producción agrícola urbana en cubierta mediante...

Producción agrícola urbana en cubiertamediante invernadero: fresca, sana y sostenible

Producción agrícola urbana

CTM2016-75772-C3-1-R, AI/UE-FederCTM2016-75772-C3-3-R, AI/UE-Feder

Entidad financiadora: MINECO, AEI/FEDER, UE

www.fertilecity.com

FertileCity II. Integrated rooftop greenhouses: symbiosis of energy, water and CO2

emissions with the building – Towards urban food security in a circular economy

CTM2016‐75772‐C3‐1‐3‐R, (2017‐2019)

Participa


CTM2016‐75772‐C3‐1‐RICTA‐UABUniversitat Autònoma de Barcelona

Dr. Xavier GabarrellDra. Maria Rosa RoviraDra. Gara Villalba (UAB‐ICTA, DIQBA)Dra Isabel Pont (UAB‐ICTA)Dr Mario Giampietro (ICREA y UAB‐ICTA)MSc. Mireia Ercilla (UAB‐ICTA)MSc. Ana María Manríquez‐Altamirano (UAB‐ICTA)MSc. Perla Zambrano (UAB‐ICTA)MSc Susana Toboso (UAB‐ICTA)MSc Alejandra Peña (UAB‐ICTA)MSc Martí Rufí (UAB‐ICTA)MSc Felipe Parada (UAB‐ICTA)MSc Veronica Arcas (UAB‐ICTA)

CTM2016‐75772‐C3‐3‐R

Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya

Dr. Santiago Gassó (UPC)Dra. Eva Cuerva (UPC)Dra. Violeta Vargas (UPC)Dr. Eusebi Jarauta (UPC)Dra. Carme Hervada (UPC)Dr. Adrià Muros (UPC)Dr. Jose Gibergans (UPC)Dra. Jelena Nikolic (UPC)Dr. Torsten Masseck (UPC)Dr. Oriol Pons (UPC)Dra. Eva Crespo (UPC)MSc. Carla Planas (UPC)MSc Joan Muñoz (UPC)

Abril 2019

Codirectores de tesis doctoralesDr Jorge Sierra (Unizar) Dra Anna Petit Boix (Uni‐Freiburg)Dr Pere Muñoz (UAB‐DIQBA) Dra Cristina Madrid (UAB‐ICTA)Dr Alejandro Josa (UPC) Dr Joan Rieradevall

CTM2016‐75772‐C3‐1‐R

2017 2018 2019

Dr Joan Rieradevall (2017) Dra Núria Carazo (UPC‐IRTA, 2017‐2018) Dr Alejandro Josa (UPC, 2017‐2019)

Dr Juan Ignacio Montero (IRTA, 2017) MSc. Ana Nadal (UAB‐ICTA)(2017‐2018) Dra Angela Pedroso Tonon (UAB‐ICTA, 2018‐2019)

MSc Pere Llorach (2017) Gaia Stringari (Unibo, 2018) Greta Casali (Unibo, 2019)

MSc Anna Petit‐Boi (2017) Maria Berlanga (IES, 2018) Laura Sánchez Robles (IES La Romànica, 2019)

MSc David Sanjuan (2017) Safir Malonda Costa (Biotec, 2018) Dr Roberto Quirós, (2017‐2019)

MSc Aniol Alabert (UPC, 2017) Dra Isabel Lavrador Ribeiro (2017‐ 2018) Laila Ferrer (2019)

Meritxell Gres Cintas (Biotec, 2017) Fabiana Corcelli (U. Napoles, 2018)

Carla Bucio Sistos de la UNAM ENES MORELIA, 2017)

Natalia Alvarado (2018)

Anna Boneta (2018)

Agradecimiento a quienes han participado también en 2017 a 2019:

Stru

ctur

e of

the

diss

erta

tion

Introductionand methodology

PART

03

Chapter 1 Introduction and objectives

PART

01

PART

02

PART

03Analyzing Rooftop Agriculture (RA) production

5

Question 1: How much are we able toproduce in an i-RTG?

Analyzing Rooftop Agriculture (RA) quality

Question 2: Does atmospheric heavymetal pollution in cities contaminate soillesscrops in RA and RTGs?

Question 3: Are the biological airconditions in RTGs adequate to provide safeworking environments? And in the case of i-RTGS, can its air be recirculated while ensuringsafe environment for building’s users?

www.fertilecity.com

FertileCity II. CTM2016‐75772‐C3‐1‐3‐R, (2017‐2019)


01

Introductionand objectives

www.fertilecity.com



PART

01

7

Introduction and objectives

6.4 billions

environmentaldegradation

extreme weatherevents

climate change

20509.7 billions people Increasing food demand by 30%

PART

01

“farming operations taking place in and around the citythat beyond food production provides ecosystemservices (soil, water and climate protection; resourceefficiency; biodiversity), social services (socialinclusion, education, health, leisure, cultural heritage)and supports local economies by a significant directurban market orientation”

The conceptCOST Action “Urban Agriculture Europe”

Source: Ajuntament de Barcelona

8


PART

01

UA typologiesAdaptation from (Sanyé‐Mengual, 2015)

9


PART

01

UA typologiesAdaptation from (Sanyé‐Mengual, 2015)

10

unoccupiedspaces

PART

01 Chapter 1 Introduction and objectives

RA is perceived as an opportunity towards a productive urban use, consumers and other stakeholders perceive other benefits due to its location and the techniques used

RA IS USUALLY RELATED WITH SCS

Requires using innovative and high technology systems

11

PART

01

Any method of growing plants without the use of soil as a rooting medium, in which the inorganic nutrients absorbed by the roots are supplied via the irrigation water

12

Soilless system


PART

01


13

SoillesscultureSoillessculture

AquaponicAquaponic

AeroponicAeroponic

Media cultureMedia culture

Inorganicmedia

Inorganicmedia

Natural mediaNatural media

SandSand

GravelGravel

Volcanic tuffVolcanic tuff

Fiber (rockwool)Fiber (rockwool)

Expanded clayExpanded clay

PerlitePerlite

Syntheticmedia

Syntheticmedia

Foam matsFoam mats

Plastic foamPlastic foam

Organic mediaOrganic media

PeatmossPeatmoss

SawdustSawdust

Pine barkPine bark

Coco fiberCoco fiber

CompostCompost

Soilless system


PART

01


14

SoillesscultureSoillessculture

AquaponicAquaponic

AeroponicAeroponic

Media cultureMedia culture

Inorganicmedia

Inorganicmedia

Natural mediaNatural media

SandSand

GravelGravel

Volcanic tuffVolcanic tuff

Fiber (rockwool)Fiber (rockwool)

Expanded clayExpanded clay

PerlitePerlite

Syntheticmedia

Syntheticmedia

Foam matsFoam mats

Plastic foamPlastic foam

Organic mediaOrganic media

PeatmossPeatmoss

SawdustSawdust

Pine barkPine bark

Coco fiberCoco fiber

CompostCompost

Soilless system


PART

01

15

Fertigation system


PART


Question 1: How much are we able to produce in an i-RTG?

Objective 1: To evaluate the agronomic behavior of different crops in the i-RTG that hosts this building (ICTA-ICP)

Research questions addressed

16

PART


Question 2: Does atmospheric heavy metal pollution in cities contaminate soilless crops in RA and RTGs?

Objective 2: To determine the potential contamination of heavy metals in hydroponic lettuce crops due toatmospheric pollution in high-traffic areas.

Question 3: Are the biological air conditions in RTGs adequate to provide safe working environments? And inthe case of i-RTGS, can its air be recirculated while ensuring safe environment for building’s users?

Objective 3: To study the pollen and fungal spores’ concentration in i-RTG air in order to evaluate the greenhouseworkers’ exposure to prevent allergy problems associated with occupational tasks

Objective 4: To study whether the quality of the hot air accumulated in the i-RTG is adequate for recirculation toheat the building

Research questions addressed

17

02

Analyzing RA production

www.fertilecity.com



Que

stio

n

01

How much are we able to produce in an i-RTG? www.fertilecity.com



OverviewQuestion1: How much are we able to produce in an i-RTG?

PART

02

20

CROP Starts DaysTomato 10/02/2015 163Tomato 08/03/2016 139Tomato 12/01/2017 187Tomato 10/01/2018 208Lettuce 30/06/2016 32Lettuce 17/10/2016 36Lettuce 20/04/2017 34Lettuce 07/09/2017 32

Lettuce Green 18/10/2017 57Lettuce Red 18/10/2017 62

Lettuce Merav. 18/10/2017 63Spinach 18/10/2017 83Spinach 13/09/2018 40Spinach 13/09/2018 83Chard 18/10/2017 57Bean 13/09/2016 56Bean 10/01/2018 119Bean 13/09/2018 89

Ruccula 13/09/2018 34Ruccula 13/09/2018 83Pepper 13/09/2018 92


PART

02

21






PART

02

22






PART

02

23

ResultsQuestion1: How much are we able to produce in an i-RTG?

PART

02

24

0,000

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1000,000

1200,000

1400,000

1600,000

70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210

Dia de cultiu

TOMATO CROPSYield (kg)

Summer crop 2016

Summer crop 2015

Summer crop 2017Summer crop 2018

Winter crop 2015


PART

02

25

CROP Kg/m2Summer tomato 2015 14.95

Winter tomato 2015 3.45

Summer tomato 2016 10.93

Summer tomato 2017 17.15

Summer tomato 2018 12.73Extended crop


PART

02

26

CROP YIELD Kg/m2

Lettuce 72.76 0.48Lettuce 92.66 0.46Lettuce 17.43 0.77Lettuce 7.77 0.53

Lettuce Green 14.81 0.47Lettuce Red 14.18 0.46

Lettuce Merav. 13.62 0.59Spinach 5.12 0.27Spinach 0.7925 0.11Spinach 2.616 0.38Chard 21.00 0.67

Ruccula 1.32 0.21Ruccula 3.83 0.60


PART

02

27

CROP YIELD Kg/m2






PART

02

28

CROP YIELD Kg/m2





171 plants in 84.34m2

84.34m2

520 plants (approximation)


PART

02

29

CROP YIELD Kg/m2





84.34m2

520 plants (approximation)


PART

02

30

CROP YIELD Kg/m2

Bean 43.81 1.580Bean 19.80 1.908Bean 21.66 1.735

Pepper 11.82 2.7

Pepper yield (g) 2018

03

Analyzing RA quality

www.fertilecity.com



Que

stio

n

02

Study on air quality and heavy metal content of

urban food produced in a Mediterranean city

Based on the journal paper:

Ercilla-Montserrat, M., Muñoz, P., Montero, J. I.,Gabarrell, X., & Rieradevall, J. (2018). A study onair quality and heavy metals content of urban foodproduced in a Mediterranean city (Barcelona).Journal of Cleaner Production.

www.fertilecity.com



BackgroundQuestion 2: Study on air quality and heavy metal content of urban food produced in a Mediterranean city

PART

03

The origin of pollutants in the urban environment is largely human

Food contamination can occur either by contact with contaminated soils or by air pollution

33

Avoided inSoilless systems

transport emissions

industrial activities incinerators

management tasks: fertigation, pest treatments

Background

The origin of pollutants in the urban environment is largely human

Food contamination can occur either by contact with contaminated soils or by air pollution

34

UA is for direct personal consumption and not for sale

Avoided inSoilless systems

transport emissions

industrial activities incinerators

management tasks: fertigation, pest treatments

PART

03 Question 2: Study on air quality and heavy metal content of urban food produced in a Mediterranean city

GoalTo determine the heavy metal concentrations in horticultural products grown on roofs in urban and periurban areas of Barcelona, with air pollution as the only source of potential heavy metal pollution

35

Scope the study

PART


Soilless system

AirNi, As, Cd Pb

Oakleaf lettuces(Lactuca sativa var. capitata L)Ni, As, Cd Pb

high-volume sensors (MCV CAV-A/mb)volume of 30 m3/h in 48-h periodsglass microfibre filters (150 mm Ø)

commercial size (> 200 g)

36

Materials & Methods

PART


37

240m

Periurban‐i‐RTG16m high

AP‐7, E‐90

Periurban‐Rooftop16m high

14 lanes75 m

Crop under study

Materials & Methods

PART


38

10m

València St.Urban‐Rooftop24m high

4 lanes20 m

Crop under study

Materials & Methods

PART


39

Urban‐Courtyeard4m high

50m

Gran via C.C. Ave.

8 lanes45 m

Crop under study

Materials & Methods

PART


Ni µg/l Hg µg/l As µg/l Cd µg/l Pb µg/lIrrigation-water1 <5.00 <1.00 <1.00 <5.00 <10.0Irrigation-water2 5.70 <1.00 <1.00 <5.00 <10.0Irrigation-water3 <5.00 <1.00 <1.00 <5.00 <10.0Spain limit value

(regenerated water)1 200 - 100 10 -

Ni mg/kg Hg mg/kg As mg/kg Cd mg/kg Pb mg/kgSubstrate-bag1 <5 <0.4 ‐ <0.50 <5Substrate-bag2 <5 <0.4 ‐ <0.50 <5Substrate-bag3 <5 <0.4 ‐ <0.50 <5

Spain limit value2 25 0.4 ‐ 0.7 45

1. Heavy metal limits in regenerated water for crop irrigation (BOE, 2007). Spain limit for class A substrates (RD 865/2010, 2010)

Heavy metal concentrations in irrigation water (µg/l) and in the perlite bag (mg/kg sms)

40

Results

PART








41

Results

PART








42

Results

PART


Ni (ng/m3) As (ng/m3) Cd (ng/m3) Pb (ng/m3)

EU legislationTarget value UE1 20 6 5 500

Upper assessment threshold UE1 14 3,6 3 350Lower assessment threshold UE1 10 2,4 2 250

Periurban RooftopTest 1 2,51 0,83 0,71 10,55Test 2 4,92 0,67 0,29 7,52

Periurbani-RTG

Test 1 0,75 0,76 0,77 11,13Test 2 1,26 0,69 0,47 6,70

Urban Courtyard Test 2 4,53 0,68 0,28 8,70Urban Rooftop Test 2 3,32 0,71 0,39 7.10

Barcelona average2 3,74 1,00 0,39 10,75Maximum Barcelona 6,89 1,38 0,64 26,58Minimum Barcelona 2,27 0,72 0,15 6,23

Summary of target values and assessment thresholds in EU legislation and heavy metal concentrationsin the sampled air

1. Data from EU (EU, 2004) 2. Annual average (2016) of concentrations of heavy metals in the 10 city measurement stations; data are derived from Xarxa de Vigilància i Previsió de la Qualitat de l’Aire (XVPCA) (2017)

43

Results

PART


Ni (ng/m3) As (ng/m3) Cd (ng/m3) Pb (ng/m3)

EU legislationTarget value UE1 20 6 5 500

Upper assessment threshold UE1 14 3,6 3 350Lower assessment threshold UE1 10 2,4 2 250

Periurban RooftopTest 1 2,51 0,83 0,71 10,55Test 2 4,92 0,67 0,29 7,52

Periurbani-RTG

Test 1 0,75 0,76 0,77 11,13Test 2 1,26 0,69 0,47 6,70

Urban Courtyard Test 2 4,53 0,68 0,28 8,70Urban Rooftop Test 2 3,32 0,71 0,39 7.10

Barcelona average2 3,74 1,00 0,39 10,75Maximum Barcelona 6,89 1,38 0,64 26,58Minimum Barcelona 2,27 0,72 0,15 6,23

Summary of target values and assessment thresholds in EU legislation and heavy metal concentrationsin the sampled air

1. Data from EU (EU, 2004) 2. Annual average (2016) of concentrations of heavy metals in the 10 city measurement stations; data are derived from Xarxa de Vigilància i Previsió de la Qualitat de l’Aire (XVPCA) (2017)

44

Results

PART


Ni (mg Ni /kg sample)

Hg (mg Hg / kg sample)

As (mg As /kg sample)

Cd (mg Cd / kg sample)

Pb(mg Pb /

kg sample)% from EU legislation

Periurban RooftopTest1 U < 0.020 < 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.0090 9%Test1 W < 0.020 < 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.0080 8%Test2 U < 0.020 < 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.0228 23%

Periurban i-RTGTest1 U < 0.020 < 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.0060 6%Test1 W < 0.020 < 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.0070 7%Test2 U < 0.020 < 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.0090 9%

Urban CourtyardTest1 U < 0.020 < 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.0110 11%Test1 W < 0.020 < 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.0090 9%Test2 U < 0.020 < 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.0244 24%

Urban Rooftop Test 2 U < 0.020 < 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.0187 19%EU legislation - - - 0.050 0.1

Heavy metal concentrations (Ni, Hg, As, Cd and Pb) in lettuce samples in the urban and periurbansites under study and the EU-defined limits in leaf crops (EU, 2009)

45U: unwashed; W: washed

Results

PART


Ni (mg Ni /kg sample)

Hg (mg Hg / kg sample)

As (mg As /kg sample)

Cd (mg Cd / kg sample)

Pb(mg Pb /

kg sample)% from EU legislation

Periurban RooftopTest1 U < 0.020 < 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.0090 9%Test1 W < 0.020 < 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.0080 8%Test2 U < 0.020 < 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.0228 23%

Periurban i-RTGTest1 U < 0.020 < 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.0060 6%Test1 W < 0.020 < 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.0070 7%Test2 U < 0.020 < 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.0090 9%

Urban CourtyardTest1 U < 0.020 < 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.0110 11%Test1 W < 0.020 < 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.0090 9%Test2 U < 0.020 < 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.0244 24%

Urban Rooftop Test 2 U < 0.020 < 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.0187 19%EU legislation - - - 0.050 0.1

Heavy metal concentrations (Ni, Hg, As, Cd and Pb) in lettuce samples in the urban and periurbansites under study and the EU-defined limits in leaf crops (EU, 2009)

U: unwashed; W: washed46

Results

PART


Chapter 3 Study on air quality and heavy metal content of urban food produced in a Mediterranean city

PART

02

Conclusions

The range of trace metal contents in edible parts of the analyzed hydroponic crops (lettuce) is lower than the concentrations reported in previous studies SOIL

In this study, the heavy metal concentrations in lettuces were at least one order of magnitude lower than the target value defined by EU legislation

The Ni, As, Cd and Pb concentrations detected in the air are less than 50% of the limits established in the legislation air quality in Barcelona is representative of EU cities

We further confirm that the air quality in Barcelona and its surroundings is not a limiting factor for the development of UA, even though the sampling points were close to high-density roads

47

Conclusion

Que

stio

n

03

Assessment of aerobiological air quality in rooftop

greenhouses (i-RTGs)

Based on the journal paper:

Ercilla-Montserrat, M., Izquierdo, R., Belmonte, J.,Montero, J. I., Muñoz, P., De Linares, C., &Rieradevall, J. (2017). Building-integratedagriculture: A first assessment of aerobiological airquality in rooftop greenhouses (i-RTGs). Scienceof The Total Environment, 598, 109–120.

www.fertilecity.com



49

Background

PART

03 Question 3: Assessment of aerobiological air quality in rooftop greenhouses (i-RTGs)

E

Hightemperature

Futuretwo-way connections between the building and its greenhouse

In greenhouses workers are exposed to dust particles suspended in the air that contains pollen and spores, which can cause respiratory problems

Goal

To study the pollen and fungal spores’ concentration in i-RTG air in order to evaluate the greenhouse workers’ exposure to prevent allergy problems associated with occupational tasks

To study whether the quality of the hot air accumulated in the i-RTG is adequate for recirculation to heat the building

50

Scope the study

PART


171 tomato plants

Aerobiological samples were obtained using a Hirstvolumetric suction pollen-spore trap (standard method in European aerobiological networks)

Daily average pollen concentrations were calculated following the standardized Spanish method (analysing 4 continuous longitudinal sweeps)

51

Materials & Methods

PART


52

Results

PART


total 4,924 pollen grains/m3

33 taxa

daily peak 334 pollen grains/m3 4/03/2016


45 taxa


Platanus and Pinus accounted for 56 and 58% of the total pollen in both the indoor and outdoor environments

Pollen dynamic

i-RTG

Out

door

53

Results

PART



33 taxa



45 taxa


Platanus and Pinus accounted for 56 and 58% of the total pollen in both the indoor and outdoor environments

Pollen dynamic

i-RTG

Out

door

The most important source of pollen grains indoors was, in general, the outdoor environment

1:3

Results

PART


Solanaceae pollen was the only pollentaxon detected exclusively indoor

Critical task: crop removal (CR)

55

Results

PART


Total of 295,038 fungal spores/m3 ; 29 taxa

daily peak: 26,185 spores/m3; 27/07/2016

Total of 606,642 fungal spores/m3, 31 taxa

daily peak: 28,000 spores/m3;10/05/2016

i-RTG

Out

door

Bibliography daily peak recommendations

105 spores/m3 (Eduard, 2009)

103 spores/m3 (Santilli and Rockwell, 2003)

Fungal dynamic

56

Results

PART


The most important source of fungal spores indoors: the outdoor environment

Some fungal spore taxa (allergenic: Aspergillus/Penicillium) originated inside the greenhouse or wereable to colonize the indoor environment

Total of 295,038 fungal spores/m3

29 taxa

daily peak: 26,185 spores/m3; 27/07/2016

Total of 606,642 fungal spores/m3

31 taxa

daily peak: 28,000 spores/m3;10/05/2016i-RTG

Out

door

Bibliography daily peak recommendations

105 spores/m3 (Eduard, 2009)

103 spores/m3 (Santilli and Rockwell, 2003)

Fungal dynamic

1:2

Oidium and Torula are related to fungal diseases of tomato crops.

No relationship with concentrations outside of the greenhouse

Significant correlations were observed for temperature, relative humidity and precipitation with fungal development

Hightemperature

Low humidity

57

Fungal dynamic

Results

PART


Torula and Oidium airborne fungal spore concentrations recorded in the i-RTG

58

Results

It is possible to recirculate the air of the i-RTG to the building without posing allergy health risksfor the building users

Conclusions

Preventive measures:

install a system to interrupt the recirculation of air to the building during critical periods

implement appropriate air filters in ventilation air ducts

The operational crop tasks that cause critical moments when the recirculation of residual i-RTG air isnot appropriate have been identified (crops removal and harvesting periods)

The most important source of indoor pollen and fungal spores was the outdoor environment. The lowestventilation rate occurs during winter when the recirculation of the hot air is needed

59

Conclusion

PART


www.fertilecity.com

FertileCity II. Integrated rooftop greenhouses: symbiosis of energy, water and CO2

emissions with the building – Towards urban food security in a circular economy

CTM2016‐75772‐C3‐1‐3‐R, (2017‐2019)

Participa


producción agrícola urbana en cubierta mediante...

Documents