4.7 Article

Impact of treated wastewater irrigation on quality attributes and contamination of tomato fruit

期刊

AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT
卷 61, 期 1, 页码 51-62

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0378-3774(02)00173-7

关键词

contamination; irrigation; Lycopersicon esculentum; quality; tomato; wastewater

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A field experiment was conducted in 1999 and 2000 to investigate the effect of different treatments of potable and treated wastewater on the quality of tomato fruit (Lycopersicon esculentum L. Mill) in Jordan. Tomato seedlings (cvs. GS(12) and RS589956) were furrow irrigated with different mixtures of potable and wastewater (1:0, 1: 1, 1:3, and 0: 1). The BOD, and SS of the treated effluent used were 34 and 35 mg/l, respectively. Irrigation with treated wastewater did not affect fruit pH, increased their size up to 2 cm in diameter, and weight up to 78.7 g. Additionally, a decrease of 1.5% in the SSC, 0.59 kg in firmness, and 5.1% in weight loss of tomato fruit were recorded. The 0: 1 application of treated wastewater resulted in an increased microbial contamination (TC 1.56 x 10(4) and 4.7 x 10(2) CFU/100 g; FC 3 x 10(2) and 130 CFU/100 g; TBC 188 x 10(2) and 205 x 10(2) CFU/100 g) on the surface of the fruit (skin) for GS12 and RS599956 varieties, respectively. There was a negligible contamination on fruit scar, and nil in fruit flesh. Contamination increased exponentially with increasing the proportions of treated wastewater application. Since treated wastewater was highly contaminated with total coliform (up to 42.0 CFU/100 ml) and total bacterial count (up to 7.820 CFU/100 ml), hence, contamination was aggravated with increasing the percentage of treated wastewater. It is suggested that the treated wastewater can be used as an alternative for irrigation of tomatoes eaten after cooking, but not for those taken as raw provided that the effluent quality is continuously monitored to avoid contamination. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据