</td><td>64.0</td><td>616.0</td><td>120.0</td><td>800</td><td>315</td><td>1368</td><td>516</td><td>870</td><td>2346</td><td>133</td><td>133</td></tr><tr><td>FWC_HU</td><td>80.0</td><td>91.9</td><td>18.2</td><td>64.0</td><td>616.0</td><td>120.0</td><td>800</td><td>315</td><td>1368</td><td>437</td><td>834</td><td>2045</td><td>125</td><td>125</td></tr></tbody></table>

+ did not include potting soil organic matter since was not analyzed. FM: fresh matter, *Excluding the potting soil content.

SF and COF treatments also appeared to result in lower NUEmin values compared to the combinations with manure and FWC. NUEtot was higher in the SF and COF treatments than in all the combined treatments. The same observation was made with MFE, where COF presented the highest value, while all BBF combinations exhibited MFE values between 31.2 % and 42.4 %.

### 3.2.4. Fruit nutrient and soluble solids composition and trace elements

The N content of tomato fruits was significantly influenced by the treatments while no significant variation was perceived with P, K, Ca Mg contents (Table 5). The N content was statistically higher in FWC_HU than in the control representing a difference of 66 %.

Soluble solids (SS) content of tomato fruits varied significantly among the different treatments (Table 5). The SF showed the lowest SS content, which was statistically similar to control, MAN_SF, GWC_SF, FWC_HU, and FWC_D. The COF recorded the highest SS value which was significantly higher than FWC_HU but similar to all other fertilized BBF treatments.

The effect of BBFs addition on trace elements content in tomato fruits are shown in Table 5 and Table S1. Cd content was significantly affected by the treatments, with the highest content observed with SF treatment and the lowest in the control. Pb, Cr and Hg contents were not affected and were all below the detection limit. Likewise, no significant difference was observed among treatments with Cu and Zn contents. Cu and Cd contents in tomato were below the European commission threshold of 0.10 and 0.05 (against <0.007 and 0.003 measured) mg kg⁻¹ fresh matter, respectively [27].

The N, P, K, Ca, Mg exported by tomato fruits per plant were increased with the fertilizer applications compared with the control treatment (Fig. S4). Among the fertilized treatments, significant differences were observed, except for Mg. For N, the FWC treatments and the MAN_SF treatment showed statistically higher exports compared to GWC_D but were similar to all other fertilized treatments. Regarding P, the FWC_SF treatment exhibited significantly higher exports than the FWC_HU treatment but was comparable to all other treatments. K exports were higher in the FWC_SF treatment than in the two other FWC treatments, as well as the SF and GWC combinations with D or SF, but were similar to the other fertilized treatments. Ca uptake was lowest in the FWC_D treatment among all fertilized treatments.

### 3.3. Soil mineral nitrogen at harvest days

At the planting day, soil mineral nitrogen (SMN) in the fertilized treatments were similar (around 850 mg N pot⁻¹), which was consistent with the mineral N applied at the start of the experiment and the initial mineral nitrogen stock (Table S3, Fig. S5). They were superior to the control treatment. Then SMN drastically decreased during the plant growth after 19 days following the planting. The SMN in all the treatments was at least two times decreased as compared to the day 0. Significant differences were observed between the treatments. All SF treatments (except GWC-SF, ie FWC_SF MAN_SF, SF) and GWC_HU presented the highest values ranging from 330 to 437 mg N pot⁻¹ while the remaining treated pots varied between 179 and 240 mg N pot⁻¹. After almost 1.5 month (day 46), SMN in the treated soil reached statistically similar values as control pots and corresponded to the period where additional fertilization was done. At the harvest day (day 102), SMN remained once again statistically similar and ranged between 8 and 15 mg N pot⁻¹.

## 4. Discussion

### 4.1. BBFs have different characteristics

The composts and manure presented high carbon contents associated with a biodegradability below 13 % of applied OC, and thus the ability to increase soil organic matter stocks when applied [4]. Although composts
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Organic Carbon (A) and nitrogen (B) mineralization of the composts and manure. HU and D were not incubated due to their low OM content. Each error bar represents the standard deviation for four replicates at a given measurement point.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Fresh yield (A), number (B), average weight (C) of fruits and aerial and root biomass. The bars represent means of four replicates while the error bars are meant for the standard deviations. Bars with similar letter(s) are not significantly different at P ≤ 0.05 Tukey's test. Control, unfertilized treatment; COF, commercial organic fertilizer; SF, synthetic fertilizer; MAN_SF: manure + synthetic fertilizer; GWC_SF, green waste compost + synthetic fertilizer, FWC_SF, food waste compost + synthetic fertilizer; GWC_D, green waste compost + digestate; GWC_HU, green waste compost + human urine; FWC_D, food waste compost + digestate; and FWC_HU, food waste compost + human urine. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)</figcaption></figure>

and manure had a low and similar C: N ratio (around 10), suitable for microbial degradation [28], the slight N immobilization observed after GWC addition to soil highlighted the influence of other factors. More likely, the GWC contained more lignin than manure that limited its biodegradability [29]. The alkalinity of all the BBFs except FWC could be interesting for soil pH increase and therefore limit the reliance of liming. All BBFs presented ETM contents below the standards, which is favorable for their use as fertilizer in agriculture. However, an attention should be given to the high electrical conductivity in HU and D to avoid soil salinization [5].

## 4.2. *Tomato yield was not altered by combination of BBFs*

The amendments (composts and manure) application with HU or D or SF were carried out to increase the soil organic carbon in the vegetable soils over time without compromising the plant desired products [4]. We observed that the tomato fruit yield, weight and number were increased as compared to the control treatment, which is consistent with previous studies [13,30,31]. In addition, these parameters remained similar within the fertilized treatments indicating the absence of significant negative impact from composts and manure addition on nutrient availability and growth parameters. The slight net N mineralization or organisation observed during incubations with composts and calculated to reach 2.5 to -1 % of organic N did not significantly limit or
<caption>**Table 4**</caption>

Nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) and mineral fertilizer equivalent (MFE) of tomato fruits. Different letters denote significant differences in the Tukey's test at $p < 0.05$. Control, unfertilized treatment; COF, commercial organic fertilizer; SF, synthetic fertilizer, MAN_SF: manure + synthetic fertilizer; GWC_SF, green waste compost + synthetic fertilizer, FWC_SF, food waste compost + synthetic fertilizer; GWC_D, green waste compost + digestate; GWC_HU, green waste compost + human urine; FWC_D, food waste compost + digestate; and FWC_HU, food waste compost + human urine.

<table><thead><tr><th>Treatments</th><th>NUEmin (%)</th><th>NUEtot (%)</th><th>MFE (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>COF</td><td>73.8 ± 9.2 abc</td><td>71.7 ± 8.9 a</td><td>94.4 ± 11.7 a</td></tr><tr><td>SF</td><td>76.0 ± 10.5 abc</td><td>76.0 ± 10.5 a</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>MAN_SF</td><td>80.1 ± 3.8 ab</td><td>31.0 ± 1.5 b</td><td>40.8 ± 1.9 b</td></tr><tr><td>GWC_SF</td><td>70.6 ± 5.1 bc</td><td>27.2 ± 1.9 b</td><td>35.8 ± 2.6 b</td></tr><tr><td>GWC_HU</td><td>79.8 ± 10.1 ab</td><td>30.3 ± 3.8 b</td><td>39.9 ± 5.0 b</td></tr><tr><td>GWC_D</td><td>61.5 ± 4.9 c</td><td>23.7 ± 1.9 b</td><td>31.2 ± 2.5 b</td></tr><tr><td>FWC_SF</td><td>82.8 ± 7.6 ab</td><td>30.5 ± 2.8 b</td><td>40.1 ± 3.7 b</td></tr><tr><td>FWC_HU</td><td>88.8 ± 7.7 a</td><td>32.2 ± 2.8 b</td><td>42.4 ± 3.7 b</td></tr><tr><td>FWC_D</td><td>80.9 ± 6.4 ab</td><td>29.8 ± 2.4 b</td><td>39.2 ± 3.1 b</td></tr></tbody></table>

increase the nitrogen availability to plants. However, GWC tended to decrease the mineral nitrogen use efficiency by the tomato fruit due to the observed organisation whereas some mineralization of Norg for manure and FWC could explain their NUEs which tend to be higher. This highlights the potential positive or negative impact of the applied amendments on plant development, depending on their nature. BBFs with higher N mineralization or organisation than those in our study, as observed in various BBF incubations under laboratory conditions by Levavasseur et al. [32] or Kebalo et al. [4], could significantly increase or decrease yields in treatments where they are applied. It is noteworthy that the alkaline status of the BBFs could increase soil pH [4], and thereby affect the nutrient use efficiencies by tomato plants [33]. Higher plant diameter and plant height has been associated to increasing yield in many studies [34,35]. Cristina et al. [34] found that the digestate treatments showed 3.5 folds increase than in unfertilized treatment after 3 months on a sandy soil, comparable to synthetic fertilizer. Likewise, Ronga et al. [31] also found similar trend with biochar or liquid digestate on a soil that has a similar texture as ours. In this study, plant diameter increased with fertilizer application compared to the unfertilized treatment, which also led to higher yields. However, this trend was not observed in plant height, where the unfertilized treatment displayed the tallest plants but produced fewer tomatoes. Kousar et al. [36] indicated that there is no correlation between plant height and fruit yield when assessing eight different genotypes. Differences in plant nutrients applied other than N, such as P, K, Ca and Mg, could have influenced plant growth despite the same mineral N application rate. However, the similar biomass observed across fertilized treatments suggests that these nutrients were likely non-limiting, likely due to the nutrients in the potting mix. Additionally, no deficiency symptoms were observed.

The mineral N in the soil of fertilized treatments decreased rapidly due to plant uptake for vegetative growth. The plant had limited development in the last days before harvest probably because of limiting nitrogen. Continuous nitrogen availability could potentially result in higher fruit yields, especially considering the presence of flowers on the plants at harvest time, particularly when using an indeterminate variety. In a growth period exceeding five months, Nie et al. [37] found cherry tomato yield surpassing 1 kg per plant.

### 4.3. BBFs can be used in combination without adverse effects on fruit quality

Soluble solids (SS) in tomatoes, primarily composed of sugars, organic acids, and other dissolved substances, are key to determining the overall quality and flavor of the fruit [38]. Generally, higher SS content is associated with better quality and increased consumer preference [39]. The SS observed (5.3–7.2 °Brix) were coherent with Ronga et al.

<caption>**Table 5**</caption>

Fruit nutrient composition and trace element contents expressed on dry matter (DM) basis. Values represent the mean±the standard deviation of three replicates. Different letters denote significant differences in the Tukey's test at $p < 0.05$. Control, unfertilized treatment; COF, commercial organic fertilizer; SF, synthetic fertilizer, MAN_SF: manure + synthetic fertilizer; GWC_SF, green waste compost + synthetic fertilizer, FWC_SF, food waste compost + synthetic fertilizer; GWC_D, green waste compost + digestate; GWC_HU, green waste compost + human urine; FWC_D, food waste compost + digestate; and FWC_HU, food waste compost + human urine.

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Treatments</th><th rowspan="2">DM (g kg<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th rowspan="2">Soluble solid (° Brix)</th><th colspan="4">Nutrient composition (mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th colspan="4">Trace elements (mg kg<sup>-1</sup> FM)</th><th rowspan="2">Zn</th></tr><tr><th>N</th><th>P</th><th>K</th><th>Ca</th><th>Mg</th><th>Cd</th><th>Cu</th><th>Pb</th><th>Cr</th><th>Hg</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Control</td><td>75 ± 10</td><td>5.7 ± 0.5 cd</td><td>19.2 ± 2.2 b</td><td>4.8 ± 0.5</td><td>42.2 ± 4.6</td><td>1.6 ± 0.2</td><td>1.8 ± 0.2</td><td>0.02 ± 0 c</td><td>0.8 ± 0</td><td>&lt;0.09</td><td>&lt;0.04</td><td>&lt;0.004</td><td>0.12 ± 0.08</td><td>2 ± 0.05</td></tr><tr><td>COF</td><td>69 ± 5</td><td>7.2 ± 0.4 a</td><td>24.3 ± 2.0 ab</td><td>4.5 ± 0.1</td><td>40.3 ± 1.5</td><td>1.5 ± 0.2</td><td>1.8 ± 0.1</td><td>0.03 ± 0 abc</td><td>0.9 ± 0</td><td>&lt;0.08</td><td>&lt;0.03</td><td>&lt;0.003</td><td>0.04 ± 0.01</td><td>2.3 ± 0.2</td></tr><tr><td>SF</td><td>62 ± 10</td><td>5.3 ± 0.5 d</td><td>26.8 ± 5.4 ab</td><td>4.6 ± 1.0</td><td>41.4 ± 9.0</td><td>1.9 ± 0.5</td><td>1.9 ± 0.4</td><td>0.03 ± 0 a</td><td>0.8 ± 0</td><td>&lt;0.08</td><td>&lt;0.03</td><td>&lt;0.003</td><td>0.07 ± 0.03</td><td>2 ± 0.2</td></tr><tr><td>MAN_SF</td><td>65 ± 5</td><td>6.5 ± 0.3 abcd</td><td>28.5 ± 2.9 ab</td><td>4.8 ± 0.5</td><td>44.5 ± 2.8</td><td>1.7 ± 0.1</td><td>1.9 ± 0.1</td><td>0.03 ± 0 abc</td><td>0.9 ± 0</td><td>&lt;0.08</td><td>&lt;0.03</td><td>&lt;0.003</td><td>0.05 ± 0.03</td><td>2.6 ± 0.7</td></tr><tr><td>GWC_SF</td><td>69 ± 9</td><td>6.4 ± 0.2 abcd</td><td>23.6 ± 1.6 ab</td><td>4.2 ± 0.3</td><td>38.8 ± 4.2</td><td>1.7 ± 0.2</td><td>1.8 ± 0.2</td><td>0.02 ± 0 bc</td><td>0.8 ± 0</td><td>&lt;0.08</td><td>&lt;0.03</td><td>&lt;0.003</td><td>0.11 ± 0.05</td><td>2.3 ± 0.3</td></tr><tr><td>GWC_HU</td><td>67 ± 14</td><td>6.9 ± 0.7 ab</td><td>26.4 ± 5.6 ab</td><td>4.5 ± 0.9</td><td>41.8 ± 11.2</td><td>1.7 ± 0.3</td><td>1.8 ± 0.3</td><td>0.02 ± 0 bc</td><td>0.8 ± 0.1</td><td>&lt;0.07</td><td>&lt;0.03</td><td>&lt;0.003</td><td>0.05 ± 0.04</td><td>2.2 ± 0.3</td></tr><tr><td>GWC_D</td><td>64 ± 17</td><td>6.8 ± 0.3 abc</td><td>23.9 ± 3.0 ab</td><td>4.7 ± 0.6</td><td>42.0 ± 6.2</td><td>1.5 ± 0.2</td><td>1.8 ± 0.3</td><td>0.02 ± 0 c</td><td>0.9 ± 0</td><td>&lt;0.08</td><td>&lt;0.03</td><td>&lt;0.003</td><td>0.08 ± 0.06</td><td>2.2 ± 0.1</td></tr><tr><td>FWC_SF</td><td>64 ± 8</td><td>6.6 ± 0.8 abc</td><td>27.5 ± 4.9 ab</td><td>5.1 ± 0.9</td><td>47.3 ± 5.3</td><td>1.8 ± 0.2</td><td>1.9 ± 0.2</td><td>0.03 ± 0 ab</td><td>0.9 ± 0</td><td>&lt;0.08</td><td>&lt;0.03</td><td>&lt;0.003</td><td>0.07 ± 0.02</td><td>2.3 ± 0.2</td></tr><tr><td>FWC_HU</td><td>60 ± 4</td><td>6.0 ± 0.0 bcd</td><td>31.8 ± 2.3 a</td><td>4.8 ± 0.4</td><td>45.3 ± 2.6</td><td>1.9 ± 0.2</td><td>2.0 ± 0.3</td><td>0.02 ± 0 abc</td><td>0.9 ± 0</td><td>&lt;0.09</td><td>&lt;0.03</td><td>&lt;0.003</td><td>0.08 ± 0.07</td><td>2.3 ± 0</td></tr><tr><td>FWC_D</td><td>71 ± 5</td><td>6.3 ± 0.2 abcd</td><td>25.7 ± 1.9 ab</td><td>4.3 ± 0.2</td><td>38.6 ± 1.9</td><td>1.0 ± 0.7</td><td>1.8 ± 0.2</td><td>0.03 ± 0 abc</td><td>0.9 ± 0</td><td>&lt;0.07</td><td>&lt;0.03</td><td>&lt;0.003</td><td>0.04 ± 0.01</td><td>2.3 ± 0.2</td></tr></tbody></table>
[31] who found values between 5.8 and 6.8 °Brix using biochar or liquid digestate or combination of both for tomato production. Comparing 18 varieties of tomato, Helyes et al. [40] found SS content ranging between 5.2 and 8.7 °Brix, depending on the genotype, the growing environment and management practices [41]. Our study found that the soluble solids were mainly decreased with SF treatment, indicating improved quality with organic fertilization, consistent with findings from other researches. Pieper and Barrett [42] hypothesized that differences in SS between conventional (using SF) and organic farming (using BBFs) may be related to physiological maturity at harvest or vegetative growth characteristics. However, our present study found no evidence to support this hypothesis.

The N, P, K, Ca and Mg contents were not affected by the BBF applications, indicating that they did not alter the quality. Overall, by applying BBFs at the same mineral N rate, we could increase the yield of tomato fruits of better quality in terms of soluble solids.

The trace element contents were very low in tomato fruits and were far below the EU limits as found in previous studies. Murtic et al. [43] observed limited uptake even when trace element concentrations in the soil were high and above the standards. The same study highlighted the action of plant defense system that limits the migration of trace elements to the fruits as compared to the roots and shoots. The higher Cd content in SF treatments could be associated to a more important Cd contained in NPK SF [44].

## 5. Conclusion

The current study examined the impact of BBFs on the growth, yield, and quality of tomatoes. The combined use of BBFs demonstrated comparable tomato yield and nutrient levels to synthetic fertilizers and commercial organic fertilizers. Furthermore, there were no risks associated with trace elements. The composites and manure addition did not negatively affect the nutrient availability for the plant nor the quality of the fruits. In contrary soluble solids content increased in some BBFs treatments as compared to the synthetic fertilizer treatment. The utilization of BBFs could reduce the increasing costs associated with synthetic fertilizers. In future studies, it would be worthwhile to investigate the incorporation of BBFs in market gardening by initially applying composites or manure as a basal amendment, followed by the application of human urine or filtered digestate through fertigation. Additionally, conducting research under field conditions with different soil types and exploring repeated applications of BBFs could yield further insights.

## CRediT authorship contribution statement

**Lelenda Florent Kebalo:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization.
**Laure Vieublé Gonod:** Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization.
**Patricia Garnier:** Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization.
**Sabine Houot:** Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization.

## Funding

This work has been developed under the FertiCycle project within the framework of the European's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 860127.

## Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence

the work reported in this paper.

## Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the technical staff and colleagues at the ECOSYS unit of INRAE that helped during field experiment's activities. They also thank Upcycle and Sepur companies, as well as La Martinière and Viltain farms for supplying the experimental materials.

## Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2025.101843.

## Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

## References

[1] G. Chiaraluce, D. Bentivoglio, A. Finco, Circular economy for a sustainable agri-food supply chain: a review for current trends and future pathways, Sustainability 13 (16) (2021) 9294, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169294.

[2] M. Álvarez Salas, P. Sica, M. Rydgård, T.J. Sitzmann, J.O. Nyang'au, J. El Mahdi, E. Moshkin, H.L. De Castro E Silva, S. Chrysanthopoulos, C. Kopp, K. Wali, Y. Zireeni, A. Ural-Janssen, S. El Hajj Hassan, L.F. Kebalo, D. Chadwick, L. S. Jensen, Current challenges on the widespread adoption of new bio-based fertilizers: insights to move forward toward more circular food systems, Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 8 (2024) 1386680, https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1386680.

[3] H. Jarousseau, S. Houot, J.-M. Paillat, H. Saint-Macary, Le recyclage des résidus organiques (Quae) (2016).

[4] L.F. Kebalo, P. Garnier, L.V. Gonod, S. Houot, Using bio-based fertilizer derived from peri-urban wastes affects soil properties and lettuce yield and quality, Sci. Hortic. 324 (2024) 112599, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2023.112599.

[5] T.M.P. Martin, F. Esculier, F. Levavasseur, S. Houot, Human urine-based fertilizers: a review, Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1–47 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2020.1838214.

[6] M. Reyes-Torres, E.R. Oviedo-Ocaña, I. Dominguez, D. Komilis, A. Sánchez, A systematic review on the composting of green waste: feedstock quality and optimization strategies, Waste Manag. 77 (2018) 486–499, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.037.

[7] S. Song, J.W. Lim, J.T.E. Lee, J.C. Cheong, S.H. Hoy, Q. Hu, J.K.N. Tan, Z. Chiam, S. Arora, T.Q.H. Lum, E.Y. Lim, C.-H. Wang, H.T.W. Tan, Y.W. Tong, Food-waste anaerobic digestate as a fertilizer: the agronomic properties of untreated digestate and biochar-filtered digestate residue, Waste Manag. 136 (2021) 143–152, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.10.011.

[8] F. Gao, H. Li, X. Mu, S. Gao, Y. Zhang, R. Li, K. Cao, Ye Lin, Effects of organic fertilizer application on tomato yield and quality: a meta-analysis, Appl. Sci. 13 (2184) (2023), https://doi.org/10.3390/app13042184.

[9] J. Yang, A.K. Mattoo, Y. Liu, F. Zmouyua, H. He, Trade-offs of organic and organic-inorganic fertilizer combinations in tomato quality and yield: a global meta-analysis (1992–2021), Eur. J. Agron. 151 (2023) 126985, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2023.126985.

[10] T.J. Barzee, A. Edalati, H. El-Mashad, D. Wang, K. Scow, R. Zhang, Digestate biofertilizers support similar or higher tomato yields and quality than mineral fertilizer in a subsurface drip fertigation system, Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 3 (2019) 58, https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00058.

[11] S.K. Pradhan, J.K. Holopainen, H. Heinonen-Tanski, 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. 57 (16) (2009) 6.

[12] M. Mashavira, T. Chitata, R.L. Mhindu, S. Muzemu, A. Kapenzi, P. Manjeru, The effect of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) compost on tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) growth attributes, yield potential and heavy metal levels, Am. J. Plant Sci. 6 (4) (2015) 545–553, https://doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2015.64059.

[13] A.A. Khan, H. Bibi, Z. Ali, M. Sharif, A. Shah, H. Ibadullah, I. Azeem, S. Ali, Effect of compost and inorganic fertilizers on yield and quality of tomato, Acad. J. Agric. Res. 5 (10) (2017) 287–293.

[14] M. Rajaie, A.R. Tavakoly, Effects of municipal waste compost and nitrogen fertilizer on growth and mineral composition of tomato, Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. 5 (4) (2016) 339–347, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40093-016-0144-4.

[15] A. Ribas-Agustí, M. Seda, C. Sarraga, J.I. Montero, M. Castellari, P. Muñoz, Municipal solid waste composting: application as a tomato fertilizer and its effect on crop yield, fruit quality and phenolic content, Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 32 (4) (2017) 358–365, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170516000296.

[16] Hameeda, S. Gul, G. Bano, M. Manzoor, T.A. Chandio, A.A. Awan, Biochar and manure influences tomato fruit yield, heavy metal accumulation and concentration of soil nutrients under wastewater irrigation in arid climatic conditions, Cogent
Food Agric. 5 (1) (2019) 1576406, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2019.1576406.

[17] Z. Ilić, N. Kapoulas, L. Sunic, D. Bekovic, N. Mirecki, Heavy metals and nitrate content in tomato fruit grown in organic and conventional production systems, Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 23 (2014), https://doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/23922.

[18] AFNOR, NF EN 13040. Amendements organiques et supports de culture—Préparation des échantillons pour les essais physiques et chimiques, détermination de la teneur en matière sèche, du taux d'humidité et de la masse volumique compactée en laboratoire. https://www.boutique.afnor.org/fr-fr/norme/nf-en-13040/amendements-organiques-et-supports-de-culture-preparation-des-echantillons-/fa139793/30455#AreasStoreProductsSummaryView, 2007.

[19] AFNOR, NF EN 13039. Amendements du sol et supports de culture—Détermination de la matière organique et des cendres, 2011. https://www.boutique.afnor.org/fr-fr/norme/nf-en-13039/amendements-du-sol-et-supports-de-culture-determination-de-la-matière-organique/fa156948/38493#AreasStoreProductsSummaryView.

[20] AFNOR, NF EN 13654-2. Amendements du sol et supports de culture - Détermination de l'azote - Partie 2 : méthode de Dumas, 2002.

[21] AFNOR, NF EN 13654-1. Amendements du sol et supports de culture - Détermination de l'azote - Partie 1 : méthode de Kjeldahl modifiée, 2002.

[22] AFNOR, NF EN 13038. Amendements du sol et supports de culture—Détermination de la conductivité électrique, 2012. https://www.boutique.afnor.org/fr-fr/norme/nf-en-13038/amendements-du-sol-et-supports-de-culture-determination-de-la-conductivité-/fa156949/38834.

[23] AFNOR, NF EN 13037, Amendements du sol et supports de culture—Détermination du pH (2012). https://www.boutique.afnor.org/fr-fr/norme/nf-en-13037/amendements-du-sol-et-supports-de-culture-determination-du-ph/fa156951/38836.

[24] AFNOR, NF EN ISO 11885. Qualité de l'eau—Dosage d'éléments choisis par spectroscopie d'émission optique avec plasma induit par haute fréquence (ICP-OES), 2009.

[25] AFNOR, FD U44-163. Amendements organiques et supports de culture—Caractérisation de la matière organique par la minéralisation potentielle du carbone et de l'azote. https://www.boutique.afnor.org/fr-fr/norme/fd-u44163/amendements-organiques-et-supports-de-culture-caractérisation-de-la-matière/fa188722/80493#AreasStoreProductsSummaryView, 2018.

[26] CTIFL, Code couleur tomate. https://www.ctifl.fr/code-couleur-tomate, 2021.

[27] European Commission, Commission Regulation (EU) No 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs, Off. J. Eur. Union L. 364/5 (2006).

[28] G.E. Brust, Management strategies for organic vegetable fertility, in: Safety and Practice for Organic Food, 2019.

[29] M. Tuomela, Biodegradation of lignin in a compost environment : a review, Bioresour. Technol. 72 (2) (2000) 169–183, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(99)00104-2.

[30] D. Bilalis, M. Krokida, I. Roussis, P. Papastylianou, I. Travlos, N. Cheimona, A. Dede, Effects of organic and inorganic fertilization on yield and quality of processing tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill), Folia Horticulturae 30 (2) (2018) 321–332, https://doi.org/10.2478/fhort-2018-0027.

[31] D. Ronga, F. Caradonia, M. Parisi, G. Bezzi, B. Parisi, G. Allesina, S. Pedrazzi, E. Francia, Using digestate and biochar as fertilizers to improve processing tomato production sustainability, Agronomy 10 (1) (2020) 138, https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10010138.

[32] F. Levavasseur, G. Lashermes, B. Mary, T. Morvan, B. Nicolardot, V. Parnaudeau, L. Thuriès, S. Houot, Quantifying and simulating carbon and nitrogen mineralization from diverse exogenous organic matters, Soil Use Manag. 38 (1) (2022) 411–425, https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12745.

[33] N.J. Barrow, A.E. Hartemink, The effects of pH on nutrient availability depend on both soils and plants, Plant Soil 487 (1-2) (2023) 21–37, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-023-05960-5.

[34] G. Cristina, E. Camelin, T. Tommasi, Anaerobic digestates from sewage sludge used as fertilizer on a poor alkaline sandy soil and on a peat substrate : effects on tomato plants growth and on soil properties, J. Environ. Manag. 269 (2020) (2020) 110767, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110767.

[35] X.-X. Wang, F. Zhao, G. Zhang, Y. Zhang, L. Yang, Vermicompost improves tomato yield and quality and the biochemical properties of soils with different tomato planting history in a greenhouse study, Front. Plant Sci. 8 (2017) 1978, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01978.

[36] Y. Kousar, B. Tooheed, M.Z. Khan, H. Murad, R. Mehwish, K. Iqra, F. Anam, S. Saira, Correlation analysis for yield and yield contributing traits in tomato (Solanum lycopersicon L.), Life Sci. J. 18 (6) (2021) 65–70.

[37] J. Nie, Y.H. Li, X. Yang, J.R. Zheng, Y.M. Xie, L.L. Shi, Effect of fertilization treatment on growth, yield, fruit quality, and nutrition accumulation of cherry tomato, Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 21 (5) (2023) 3849–3863, https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/2105_38493863.

[38] A.A. Kader, Flavor quality of fruits and vegetables, J. Sci. Food Agric. 88 (11) (2008) 1863–1868, https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.3293.

[39] A.A.D. Brito, F. Campos, A.D.R. Nascimento, G.D.C. Corrêa, F.A.D. Silva, G.H.D. A. Teixeira, L.C. Cunha Júnior, Determination of soluble solid content in market tomatoes using near-infrared spectroscopy, Food Control 126 (2021) 108068, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108068.

[40] L. Helyes, Z. Pék, A. Lugasi, Function of the variety technological traits and growing conditions on fruit components of tomato (Lycopersicon Lycopersicum L. Karsten), Acta Aliment. 37 (4) (2008) 427–436, https://doi.org/10.1556/AAlim.2008.0010.

[41] M. Quadir, M. Hickey, A. Boulton, R. Hoogers, Accumulation of total soluble solids in processing tomatoes, Acta Hortic. 724 (2006) 97–102.

[42] J.R. Pieper, D.M. Barrett, Effects of organic and conventional production systems on quality and nutritional parameters of processing tomatoes, J. Sci. Food Agric. 89 (2009) 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.3437.

[43] S. Murtic, C. Zahirovic, H. Civic, L. Karic, J. Jurkovic, Uptake of heavy metals by tomato plants (Lycopersicum esculentum Mill.) and their distribution inside the plant, J. Agric. For. 64 (4) (2018), https://doi.org/10.17707/AgricultForest64.4.25.

[44] J.O. Reuss, H.L. Dooley, W. Griffis, Uptake of cadmium from phosphate fertilizers by peas, radishes, and lettuce, J. Environ. Qual. 7 (1) (1978) 128–133, https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1978.00472425000700010026x.