Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14279/23118
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPetropoulos, Spyridon A.-
dc.contributor.authorFernandes, Ângela-
dc.contributor.authorPlexida, Sofia G.-
dc.contributor.authorPereira, Carla-
dc.contributor.authorDias, Maria Inês-
dc.contributor.authorCalhelha, Ricardo C.-
dc.contributor.authorChrysargyris, Antonios-
dc.contributor.authorTzortzakis, Nikos G.-
dc.contributor.authorPetrović, Jovana S.-
dc.contributor.authorSoković, Marina D.-
dc.contributor.authorFerreira, Isabel C. F. R.-
dc.contributor.authorBarros, Lillian-
dc.date.accessioned2021-09-27T06:17:00Z-
dc.date.available2021-09-27T06:17:00Z-
dc.date.issued2020-10-02-
dc.identifier.citationSustainability, 2020, vol. 12, no. 20, articl. no. 8511en_US
dc.identifier.issn20711050-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14279/23118-
dc.description.abstractThe environmental burden from crop production byproducts is gradually increasing and necessitates the sustainable management of waste towards a circular economy approach. In the present study, three byproducts (cotton ginning waste (CGW), ground hazelnut husks (GHH) and ground peanut husks (GPH)) were evaluated in lettuce cultivation. For this purpose, the tested materials were incorporated in soil at two different rates (25% and 50% of total substrate volume) while a control treatment (no addition of byproducts) was also considered. Fresh weight per plant and total yield was the highest for the GHH50% treatment. The highest fat, protein, carbohydrates and energy content were observed for the CGW25% treatment. Chemical composition also differed among the tested byproducts where CGW25% treatment had the highest total tocopherols, sugars (sucrose, fructose, trehalose and total sugars) and organic acids content. The most abundant fatty acids were α-linolenic, linoleic and palmitic acid in all the tested treatments, while the highest antioxidant activity was observed for the GHH50% treatment. Regarding polyphenols, phenolic acids content was the highest in the GHH treatments, whereas flavonoids were the highest for the CGW25% treatment. No cytotoxicity against the PLP2 non-tumor cell line was observed, whereas only the GPH50% treatment showed moderate efficacy against HeLa, HepG2 and MCF-7 cell lines. The tested extracts also showed moderate antibacterial activities and only the extracts from the CGW50% treatment were more effective than the positive control against Trichoderma viride. In conclusion, the present results showed the great potential of using the tested byproducts as soil amendments for vegetable crops production, since they may improve the nutritional parameters, the chemical profile and the bioactivities of the final product. The suggested alternative use of the tested byproducts not only will increase the added value of crops but will also alleviate the environmental burden from bulky agroindustry byproducts.en_US
dc.formatpdfen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofSustainabilityen_US
dc.rights© by the authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution.en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.subjectAgroindustry byproductsen_US
dc.subjectAntimicrobial activitiesen_US
dc.subjectCotton ginning wasteen_US
dc.subjectGround peanut husksen_US
dc.subjectHazelnut husksen_US
dc.subjectLactuca sativa L.en_US
dc.subjectPhenolic compoundsen_US
dc.subjectTocopherolsen_US
dc.titleThe sustainable use of cotton, hazelnut and ground peanut waste in vegetable crop productionen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.collaborationUniversity of Thessalyen_US
dc.collaborationInstituto Politécnico de Bragançaen_US
dc.collaborationCyprus University of Technologyen_US
dc.collaborationUniversity of Belgradeen_US
dc.subject.categoryAgriculture Forestry and Fisheriesen_US
dc.journalsOpen Accessen_US
dc.countryGreeceen_US
dc.countryPortugalen_US
dc.countryCyprusen_US
dc.countrySerbiaen_US
dc.subject.fieldAgricultural Sciencesen_US
dc.publicationPeer Revieweden_US
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/su12208511en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85092928148-
dc.identifier.urlhttps://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/85092928148-
dc.relation.issue20en_US
dc.relation.volume12en_US
cut.common.academicyear2020-2021en_US
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501-
item.openairetypearticle-
item.languageiso639-1en-
crisitem.journal.journalissn2071-1050-
crisitem.journal.publisherMDPI-
crisitem.author.deptDepartment of Agricultural Sciences, Biotechnology and Food Science-
crisitem.author.deptDepartment of Agricultural Sciences, Biotechnology and Food Science-
crisitem.author.facultyFaculty of Geotechnical Sciences and Environmental Management-
crisitem.author.facultyFaculty of Geotechnical Sciences and Environmental Management-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0002-1067-7977-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0002-2719-6627-
crisitem.author.parentorgFaculty of Geotechnical Sciences and Environmental Management-
crisitem.author.parentorgFaculty of Geotechnical Sciences and Environmental Management-
Appears in Collections:Άρθρα/Articles
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
sustainability-12-08511.pdfFulltext478.1 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
CORE Recommender
Show simple item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

3
checked on Mar 14, 2024

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

2
Last Week
0
Last month
0
checked on Oct 29, 2023

Page view(s)

233
Last Week
3
Last month
10
checked on May 12, 2024

Download(s)

142
checked on May 12, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons