<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.4 20241031//EN" "JATS-journalpublishing1-4.dtd">
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.4" xml:lang="en">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
      <journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">fns</journal-id>
      <journal-title-group>
        <journal-title>Food and Nutrition Sciences</journal-title>
      </journal-title-group>
      <issn pub-type="epub">2157-9458</issn>
      <issn pub-type="ppub">2157-944X</issn>
      <publisher>
        <publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name>
      </publisher>
    </journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/fns.2026.179053</article-id>
      <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">fns-154082</article-id>
      <article-categories>
        <subj-group>
          <subject>Article</subject>
        </subj-group>
        <subj-group>
          <subject>Biomedical</subject>
          <subject>Life Sciences</subject>
        </subj-group>
      </article-categories>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Evaluation of the Effect of Using Sewage Sludge Compost as an Organic Soil Amendment on the Microbiological Quality of Bell Peppers (Capsicum annuum L.) in the Tropical Environment of Côte d’Ivoire</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Taho</surname>
            <given-names>Bomassaye Roland</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes">
          <contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0002-9333-4004</contrib-id>
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Konan</surname>
            <given-names>Kouakou Ahossi</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3">3</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Kouassi</surname>
            <given-names>Kra Athanase</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3">3</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Kouassi</surname>
            <given-names>N’Dri Jacob</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
      </contrib-group>
      <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label> Laboratory for the Improvement of Agricultural Production, Jean Lorougnon GUEDE University, Daloa, Côte d’Ivoire </aff>
      <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label> Department of Science and Technology, Microbiology and Bio-Industries, Alassane Ouattara University, Bouaké, Bouaké, Côte d’Ivoire </aff>
      <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label> Agro-Valorisation Laboratory, Biochemistry-Microbiology Department, Jean Lorougnon GUEDE University, Daloa, Côte d’Ivoire </aff>
      <author-notes>
        <fn fn-type="conflict" id="fn-conflict">
          <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p>
        </fn>
      </author-notes>
      <pub-date pub-type="epub">
        <day>14</day>
        <month>09</month>
        <year>2026</year>
      </pub-date>
      <pub-date pub-type="collection">
        <month>09</month>
        <year>2026</year>
      </pub-date>
      <volume>17</volume>
      <issue>09</issue>
      <fpage>834</fpage>
      <lpage>857</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received">
          <day>15</day>
          <month>07</month>
          <year>2026</year>
        </date>
        <date date-type="accepted">
          <day>19</day>
          <month>09</month>
          <year>2026</year>
        </date>
        <date date-type="published">
          <day>22</day>
          <month>09</month>
          <year>2026</year>
        </date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>© 2026 by the authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2026</copyright-year>
        <license license-type="open-access">
          <license-p> This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link> ). </license-p>
        </license>
      </permissions>
      <self-uri content-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.4236/fns.2026.179053">https://doi.org/10.4236/fns.2026.179053</self-uri>
      <abstract>
        <p><bold>Introduction:</bold> The agricultural valorization of faecal sludge-derived composts represents a promising strategy for improving soil fertility and promoting sustainable waste management in sub-Saharan Africa. However, their use in crop production requires prior assessment of their agronomic characteristics and microbiological safety to limit potential risks associated with the transfer of undesirable microorganisms to edible crops. <bold>Objective:</bold> This study aimed to evaluate the physicochemical and microbiological characteristics of faecal sludge-derived composts before field application and to assess the effects of compost type, application rate, and planting density on the microbiological quality of sweet pepper (<italic>Capsicum annuum</italic> L.) fruits produced under tropical field conditions in Daloa, Côte d’Ivoire. <bold>Materials and</bold><bold>Methods</bold><bold>:</bold>Four composts produced from faecal sludge collected at different sites, including Bédiala Road landfill (CB), Bra Kanon (CBK), Garage neighborhood (CG), and Soleil neighborhood (CS), were characterized before application based on physicochemical parameters (pH, C/N ratio, organic matter, and nutrient contents) and microbiological indicators. Their effects were evaluated in comparison with mineral fertilization (NPK). At a fixed compost application rate of 30 t/ha, three planting densities (40 × 50, 50 × 50, and 50 × 60 cm) were evaluated. In a second experiment, planting density was fixed at 50 × 50 cm and compost application rates of 20, 30, and 40 t/ha were assessed. Microbiological analyses of sweet pepper fruits included aerobic mesophilic bacteria (AMB), total and thermotolerant coliforms, yeasts and molds, coagulase-positive staphylococci, <italic>Escherichia coli</italic>, and <italic>Salmonella</italic> spp., according to ISO standards. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test at a 5% significance level. <bold>Results:</bold> After four months of composting, all composts showed physicochemical characteristics consistent with satisfactory stabilization, with pH values ranging from 7.11 to 7.30 and C/N ratios between 16.2 and 20.2. Their organic matter contents (22.7% - 29.5%) and nutrient composition indicated valuable agronomic potential. Microbiologically, <italic>Salmonella</italic> spp. was not detected and <italic>Escherichia coli</italic> levels remained below the detection limit (&lt;1 CFU/g) in all composts. Following field application, microbial loads in sweet pepper fruits varied according to compost type, planting density, and application rate. Aerobic mesophilic bacteria loads ranged from 57.50 ± 1.58 × 10<sup>4</sup> to 955.00 ± 10.90 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g, while total coliforms reached a maximum of 8.75 ± 0.12 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g. Thermotolerant coliforms, yeasts and molds, and coagulase-positive staphylococci also showed significant variations among treatments (p &lt; 0.05). However, <italic>E. coli</italic> remained below the detection limit (&lt;1 CFU/g) and Salmonella spp. was not detected in any of the analyzed fruits, regardless of compost type, application rate, or planting density. <bold>Conclusion:</bold> The findings indicate that the use of faecal sludge-derived composts influenced the levels of several hygiene and spoilage indicators in sweet pepper fruits, while no contamination by the major enteric pathogens investigated was detected. Under controlled composting conditions and appropriate agricultural practices, these composts may represent a promising alternative to mineral fertilization for sweet pepper production. Nevertheless, appropriate monitoring of microbiological quality remains necessary to ensure the safety of crops fertilized with these organic amendments.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group kwd-group-type="author-generated" xml:lang="en">
        <kwd>&lt;i&gt;Capsicum annuum&lt;/i&gt; L.</kwd>
        <kwd>Faecal Sludge Compost</kwd>
        <kwd>Microbiological Quality</kwd>
        <kwd>Food Safety</kwd>
        <kwd>Hygiene Indicator Microorganisms</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec1">
      <title>1. Introduction</title>
      <p>Vegetable crops play a vital role in global food and nutritional security due to their significant contribution to the intake of essential micronutrients, including vitamins, minerals, and various bioactive compounds. Regular consumption is associated with improved dietary quality and a reduced risk of several chronic non-communicable diseases [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">1</xref>]-[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B3">3</xref>]. However, in tropical regions particularly in sub-Saharan Africa low soil fertility is a major constraint limiting the sustainable intensification of vegetable production [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">4</xref>]. To boost agricultural yields, producers rely heavily on mineral fertilizers because of their apparent short-term effectiveness. Yet, prolonged and sometimes improper use of these fertilizers can disrupt soil physicochemical and biological properties and lead to the gradual accumulation of certain contaminants, notably heavy metals [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B5">5</xref>]-[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8">8</xref>]. Furthermore, the high cost of these inputs and their limited accessibility for many producers drive the search for more sustainable organic alternatives.</p>
      <p>In this context, the agricultural valorization of organic waste particularly composts derived from fecal sludge represents a promising approach within the framework of a circular economy and sustainable resource management. These soil amendments constitute a significant source of organic matter and nutrients capable of enhancing soil fertility and crop productivity. However, their use in agriculture raises major concerns regarding food safety. Indeed, fecal sludge can contain a variety of microorganisms of fecal origin (enteric bacteria, viruses, and parasites), the persistence of which depends heavily on the treatment conditions applied [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B9">9</xref>].</p>
      <p>Among vegetable crops, the bell pepper (<italic>Capsicum annuum</italic>L.) is of particular interest due to its economic and nutritional importance. It is a significant source of bioactive compounds notably carotenoids, phenolic compounds, and vitamin C which are associated with recognized antioxidant properties [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">10</xref>]-[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">12</xref>]. However, its frequent consumption in fresh or minimally processed forms also makes it susceptible to microbiological contamination. Fresh vegetables can become contaminated throughout the production chain via soil, irrigation water, cultivation practices, and, in particular, the organic amendments used [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">13</xref>]. Several studies have shown that plant surfaces can support the survival of fecal indicator microorganisms and pathogens under favorable environmental conditions, especially in the presence of moisture and organic matter [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B14">14</xref>][<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">15</xref>]. Other studies have also revealed high loads of indicator microorganisms and pathogens in septage (fecal sludge), including bacteria belonging to the coliform group, pathogenic Enterobacteriaceae such as <italic>Salmonella</italic>spp., and opportunistic bacteria such as <italic>Staphylococcus aureus</italic> [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B7">7</xref>][<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B16">16</xref>]. Consequently, assessing the microbiological quality of crops grown using these amendments is a critical issue for ensuring food safety and promoting sustainable agricultural reuse.</p>
      <p>In Côte d’Ivoire, particularly in the Daloa region, the agricultural use of composts derived from fecal sludge collected at urban dumpsites is an increasingly common practice in market gardening systems. This practice is driven by the local availability of these organic materials and their agronomic value. However, the variability of their microbiological composition and the lack of systematic monitoring regarding their sanitary safety raise questions about the quality of the resulting produce. Despite the growing prevalence of this practice, scientific data remain limited regarding the microbiological impact of using fecal sludge composts on vegetables intended for human consumption under African tropical conditions.</p>
      <p>Thus, this study aims to assess the impact of using septage sludge composts on the microbiological quality of bell peppers (<italic>Capsicum annuum</italic> L.) grown in the Daloa region of Côte d’Ivoire. More specifically, it involves determining the microbial load of the peppers by enumerating total aerobic mesophilic flora, yeasts and molds, coliforms, and <italic>Escherichia coli</italic>, as well as by screening for pathogenic microorganisms such as <italic>Salmonella</italic> spp. and <italic>Staphylococcus aureus</italic>. This approach will make it possible to evaluate the microbiological safety of peppers produced using septage sludge composts and to assess the health risks potentially associated with their use as organic amendments in tropical agriculture.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec2">
      <title>2. Materials and Methods</title>
      <sec id="sec2dot1">
        <title>2.1. Description of the Study Area</title>
        <p>The study was conducted in Sapia, a village of approximately 1640 inhabitants located in the Daloa region of central-western Côte d’Ivoire (coordinates 6˚54′01″N, 6˚24′10″W) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>). This area is part of the Haut-Sassandra agricultural basin, characterized by intensive crop production and an abundant supply of organic matter derived from urban waste. Daloa is situated approximately 141 km from Yamoussoukro and 383 km from Abidjan. It is one of the country’s major urban centers, with a population estimated at 1,430,960 inhabitants according to the 2015 General Census of Population and Housing (RGPH).</p>
        <fig id="fig1">
          <label>Figure 1</label>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/2704400-rId15.jpeg?20260922033733" />
        </fig>
        <p><bold>Figure 1.</bold> Study area.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot2">
        <title>2.2. Plant Material</title>
        <p>The plant material used was sweet pepper (<italic>Capsicum annuum</italic>L., Goliath F1 hybrid), selected for its productivity and adaptation to local agro-ecological conditions.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot3">
        <title>2.3. Preparation of Fecal Sludge Compost</title>
        <p>The sewage sludge used in this study was collected from various landfills in the city of Daloa (Ivory Coast) between December 2023 and January 2024. Samples were collected during eight sampling campaigns, directly as sewage trucks were unloading, using a motorized tricycle. A total of twenty-four sludge samples were collected and then transported to the experimental site to begin the composting process (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>).</p>
        <fig id="fig2">
          <label>Figure 2</label>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/2704400-rId16.jpeg?20260922033734" />
        </fig>
        <p><bold>Figure 2.</bold> Sewage sludge composting process. (a) Tricycle transportation of faecal sludge; (b) Faecal sludge stockpiling; (c) Mature dehydrated compost; (d) Sieved mature compost.</p>
        <p>Composting was conducted using the windrow method, with strict separation of the sludge according to its site of origin in order to produce differentiated composts. Four types of compost were thus produced: compost from the Bédiala Road landfill (CB), compost from the Bra Kanon landfill (CBK), compost from the Garage neighborhood landfill (CG), and compost from the Soleil neighborhood landfill (CS). A commercial NPK mineral fertilizer (15-15-15) was also used as the control treatment in the agronomic experiment. No physicochemical or microbiological analyses were performed on the NPK fertilizer, as it was used only as a reference treatment in the field experiment.</p>
        <p>The composting process was maintained for a period of four months. The temperature of the compost piles was monitored regularly to assess the progression of the organic matter degradation process. Initial temperatures, ranging from 65 to 75˚C, gradually decreased during composting, reaching values between 25 and 37˚C during the maturation phase, indicating a gradual stabilization of the composted material.</p>
        <p>The maturity of the resulting composts was assessed using physicochemical and microbiological indicators, notably pH, the carbon-to-nitrogen (C/N) ratio, the stabilization of organic matter, and the hygienic quality of the final products. According to [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B17">17</xref>], a C/N ratio below 20 - 25 is a commonly used indicator for assessing the stabilization of compost. Furthermore, the absence of major pathogenic microorganisms, particularly Salmonella spp., combined with low levels of microorganisms indicative of fecal contamination, is an important criterion for evaluating its suitability for agricultural use.</p>
        <p>After the maturation phase, the composts were dried and then screened to achieve a uniform particle size, making them easier to handle and apply to the experimental plots.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot4">
        <title>2.4. Experimental Setup and Crop Treatments</title>
        <p>The experiment was conducted at a vegetable farm using a block design consisting of six experimental blocks. Each block comprised 15 elementary plots of 10 m<sup>2</sup> (10 m × 1 m), arranged in three rows of five plots. The individual plots within the same block were spaced 2 m apart to minimize interference between treatments, while a distance of 3 m separated the experimental blocks.</p>
        <p>The area of a block was approximately 540 m<sup>2</sup> (60 × 9 m), including the experimental plots, aisles, and borders (1 m). The five plots in each row corresponded to the five fertilizer treatments: four composts derived from sewage sludge. Compost from the Bédiala Road landfill (CB), compost from the Bra Kanon landfill (CBK), compost from the Garage neighborhood landfill (CG), compost from the Soleil neighborhood landfill (CS), and the control (T) fertilized with NPK mineral fertilizer (15/15/15).</p>
        <p>The study was organized into two separate trials.</p>
        <p>The first trial aimed to evaluate the effect of planting density on pepper quality. Three blocks were dedicated to this trial, each corresponding to a different planting density, namely: D1 = 40 × 50 cm; Block 2: D2 = 50 × 50 cm; and Block 3: 50 × 60 cm (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>). For this trial, the compost application rate was kept constant at 30 t/ha across all treatments.</p>
        <fig id="fig3">
          <label>Figure 3</label>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/2704400-rId17.jpeg?20260922033734" />
        </fig>
        <p><bold>Figure 3.</bold> Blocs expérimentaux avec variation de densité et fixation de dose à 30T/ha.</p>
        <p>The objective of the second experiment was to evaluate the effect of the compost application rate. Three additional plots were established with a planting density of 50 × 50 cm. The three application rates studied were 20 T/h, 30 T/h, and 40 T/h, each applied in a separate block (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref>). The five fertilizer treatments (CB, CBK, CS, and NPK) were maintained in each of the blocks.</p>
        <p>Thus, each block comprised three rows of five plots, ensuring an identical distribution of fertilizer treatments, while the planting density or compost application rate varied according to the specific objective of each trial.</p>
        <p>Depending on the planting density, each basic plot contained 50 plants (D1), 40 plants (D2), and 33 plants (D3), corresponding to 750, 600, and 495 plants per block, respectively, for a total of 1845 plants in the first trial. For the second trial, the density was set at D2 (50 × 50 cm), or 40 plants per plot across 15 plots. This resulted in 1800 plants for the second trial.</p>
        <p>In total, 3645 plants were recorded for this study.</p>
        <fig id="fig4">
          <label>Figure 4</label>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/2704400-rId18.jpeg?20260922033734" />
        </fig>
        <p><bold>Figure 4.</bold> Blocs expérimentaux avec variation et fixation de la odes et de densité 50 × 50 cm.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot5">
        <title>2.5. Plot Treatments</title>
        <p>The fertilization treatments in both trials were applied to the respective experimental plots at a rate of at least 30 plants per plot. Compost was applied when the ridges were formed, 21 days before transplanting the pepper plants, by evenly spreading the weighted doses of compost over the surface of the relevant experimental plots and incorporating them into the top 20 - 25 centimeters of soil while forming the ridges. The interval between compost application and the start of harvest was 91 days. Irrigation was carried out using water from a well, and a watering can was used for this purpose.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot6">
        <title>2.6. Sample Collection</title>
        <p>Pepper fruits (<italic>Capsicum annuum</italic> L.) were harvested at the stage of physiological maturity, after irrigation was discontinued, in order to assess their microbiological quality. Samples were collected at random from each of the experimental plots (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5</xref>).</p>
        <fig id="fig5">
          <label>Figure 5</label>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/2704400-rId19.jpeg?20260922033735" />
        </fig>
        <p><bold>Figure 5.</bold> Fruit Production and Harvesting. (a) plant in production; (b) bell peppers.</p>
        <p>Each fertilization treatment was represented by three replicates, corresponding to the three rows in each block. For each replicate, three fruits were selected at random and then ground together to form a composite sample representative of the plot.</p>
        <p>Thus, each treatment yielded three composite samples per block, or one sample per replicate. Since each block comprised five fertilization treatments, 15 composite samples were obtained. In total, the six experimental blocks yielded 90 composite samples (15 samples per block × 6 blocks) for microbiological analysis.</p>
        <p>The purpose of preparing a composite sample from three fruits was to obtain a representative sample from each replicate while reducing variability due to individual differences among the fruits.</p>
        <p>Pour la combinaison spécifique correspondant à une densité de plantation de 50 × 50 cm associée à une dose d’application de compost de 30 t/ha, évaluée dans deux blocs expérimentaux, la caractérisation microbiologique a été réalisée à partir des échantillons de répétition correspondants générés dans ces blocs. Ces échantillons ont été pris en compte conformément au plan expérimental pour l’analyse statistique, la parcelle de répétition étant considérée comme l’unité expérimentale dans l’ANOVA.</p>
        <p>After collection, the samples were handled under strict aseptic conditions using disposable gloves and sterile equipment. They were then placed in sterile Stomacher<sup>®</sup>-type bags, transported to the laboratory in an insulated cooler maintained at 4˚C, and stored until analysis, which was performed within a maximum of 24 hours.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot7">
        <title>2.7. Microbiological Analyses</title>
        <p>Microbiological analyses were conducted in accordance with current ISO and AFNOR standards to assess the hygienic and sanitary quality of bell peppers. The microorganisms used as indicators of hygiene and spoilage included total mesophilic aerobic flora (TMAF), total and thermotolerant coliforms, Escherichia coli, as well as yeasts and molds. Testing was also conducted for the main pathogenic microorganisms likely to compromise the food safety of the peppers, notably Salmonella spp. and coagulase-positive staphylococci.</p>
        <p>Stock suspensions were prepared in accordance with the AFNOR NF V08-010-2 (1996) standard. To this end, 25 g of each composite sample was homogenized in 225 mL of buffered peptone water, followed by successive decimal dilutions to perform the various microbiological analyses. All microbiological analyses were performed exclusively on bell peppers (<italic>Capsicum annuum</italic> L.), which constituted the sole plant matrix studied. This methodological approach ensured the homogeneity of the experimental samples as well as the reliability of the microbiological comparisons made between the different treatments.</p>
        <p>2.7.1. Enumeration of Microorganisms Indicative of Hygiene and Spoilage</p>
        <p><bold>Total mesophilic aerobic flora (TMAF)</bold></p>
        <p>The total mesophilic aerobic flora was counted in accordance with ISO 4833-1:2013 by deep plating on Plate Count Agar (PCA). After incubation at 30˚C for 72 hours, characteristic colonies were counted, and the results were expressed in colony-forming units per gram of sample (CFU/g).</p>
        <p><bold>Escherichia coli</bold></p>
        <p>Escherichia coli was enumerated in accordance with ISO 16649-3:2015 by deep plating on a chromogenic medium. The plates were incubated at 44˚C for 24 h, after which characteristic colonies were counted and expressed in CFU/g.</p>
        <p><bold>Yeasts and molds</bold></p>
        <p>Yeasts and molds were quantified according to ISO 21527-1:2008 by surface plating on Sabouraud agar supplemented with chloramphenicol. Incubation was carried out at 25˚C for 72 hours, followed by counting of fungal colonies expressed in CFU/g.</p>
        <p><bold>Total and thermotolerant coliforms</bold></p>
        <p>Total and thermotolerant coliforms were enumerated in accordance with ISO 4832:2006 on Violet Red Bile Lactose (VRBL) agar. Incubation was performed at 37˚C for total coliforms and at 44˚C for thermotolerant coliforms.</p>
        <p>2.7.2. Screening and Enumeration of Pathogenic Microorganisms</p>
        <p><bold>Salmonella spp.</bold></p>
        <p>Screening for Salmonella spp. was performed in accordance with ISO 6579-1:2017. The procedure included a pre-enrichment step in buffered peptone water, followed by selective enrichment in Rappaport-Vassiliadis broth, and then isolation on Hektoen agar. The results were reported as the presence or absence of Salmonella spp. in the analyzed sample.</p>
        <p><bold>Coagulase-positive staphylococci</bold></p>
        <p>Coagulase-positive staphylococci were enumerated in accordance with ISO 6888-1 and ISO 6888-2, which describe the horizontal method for enumerating coagulase-positive staphylococci (Staphylococcus aureus and related species). The count was performed on Baird-Parker agar after incubation at 37˚C for 24 hours, and the results were expressed in CFU/g.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot8">
        <title>2.8. Literal Calculation of the Microbial Load</title>
        <p>Microbiological results were reported in accordance with the recommendations of international standards regarding the enumeration of microorganisms in food matrices.</p>
        <p>Microbial loads were expressed in colony-forming units per gram of fresh material (CFU/g). The number of microorganisms was calculated using the following standardized equation (1):</p>
        <disp-formula id="FD1">
          <label>(1)</label>
          <mml:math>
            <mml:mrow>
              <mml:mi>N</mml:mi>
              <mml:mo>=</mml:mo>
              <mml:mfrac>
                <mml:mrow>
                  <mml:mo>∑</mml:mo>
                  <mml:mi>C</mml:mi>
                </mml:mrow>
                <mml:mrow>
                  <mml:mi>V</mml:mi>
                  <mml:mo>×</mml:mo>
                  <mml:mrow>
                    <mml:mo>(</mml:mo>
                    <mml:mrow>
                      <mml:msub>
                        <mml:mi>n</mml:mi>
                        <mml:mn>1</mml:mn>
                      </mml:msub>
                      <mml:mo>+</mml:mo>
                      <mml:mn>0.1</mml:mn>
                      <mml:msub>
                        <mml:mi>n</mml:mi>
                        <mml:mn>2</mml:mn>
                      </mml:msub>
                    </mml:mrow>
                    <mml:mo>)</mml:mo>
                  </mml:mrow>
                  <mml:mo>×</mml:mo>
                  <mml:mi>d</mml:mi>
                </mml:mrow>
              </mml:mfrac>
            </mml:mrow>
          </mml:math>
        </disp-formula>
        <p>where <italic>C</italic> denotes the microbial concentration (CFU/g), ∑C is the sum of colonies counted on two consecutive selected dilutions, <italic>V</italic>is the inoculated volume (mL), <italic>n</italic><sub>1</sub> is the number of plates selected at the first dilution, <italic>n</italic><sub>2</sub> is the number of plates selected at the next dilution, and d is the dilution factor corresponding to the first selected dilution.</p>
        <p>Only plates with a colony count falling within the validity ranges recommended by ISO standards were taken into account. It was difficult to find specific microbiological criteria in Côte d’Ivoire. The European Commission’s criteria applicable to the manufacturing, preparation, cutting, or simple handling of “open-cut” food products in workshops or stores were therefore applied. The guidelines and measured standards were compared to the thresholds set by current European legislation (Regulation (EU) 2019/1009). Specifically, GAM at 10<sup>6</sup> CFU/g; yeast and mold (10<sup>6</sup> CFU/g); Salmonella: Abs = absence in a 25-gram sample; <italic>E. coli</italic> must not exceed 100 CFU/g; the majority of pathogenic bacteria must be absent.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot9">
        <title>2.9. Statistical Analyses</title>
        <p>The collected data were analyzed using Excel. Statistical analyses were performed using appropriate software (Minitab 18.1), ensuring the validity of the statistical inferences. The data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare means at a significance level of 5% (p &lt; 0.05). Comparisons of means were performed using Tukey’s test when the effect was significant (p &lt; 0.05).</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec3">
      <title>3. Results</title>
      <sec id="sec3dot1">
        <title>3.1. Physicochemical Characteristics of Each Compost Prior to Application</title>
        <p>The physicochemical characteristics of each compost prior to application are listed in the table below:</p>
        <p>The physicochemical characteristics of the composts are presented in <bold>Table 1</bold>. The pH values were relatively consistent across the different composts, ranging from 7.11 to 7.30 (<bold>Table 1</bold>). Organic carbon contents ranged from 13.19% to 17.17%, while total nitrogen contents ranged from 0.76% to 0.98%.</p>
        <p>The carbon-to-nitrogen (C/N) ratio ranged from 16.2 to 20.2, with the highest value observed for the CBK compost and the lowest for the CG compost. Organic matter content ranged from 22.7% to 29.5%. Regarding mineral elements, available phosphorus levels ranged from 2.78 to 3.20 ppm, while potassium, calcium, and magnesium concentrations varied depending on the origin of the composts.</p>
        <p><bold>Table 1.</bold> Physicochemical characteristics of each compost prior to application.</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl1">
          <label>Table 1</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Physicochemical characteristics</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>CB</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>CBK</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>CG</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>CS</bold>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>PH</td>
                <td>07.30</td>
                <td>07.12</td>
                <td>07.24</td>
                <td>07.11</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>C (%)</td>
                <td>17.17</td>
                <td>16.96</td>
                <td>13.19</td>
                <td>13.94</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Nt (%)</td>
                <td>0.98</td>
                <td>0.84</td>
                <td>0.81</td>
                <td>0.76</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>C/N</td>
                <td>17.50</td>
                <td>20.20</td>
                <td>16.20</td>
                <td>18.40</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>M.O (%)</td>
                <td>29.50</td>
                <td>29.20</td>
                <td>22.7</td>
                <td>24.00</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Pass (ppm)</td>
                <td>03.20</td>
                <td>02.86</td>
                <td>2.82</td>
                <td>02.78</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  K
                  <sup>+</sup>
                  (cmol∙kg
                  <sup>−</sup>
                  <sup>1</sup>
                  )
                </td>
                <td>01.24</td>
                <td>01.38</td>
                <td>1.62</td>
                <td>01.72</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  Ca
                  <sup>2+</sup>
                  (cmol∙kg
                  <sup>−</sup>
                  <sup>1</sup>
                  )
                </td>
                <td>01.23</td>
                <td>01.13</td>
                <td>0.90</td>
                <td>0.88</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  Mg
                  <sup>2+</sup>
                  (cmol∙kg
                  <sup>1</sup>
                  )
                </td>
                <td>0.31</td>
                <td>0.28</td>
                <td>0.23</td>
                <td>0.22</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
        <p>Overall, the composts exhibited variable physicochemical characteristics depending on their origin, with pH, carbon, nitrogen, and mineral element values that were relatively similar across the different treatments.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec3dot2">
        <title>3.2. Microbiological Characteristics of Each Compost Prior to Application</title>
        <p>The microbiological characteristics of each compost prior to application are recorded in the table below. The microbiological characteristics of the various composts prior to application are presented in <bold>Table 2</bold>. The results show variation in microbial loads depending on the origin of the composts. The Mesophilic Aerobic Flora (MAB) ranged from 3.11 × 10<sup>2</sup> to 9.63 × 10<sup>2</sup> CFU/g, with the highest value recorded for the CG compost. Total coliforms ranged from 1.28 × 10<sup>2</sup> to 2.81 × 10<sup>2</sup> CFU/g, while thermotolerant coliforms ranged from 0.30 × 10<sup>2</sup> to 0.71 × 10<sup>2</sup> CFU/g.</p>
        <p>Yeasts and molds were detected in all composts, with levels ranging from 0.16 × 10<sup>2</sup> to 1.53 × 10<sup>2</sup> CFU/g. Coagulase-positive staphylococci also varied among the </p>
        <p><bold>Table 2.</bold> Microbiological characteristics of each compost prior to application.</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl2">
          <label>Table 2</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="2">
                  <bold>Organic amendment</bold>
                </td>
                <td colspan="5">
                  <bold>Indicator bacteria for hygiene and spoilage</bold>
                </td>
                <td colspan="2">
                  <bold>Pathogenic germs</bold>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  MAB10
                  <sup>2</sup>
                  UFC/g
                </td>
                <td>
                  Total coli-forms∙ 10
                  <sup>2</sup>
                  UFC/g
                </td>
                <td>
                  Thermo Co-liforms∙10
                  <sup>2</sup>
                  UFC/g
                </td>
                <td>
                  Yeast/Mold∙10
                  <sup>2</sup>
                  UFC/g
                </td>
                <td>
                  <italic>E. coli</italic>
                  (∙10
                  <sup>2</sup>
                  UFC/g)
                </td>
                <td>
                  Staph(.10
                  <sup>2</sup>
                  UFC/g)
                </td>
                <td>Salmo</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>CB</bold>
                </td>
                <td>3.11 ± 08.21</td>
                <td>1.62 ± 0.14</td>
                <td>0.45 ± 0.77</td>
                <td>0.39 ± 0.02</td>
                <td>&lt;1</td>
                <td>0.71 ± 0.01</td>
                <td>Absent</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>CBK</bold>
                </td>
                <td>08.57 ± 0.15</td>
                <td>1.28 ± 0.12</td>
                <td>0.30 ± 0.01</td>
                <td>0.16 ± 0.03</td>
                <td>&lt;1</td>
                <td>1.23 ± 0.02</td>
                <td>Absent</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>CG</bold>
                </td>
                <td>9.63 ± 0.34</td>
                <td>2.61 ± 0.32</td>
                <td>0.71 ± 0.87</td>
                <td>0.26 ± 0.02</td>
                <td>&lt;1</td>
                <td>2.87 ± 0.01</td>
                <td>Absent</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>CS</bold>
                </td>
                <td>5.73 ± 1.05</td>
                <td>2.81 ± 0.26</td>
                <td>0.43 ± 0.76</td>
                <td>1.53 ± 0.01</td>
                <td>&lt;1</td>
                <td>0.89 ± 0.05</td>
                <td>Absent</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
        <p>compost samples, with concentrations ranging from 0.71 × 10<sup>2</sup> to 2.87 × 10<sup>2</sup> CFU/g. In contrast, <italic>Escherichia coli</italic> was below the limit of detection (&lt;1 CFU/g) in all compost samples analyzed, while <italic>Salmonella</italic> spp. was not detected in any sample.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec3dot3">
        <title>
          3.3. Microbial Loads (×10
          <sup>4</sup>
          CFU/g) of Sweet Pepper (
          <italic>Capsicum annuum</italic>
          L.) Fruits under Different Planting Densities with Compost Application Fixed at 30 t/ha
        </title>
        <p>3.3.1. Effect of Fertilizer Type on Microbial Loads at a Planting Density of 40 × 50 cm and a Fixed Application Rate of 30 t/ha</p>
        <p><bold>1)</bold><bold>Hygiene and Deterioration Microflora</bold></p>
        <p>An analysis of the flora indicative of hygiene and spoilage reveals that the type of fertilization has a significant impact on the microbiological quality of bell peppers.</p>
        <p>The 40 × 50 cm planting density significantly influenced the loads of hygiene indicator and spoilage-related microorganisms in sweet pepper fruits. Aerobic mesophilic bacteria (AMB) showed marked variability among treatments, with values ranging from 80.25 ± 1.24 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under the NPK treatment to 517.50 ± 5.97 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under compost CS, indicating a higher proliferation of aerobic mesophilic microorganisms under the latter treatment.</p>
        <p>Total coliforms also exhibited significant differences among treatments. The highest load was recorded with compost CS (2.78 ± 0.05 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g), whereas compost CBK showed the lowest value (1.14 ± 0.09 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g), which was comparable to that observed under NPK fertilization (1.15 ± 0.32 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g). Thermotolerant coliform loads ranged from 0.24 ± 0.66 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under NPK to 2.14 ± 0.09 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under compost CB, with significant differences among treatments (p = 0.01) (<bold>Table 3</bold>).</p>
        <p>The fungal flora, represented by yeasts and molds, was also significantly affected by the applied treatments (p = 0.02). The recorded loads ranged from 0.95 </p>
        <p><bold>Table 3.</bold> Microbial load (×10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g) of bell peppers (<italic>Capsicum annuum</italic> L.) as a function of planting density of 40 × 50 cm.</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl3">
          <label>Table 3</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="2">
                  <bold>Composts</bold>
                  <bold>Fertilizer</bold>
                </td>
                <td colspan="6">
                  <bold>Indicator bacteria for hygiene and spoilage</bold>
                </td>
                <td colspan="2">
                  <bold>Pathogenic germs</bold>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Fixed ap-plication rate</td>
                <td>
                  MAB10
                  <sup>4</sup>
                  UFC/g
                </td>
                <td>
                  Total coliforms 10
                  <sup>4</sup>
                  UFC/g
                </td>
                <td>
                  Thermo Coliforms 10
                  <sup>4</sup>
                  UFC/g
                </td>
                <td>
                  Yeast/Mold 10
                  <sup>4</sup>
                  UFC/g
                </td>
                <td>
                  <italic>E. coli</italic>
                </td>
                <td>
                  Staph10
                  <sup>4</sup>
                  UFC/g
                </td>
                <td>Salmo</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>CB</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>30</bold>
                  <bold>T/ha</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  95.25 ± 10.37
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  2.64 ± 0.09
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  2.14 ± 0.09
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  1.50 ± 0.08
                  <sup>bc</sup>
                </td>
                <td>&lt;1</td>
                <td>
                  3.07 ± 0.05
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>Absent</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>CBK</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>30</bold>
                  <bold>T/ha</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  92.50 ± 5.5
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  1.14 ± 0.09
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  0.68 ± 0.05
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  3.00 ± 0.08
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>&lt;1</td>
                <td>
                  2.77 ± 0.05
                  <sup>bc</sup>
                </td>
                <td>Absent</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>CS</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>30</bold>
                  <bold>T/ha</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  517.50 ± 5.97
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  2.78 ± 0.05
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  0.89 ± 0.08
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  2.88 ± 0.05
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>&lt;1</td>
                <td>
                  3.34 ± 0.10
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>Absent</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>CG</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>30</bold>
                  <bold>T/ha</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  289.00 ± 10.03
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  0.83 ± 0.09
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  0.50 ± 0.08
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  0.95 ± 0.01
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>&lt;1</td>
                <td>
                  1.47 ± 0.05
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>Absent</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>NPK</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>30</bold>
                  <bold>T/ha</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  80.25 ± 1.24
                  <sup>d</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  1.15 ± 0.32
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  0.24 ± 0.66
                  <sup>d</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  0.98 ± 0.21
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>&lt;1</td>
                <td>
                  1.19 ± 0.10
                  <sup>d</sup>
                </td>
                <td>Absent</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
        <p>Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). Values followed by different letters within the same column are significantly different at the 5% significance level (ANOVA, p &lt; 0.05). Thermo: Thermotolerant; Salomo: Salmonella; Staph: Staphylococcus aureus; MAB: Mesophilic Aerobic Bacteria. <italic>E. coli</italic>: &lt; 1 CFU/g indicates a value below the limit of detection. Salmonella: Abs = not detected in a 25-g sample.</p>
        <p>± 0.01 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under compost CG to 3.00 ± 0.08 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under compost CBK. Overall, composts CBK and CS promoted the highest fungal loads, whereas compost CG showed a value comparable to that of the NPK treatment (0.98 ± 0.21 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g), with no significant difference observed (p = 0.01).</p>
        <p>In contrast, <italic>Escherichia coli</italic> levels remained below the detection limit (&lt;1 CFU/g) for all treatments, indicating the absence of detectable contamination by this fecal indicator microorganism in harvested sweet pepper fruits.</p>
        <p><bold>2)</bold><bold>Pathogenic flora</bold></p>
        <p>Coagulase-positive staphylococci loads also varied significantly among the applied treatments (p = 0.01), with values ranging from 1.19 ± 0.10 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under the NPK treatment to 3.34 ± 0.10 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under compost CS. The value recorded under compost CB (3.07 ± 0.05 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g) was comparable to that observed under compost CS, with no significant difference between these two treatments (<bold>Table 3</bold>).</p>
        <p>Furthermore, no <italic>Salmonella</italic> spp. were detected in the analyzed sweet pepper fruits, regardless of the fertilization treatment applied. Similarly, <italic>Escherichia coli</italic> concentrations remained below the detection limit (&lt;1 CFU/g) in all analyzed samples. Given the consistent absence of these two fecal contamination indicator microorganisms, <italic>E. coli</italic> and <italic>Salmonella</italic> spp. will not be further discussed in the following sections.</p>
        <p>3.3.2. Effect of Fertilizer Type on Microbial Loads at a Planting Density of 50 × 50 cm and a Fixed Application Rate of 30 t/ha</p>
        <p>The 50 × 50 cm planting density also influenced the levels of hygiene indicator and spoilage-related microorganisms in sweet pepper fruits, with variations observed depending on the type of compost applied.</p>
        <p><bold>1)</bold><bold>Flora Indicative of Hygiene and Deterioration</bold></p>
        <p>Aerobic mesophilic bacteria (AMB) loads varied significantly among treatments (p = 0.01), with values ranging from 57.5 ± 1.58 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under compost CS to 496.67 ± 3.39 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under compost CG (<bold>Table 4</bold>). Except for compost CS, which showed a slightly lower load than the mineral NPK treatment (80.25 ± 1.24 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g), faecal sludge-derived composts generally resulted in higher AMB levels than mineral fertilization, with significant differences observed among treatments.</p>
        <p>Total coliforms also showed significant variations (p = 0.03), with the highest load recorded under compost CS (4.88 ± 0.02 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g) and the lowest value under the NPK treatment (1.25 ± 0.08 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g). A similar trend was observed for thermotolerant coliforms, with loads ranging from 0.47 ± 0.78 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under NPK to 1.54 ± 0.16 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under compost CB.</p>
        <p>The fungal flora, represented by yeasts and molds, was also significantly affected by the applied treatments (p = 0.02). The recorded loads ranged from 1.60 ± 0.14 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under NPK to 2.51 ± 1.27 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under compost CS, which exhibited the highest fungal load. In contrast, Escherichia coli levels remained below the detection limit (&lt;1 CFU/g) for all treatments.</p>
        <p><bold>2)</bold><bold>Pathogenic flora</bold></p>
        <p>Compost-based treatments generally showed higher levels of coagulase-positive staphylococci compared with mineral fertilization. Indeed, coagulase-positive staphylococci loads differed significantly among treatments (p = 0.01), with values ranging from 1.10 ± 0.12 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under the NPK treatment to 3.50 ± 1.03 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under compost CG (<bold>Table 4</bold>).</p>
        <p><bold>Table 4.</bold> Microbial loads (×10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g) of bell peppers (<italic>Capsicum annuum</italic>L.) as a function of planting density of 50 × 50 cm.</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl4">
          <label>Table 4</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="2">
                  <bold>Fertilizer</bold>
                </td>
                <td rowspan="2">
                  <bold>Fixed application rate</bold>
                </td>
                <td colspan="5">
                  <bold>Indicator bacteria for hygiene and spoilage</bold>
                </td>
                <td colspan="2">
                  <bold>Pathogenic germs</bold>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  MAB10
                  <sup>4</sup>
                  UFC/g
                </td>
                <td>
                  Total coliforms 10
                  <sup>4</sup>
                  UFC/g
                </td>
                <td>
                  Thermo Coliforms 10
                  <sup>4</sup>
                  UFC/g
                </td>
                <td>
                  Yeast/Mold 10
                  <sup>4</sup>
                  UFC/g
                </td>
                <td>
                  <italic>E. coli</italic>
                </td>
                <td>
                  Staph10
                  <sup>4</sup>
                  UFC/g
                </td>
                <td>Salmo</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>CB</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>30</bold>
                  <bold>T/ha</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  401.16 ± 3.88
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  2.26 ± 0.01
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  1.54 ± 0.16
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  1.93 ± 0.12
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>&lt;1</td>
                <td>
                  1.55 ± 0.20
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>Absent</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>CBK</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>30</bold>
                  <bold>T/ha</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  185.75 ± 1.40
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  2.82 ± 0.01
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  1.03 ± 0.18
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  1.61 ± 0.11
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>&lt;1</td>
                <td>
                  2.67 ± 0.90
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>Absent</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>CG</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>30</bold>
                  <bold>T/ha</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  496.67 ± 3.39
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  3.06 ± 0.03
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  1.07 ± 0.87
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  1.62 ± 0.03
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>&lt;1</td>
                <td>
                  3.50 ± 1.03
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>Absent</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>CS</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>30</bold>
                  <bold>T/ha</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  57.50 ± 1.58
                  <sup>d</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  4.88 ± 0.02
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  1.44 ± 0.76
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  2.51 ± 1.27
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>&lt;1</td>
                <td>
                  1.30 ± 0.86
                  <sup>d</sup>
                </td>
                <td>Absent</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>NPK</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>30</bold>
                  <bold>T/ha</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  80.25 ± 1.24
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  1.25 ± 0.08
                  <sup>d</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  0.47 ± 0.78
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  1.60 ± 0.14
                  <sup>d</sup>
                </td>
                <td>&lt;1</td>
                <td>
                  1.10 ± 0.12
                  <sup>d</sup>
                </td>
                <td>Absent</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
        <p>Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). Values followed by different letters within the same column are significantly different at the 5% significance level (ANOVA, p &lt; 0.05). Thermo: Thermotolerant; Salomo: Salmonella; Staph: Staphylococcus aureus; MAB: Mesophilic Aerobic Bacteria. <italic>E. coli</italic>: &lt; 1 CFU/g indicates a value below the limit of detection. Salmonella: Abs = not detected in a 25-g sample.</p>
        <p>3.3.3. Effect of Fertilizer Type on Microbial Loads at a Planting Density of 50 × 60 cm and a Fixed Application Rate of 30 t/ha</p>
        <p><bold>1)</bold><bold>Hygiene and Decay Microflora</bold></p>
        <p>Aerobic mesophilic bacteria (AMB) loads varied significantly among the applied treatments (p = 0.01), with values ranging from 153.33 ± 8.95 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under the NPK treatment (control) to 955.00 ± 42.03 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under compost CG (<bold>Table 5</bold>).</p>
        <p>Total coliforms also showed significant differences among treatments (p = 0.01). The recorded loads ranged from 0.77 ± 0.05 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under compost CB to 8.75 ± 0.50 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under compost CS, followed by compost CG, which showed a load of 7.50 ± 0.10 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g.</p>
        <p>Thermotolerant coliform loads also varied significantly (p = 0.01), ranging from 0.05 ± 0.01 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under compost CBK to 2.25 ± 0.10 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under compost CG.</p>
        <p>The fungal flora, represented by yeasts and molds, was also significantly affected by the applied treatments (p = 0.02), with loads ranging from 0.67 ± 0.18 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under the NPK treatment to 1.47 ± 0.24 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under compost CBK.</p>
        <p><bold>2) Pathogenic flora</bold></p>
        <p>Coagulase-positive staphylococci loads varied significantly among treatments (p = 0.01), with values ranging from 1.39 ± 0.08 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under compost CG to 3.48 ± 0.05 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under compost CS (<bold>Table 5</bold>).</p>
        <p><bold>Table 5.</bold> Microbial load (×10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g) of bell peppers (<italic>Capsicum annuum</italic>L.) as a function of planting density of 50 × 60 cm..</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl5">
          <label>Table 5</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="2">
                  <bold>Fertilizer</bold>
                </td>
                <td rowspan="2">
                  <bold>Fixed application rate</bold>
                </td>
                <td colspan="5">
                  <bold>Indicator bacteria for hygiene and spoilage</bold>
                </td>
                <td colspan="2">
                  <bold>Pathogenic germs</bold>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  MAB10
                  <sup>4</sup>
                  UFC/g
                </td>
                <td>
                  Total coliforms 10
                  <sup>4</sup>
                  UFC/g
                </td>
                <td>
                  Thermo Coliforms 10
                  <sup>4</sup>
                  UFC/g
                </td>
                <td>
                  Yeast/Mold 10
                  <sup>4</sup>
                  UFC/g
                </td>
                <td>
                  <italic>E. coli</italic>
                </td>
                <td>
                  Staph10
                  <sup>4</sup>
                  UFC/g
                </td>
                <td>Salmo</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>CB</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>30</bold>
                  <bold>T/ha</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  185.75 ± 22.77
                  <sup>d</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  0.77 ± 0.05
                  <sup>d</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  0.50 ± 0.08
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  0.72 ± 0.55
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>&lt;1</td>
                <td>
                  1.46 ± 0.04
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>Absent</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>CBK</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>30</bold>
                  <bold>T/ha</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  376.50 ± 1.00
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  3.39 ± 0.90
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  0.05 ± 0.01
                  <sup>d</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  1.47 ± 0.24
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>&lt;1</td>
                <td>
                  2.28 ± 0.08
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>Absent</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>CS</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>30</bold>
                  <bold>T/ha</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  757.50 ± 43.40
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  8.75 ± 0.50
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  0.96 ± 0.04
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  0.87 ± 0.05
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>&lt;1</td>
                <td>
                  3.48 ± 0.05
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>Absent</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>CG</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>30</bold>
                  <bold>T/ha</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  955.00 ± 42.03
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  7.50 ± 0.10
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  2.25 ± 0.10
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  1.23 ± 0.04
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>&lt;1</td>
                <td>
                  1.39 ± 0.08
                  <sup>d</sup>
                </td>
                <td>Absent</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>NPK</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>30</bold>
                  <bold>T/ha</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  153.33 ± 8.95
                  <sup>e</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  1.74 ± 0.09
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  0.16 ± 0.03
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  0.67 ± 0.18
                  <sup>d</sup>
                </td>
                <td>&lt;1</td>
                <td>
                  1.65 ± 0.66
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>Absent</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
        <p>Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). Values followed by different letters within the same column are significantly different at the 5% significance level (ANOVA, p &lt; 0.05). Thermo: Thermotolerant; Salomo: Salmonella; Staph: Staphylococcus aureus; MAB: Mesophilic Aerobic Bacteria. <italic>E. coli</italic>: &lt; 1 CFU/g indicates a value below the limit of detection. Salmonella: Abs = not detected in a 25-g sample.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec3dot4">
        <title>
          3.4. Microbial Loads (×10
          <sup>4</sup>
          CFU/g) of Sweet Pepper (
          <italic>Capsicum annuum</italic>
          L.) Fruits as Affected by Compost Application Rate at a Fixed Planting Density of 50 × 50 cm
        </title>
        <p>3.4.1. Effect of Fertilizer Type on Microbial Loads at a Compost Application Rate of 20 t/ha under a Fixed Planting Density of 50 × 50 cm</p>
        <p>At a compost application rate of 20 t/ha and a fixed planting density of 50 × 50 cm, the microbial loads varied among the fertilizer treatments (<bold>Table 6</bold>).</p>
        <p><bold>1)</bold><bold>Hygiene and spoilage flora</bold></p>
        <p>Aerobic mesophilic bacteria (AMB) showed significant differences among treatments. The highest load was recorded for compost CB, with 922.50 ± 5.10 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g, whereas the lowest value was observed under the NPK treatment </p>
        <p><bold>Table 6.</bold> Microbial loads (×10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g) of bell peppers (<italic>Capsicum annuum</italic> L.) fruits according to fertilizer treatment at a compost application rate of 20 t/ha and a fixed planting density of 50 × 50 cm.</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl6">
          <label>Table 6</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="2">
                  <bold>Fertilizer</bold>
                </td>
                <td rowspan="2">
                  <bold>fixed planting density</bold>
                </td>
                <td colspan="5">
                  <bold>Indicator bacteria for hygiene and spoilage</bold>
                </td>
                <td colspan="2">
                  <bold>Pathogenic germs</bold>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  AMB10
                  <sup>4</sup>
                  UFC/g
                </td>
                <td>
                  Total coliforms 10
                  <sup>4</sup>
                  UFC/g
                </td>
                <td>
                  Thermo Coliforms 10
                  <sup>4</sup>
                  UFC/g
                </td>
                <td>
                  Yeast/Mold 10
                  <sup>4</sup>
                  UFC/g
                </td>
                <td>
                  <italic>E. coli</italic>
                </td>
                <td>
                  Staph10
                  <sup>4</sup>
                  UFC/g
                </td>
                <td>Salmo</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>CBK</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>50</bold>
                  <bold>×</bold>
                  <bold>50</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  88.25 ± 1.85
                  <sup>d</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  3.93 ± 0.90
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  2.35 ± 0.01
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  0.35 ± 0.10
                  <sup>e</sup>
                </td>
                <td>&lt; 1</td>
                <td>
                  0.18 ± 0.05
                  <sup>d</sup>
                </td>
                <td>Absent</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>CG</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>50</bold>
                  <bold>×</bold>
                  <bold>50</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  246.00 ± 2.82
                  <sup>bc</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  0.86 ± 0.32
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  0.46 ± 0.05
                  <sup>d</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  2.67 ± 0.01
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>&lt; 1</td>
                <td>
                  1.47 ± 0.10
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>Absent</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>CB</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>50</bold>
                  <bold>×</bold>
                  <bold>50</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  922.50 ± 5.10
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  3.37 ± 0.11
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  1.99 ± 0.12
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  3.57 ± 0.18
                  <sup>ab</sup>
                </td>
                <td>&lt; 1</td>
                <td>
                  0.18 ± 0.07
                  <sup>d</sup>
                </td>
                <td>Absent</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>CS</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>50</bold>
                  <bold>×</bold>
                  <bold>50</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  397.50 ± 3.47
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  3.13 ± 0.12
                  <sup>b</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  2.47 ± 0.13
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  3.80 ± 0.12
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>&lt; 1</td>
                <td>
                  3.76 ± 0.21
                  <sup>a</sup>
                </td>
                <td>Absent</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>NPK</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>50</bold>
                  <bold>×</bold>
                  <bold>50</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  78.71 ± 1.99
                  <sup>e</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  0.36 ± 0.65
                  <sup>d</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  0.31 ± 0.06
                  <sup>e</sup>
                </td>
                <td>
                  1.60 ± 0.14
                  <sup>d</sup>
                </td>
                <td>&lt; 1</td>
                <td>
                  0.93 ± 0.33
                  <sup>c</sup>
                </td>
                <td>Absent</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
        <p>Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). Values followed by different letters within the same column are significantly different at the 5% significance level (ANOVA, p &lt; 0.05). Thermo: Thermotolerant; Salomo: Salmonella; Staph: Staphylococcus aureus; MAB: Mesophilic Aerobic Bacteria. <italic>E. coli</italic>: &lt; 1 CFU/g indicates a value below the limit of detection. Salmonella: Abs = not detected in a 25-g sample.</p>
        <p>(78.71 ± 1.99 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g).</p>
        <p>Total coliform loads also differed significantly among treatments (p = 0.01), ranging from 3.93 ± 0.90 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g for compost CBK to 0.36 ± 0.65 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g for the NPK treatment. Thermotolerant coliforms followed a similar pattern, with loads ranging from 2.47 ± 0.13 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under compost CS to 0.31 ± 0.06 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under NPK (p = 0.01).</p>
        <p>Yeast and mold counts also differed significantly among treatments (p = 0.02). The highest load was observed under compost CS (3.80 ± 0.12 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g), while the lowest was recorded under compost CBK (0.35 ± 0.10 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g).</p>
        <p><bold>2)</bold><bold>Pathogenic flora</bold></p>
        <p>Coagulase-positive staphylococci varied significantly among treatments (p = 0.01). The highest load was recorded under compost CS (3.76 ± 0.21 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g), whereas the lowest values were observed under compost CBK (0.18 ± 0.05 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g) and compost CB (0.18 ± 0.07 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g).</p>
        <p>3.4.2. Effect of Fertilizer Type on Microbial Loads at a Compost Application Rate of 40 t/ha under a Fixed Planting Density of 50 × 50 cm</p>
        <p>At a compost application rate of 40 t/ha and a fixed planting density of 50 × 50 cm, significant differences were observed among the fertilizer treatments for several microbial groups (<bold>Table 7</bold>).</p>
        <p><bold>1)</bold><bold>Hygiene and spoilage flora</bold></p>
        <p>Aerobic mesophilic bacteria (AMB) showed significant differences among treatments (p = 0.01). The highest load was recorded under compost CG, with 568.68 ± 31.48 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g, while the lowest value was observed under the NPK treatment (84.31 ± 4.65 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g).</p>
        <p>Total coliform loads also varied among treatments, ranging from 5.75 ± 1.33 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under compost CB to 0.57 ± 0.10 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under NPK. Thermotolerant coliforms showed a similar variation, with the highest load recorded under compost CG (1.82 ± 0.83 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g) and the lowest under NPK (0.07 ± 0.15 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g).</p>
        <p>Yeast and mold counts differed significantly among treatments (p = 0.02), with values ranging from 2.60 ± 1.40 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under compost CG to 0.67 ± 0.23 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under NPK.</p>
        <p><bold>2)</bold><bold>Pathogenic flora</bold></p>
        <p>Coagulase-positive staphylococci also varied significantly among treatments (p = 0.01). The highest load was observed under compost CS, with 2.78 ± 0.58 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g, whereas the lowest value was recorded under the NPK treatment (0.50 ± 0.01 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g) (<bold>Table 7</bold>).</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec4">
      <title>4. Discussion</title>
      <p>The use of faecal sludge-derived composts as organic amendments represents a promising strategy for improving soil fertility while promoting the recovery of locally available resources. However, their agricultural application requires prior </p>
      <p><bold>Table 7.</bold> Microbial loads (×10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g) of bell peppers (<italic>Capsicum annuum</italic> L.) fruits according to fertilizer treatment at a compost application rate of 40 t/ha and a fixed planting density of 50 × 50 cm.</p>
      <table-wrap id="tbl7">
        <label>Table 7</label>
        <table>
          <tbody>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="2">
                <bold>Fertilizer</bold>
              </td>
              <td rowspan="2">
                <bold>fixed planting density</bold>
              </td>
              <td colspan="5">
                <bold>Indicator bacteria for hygiene and spoilage</bold>
              </td>
              <td colspan="2">
                <bold>Pathogenic germs</bold>
              </td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>
                AMB10
                <sup>4</sup>
                UFC/g
              </td>
              <td>
                Total coliforms 10
                <sup>4</sup>
                UFC/g
              </td>
              <td>
                Thermo Coliforms10
                <sup>4</sup>
                UFC/g
              </td>
              <td>
                Yeast/Mold10
                <sup>4</sup>
                UFC/g
              </td>
              <td>
                <italic>E. coli</italic>
              </td>
              <td>
                Staph10
                <sup>4</sup>
                UFC/g
              </td>
              <td>Salmo</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>
                <bold>CBK</bold>
              </td>
              <td>
                <bold>50</bold>
                <bold>×</bold>
                <bold>50</bold>
              </td>
              <td>
                413.56 ± 24.68
                <sup>b</sup>
              </td>
              <td>
                1.85 ± 0.22
                <sup>d</sup>
              </td>
              <td>
                1.07 ± 0.60
                <sup>b</sup>
              </td>
              <td>
                2,08 ± 0.91
                <sup>ab</sup>
              </td>
              <td>&lt;1</td>
              <td>
                2.60 ± 0.45
                <sup>ab</sup>
              </td>
              <td>Absent</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>
                <bold>CG</bold>
              </td>
              <td>
                <bold>50</bold>
                <bold>×</bold>
                <bold>50</bold>
              </td>
              <td>
                568.68 ± 31.48
                <sup>a</sup>
              </td>
              <td>
                2.82 ± 0.20
                <sup>c</sup>
              </td>
              <td>
                1.82 ± 0.83
                <sup>a</sup>
              </td>
              <td>
                2,60 ± 1.40
                <sup>a</sup>
              </td>
              <td>&lt;1</td>
              <td>
                1.95 ± 1.34
                <sup>d</sup>
              </td>
              <td>Absent</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>
                <bold>CB</bold>
              </td>
              <td>
                <bold>50</bold>
                <bold>×</bold>
                <bold>50</bold>
              </td>
              <td>
                353.01 ± 29.15
                <sup>c</sup>
              </td>
              <td>
                5.75 ± 1.33
                <sup>a</sup>
              </td>
              <td>
                1.07 ± 0.87
                <sup>b</sup>
              </td>
              <td>
                1,07 ± 0.71
                <sup>d</sup>
              </td>
              <td>&lt;1</td>
              <td>
                2.15 ± 0.84
                <sup>c</sup>
              </td>
              <td>Absent</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>
                <bold>CS</bold>
              </td>
              <td>
                <bold>50</bold>
                <bold>×</bold>
                <bold>50</bold>
              </td>
              <td>
                180.25 ± 12.44
                <sup>d</sup>
              </td>
              <td>
                3.47 ± 0.60
                <sup>b</sup>
              </td>
              <td>
                0,94 ± 0.85
                <sup>c</sup>
              </td>
              <td>
                1,54 ± 0.24
                <sup>c</sup>
              </td>
              <td>&lt;1</td>
              <td>
                2.78 ± 0.58
                <sup>a</sup>
              </td>
              <td>Absent</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td>
                <bold>NPK</bold>
              </td>
              <td>
                <bold>50</bold>
                <bold>×</bold>
                <bold>50</bold>
              </td>
              <td>
                84.31 ± 4.65
                <sup>e</sup>
              </td>
              <td>
                0.57 ± 0.10
                <sup>e</sup>
              </td>
              <td>
                0.07 ± 0.15
                <sup>d</sup>
              </td>
              <td>
                0.67 ± 0.23
                <sup>e</sup>
              </td>
              <td>&lt;1</td>
              <td>
                0.50 ± 0.01
                <sup>e</sup>
              </td>
              <td>Absent</td>
            </tr>
          </tbody>
        </table>
      </table-wrap>
      <p>Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). Values followed by different letters within the same column are significantly different at the 5% significance level (ANOVA, p &lt; 0.05). Thermo: Thermotolerant; Salomo: Salmonella; Staph: Staphylococcus aureus; MAB: Mesophilic Aerobic Bacteria. <italic>E. coli</italic>: &lt; 1 CFU/g indicates a value below the limit of detection. Salmonella: Abs = not detected in a 25-g sample.</p>
      <p>evaluation of their physicochemical and microbiological quality to ensure both agronomic value and sanitary safety.</p>
      <p>After four months of composting, the different composts showed physicochemical characteristics indicative of satisfactory stabilization. The pH values (7.11 - 7.30) reflected near-neutral conditions, commonly associated with advanced compost maturity, while the C/N ratios (16.2 - 20.2) indicated progressive stabilization of organic matter. According to [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B17">17</xref>], C/N ratios below 20 - 25 are generally considered indicative of mature composts suitable for agricultural use. Moreover, the organic matter contents (22.7% - 29.5%) and the presence of essential nutrients (N, P, K, Ca, and Mg) highlight their potential agronomic value as soil amendments. The differences observed among composts may be related to the origin and initial composition of the faecal sludge, which can influence nutrient availability and final compost quality [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">18</xref>]. Thus, although all composts reached a satisfactory level of stabilization, their intrinsic properties may contribute to differences in their agronomic potential.</p>
      <p>From a microbiological perspective, the low levels of hygiene indicator microorganisms, together with the absence of <italic>Salmonella</italic>spp. and the low detection levels of <italic>Escherichia coli</italic> (&lt;1 CFU/g), indicate satisfactory sanitary quality of the composts before field application.</p>
      <p>This finding may be attributed to the thermal conditions developed during the thermophilic phase of composting, during which temperatures reached 65˚C - 75˚C. Maintaining elevated temperatures for a sufficient period is considered one of the primary mechanisms responsible for compost sanitization, as it promotes the inactivation of heat-sensitive microorganisms [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B9">9</xref>][<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">19</xref>].</p>
      <p>The high levels of hygiene indicator microorganisms observed under some treatments may be related to the microbiological characteristics of the organic amendments and to the interactions among compost, soil, and plant properties. Indeed, faecal sludge-derived composts harbor a diverse microbial community involved in organic matter decomposition and nutrient transformation. Several studies have evaluated the effectiveness of thermophilic composting and the influence of the time-temperature conditions established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B20">20</xref>] on the reduction of pathogenic microorganisms during the composting process [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B21">21</xref>][<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B22">22</xref>].</p>
      <p>During composting, microbial ecological succession progressively takes place. Mesophilic microorganisms dominate the initial stages of organic matter decomposition and are subsequently replaced by thermophilic microorganisms when temperatures exceed approximately 55˚C for several days [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B21">21</xref>]. This thermophilic phase represents a critical step in the sanitization process because it substantially reduces fecal microorganisms and other heat-sensitive microorganisms [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B23">23</xref>]. As the compost cools during maturation, it is progressively recolonized by predominantly saprophytic microorganisms involved in organic matter stabilization. Consequently, the presence of aerobic mesophilic bacteria (AMB) in mature compost does not necessarily indicate the persistence of pathogenic microorganisms, but may reflect the activity of microorganisms involved in organic matter decomposition [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B23">23</xref>].</p>
      <p>This microbial succession is consistent with the results obtained in the present study. AMB loads on sweet pepper fruits varied among treatments, with particularly high values recorded under compost CG (496.67 ± 3.39 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under certain experimental conditions and up to 955.00 ± 10.90 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g for specific compost application rate-compost combinations). These elevated levels may reflect increased microbial activity resulting from interactions among compost characteristics, the availability of organic substrates in the soil, and environmental conditions favorable for the development of fruit-associated microbial communities.</p>
      <p>In contrast, the lower AMB loads observed under compost CS (57.5 ± 1.58 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g) may be associated with a more advanced degree of compost stabilization or a lower availability of readily degradable organic compounds capable of stimulating microbial activity. Likewise, the relatively low load recorded under the NPK treatment (80.25 ± 1.24 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g) may be explained by the absence of organic matter inputs, thereby limiting the availability of substrates that support the development of fruit-associated microbial communities.</p>
      <p>The observed microbial dynamics are influenced by several factors, including the maximum temperature reached, the duration of the thermophilic phase, aeration, moisture content, the C/N ratio, and the uniformity of turning throughout the composting process [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B24">24</xref>][<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B25">25</xref>]. Properly stabilized composts generally exhibit lower levels of indicator microorganisms while maintaining beneficial microbial communities involved in organic matter mineralization and soil biological functioning [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B26">26</xref>].</p>
      <p>In the present study, AMB loads in sweet pepper fruits varied considerably among fertilization treatments. Under the experiment conducted at a fixed compost application rate of 30 t/ha, AMB loads varied according to planting density and compost type. At 40 × 50 cm, values ranged from 80.25 ± 1.24 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under NPK to 517.50 ± 5.97 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under compost CS. At 50 × 50 cm, loads ranged from 57.50 ± 1.58 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under CS to 496.67 ± 3.39 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under CG, whereas at 50 × 60 cm, the highest value reached 955.00 ± 10.90 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under CG. These variations suggest that planting density alone does not fully explain the observed microbial loads. Rather, microbial development on fruit surfaces may result from interactions between compost characteristics, soil conditions, and the microenvironment created by the crop canopy.</p>
      <p>The effect of compost application rate was evaluated separately at a fixed planting density of 50 × 50 cm. At 20 t/ha, AMB loads ranged from 78.71 ± 1.99 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under NPK to 922.50 ± 5.10 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under compost CB. At 40 t/ha, values ranged from 84.31 ± 4.65 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under NPK to 568.68 ± 31.48 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under compost CG. These results show that increasing the compost application rate did not result in a uniform increase in AMB loads across all compost types. This observation suggests that the microbial response was influenced not only by the quantity of compost applied but also by the intrinsic characteristics of each compost.</p>
      <p>The observed microbial dynamics may be influenced by several factors, including the maximum temperature reached during composting, the duration of the thermophilic phase, aeration, moisture content, C/N ratio, and the effectiveness of turning throughout the composting process [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B24">24</xref>][<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B25">25</xref>]. Properly stabilized composts generally contain reduced levels of fecal indicator microorganisms while maintaining microbial communities involved in organic matter mineralization and soil biological functioning [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B26">26</xref>].</p>
      <p>Total and thermotolerant coliforms also varied among treatments. Under the 20 t/ha treatment at 50 × 50 cm, total coliform loads ranged from 0.36 ± 0.65 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under NPK to 3.93 ± 0.90 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under CBK, while thermotolerant coliforms ranged from 0.31 ± 0.06 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under NPK to 2.47 ± 0.13 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under CS. At 40 t/ha, total coliform loads ranged from 0.57 ± 0.10 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under NPK to 5.75 ± 1.33 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under CB, whereas thermotolerant coliforms ranged from 0.07 ± 0.15 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under NPK to 1.82 ± 0.83 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under CG. These variations indicate differences in the microbial conditions associated with the different compost treatments.</p>
      <p>The residual presence of coliforms after compost maturation may be explained by several mechanisms, including incomplete reduction during the thermophilic phase, environmental recolonization after maturation, or secondary transfer from soil, irrigation water, or plant surfaces. Several studies have shown that coliform populations decline markedly when thermophilic conditions are maintained for a sufficient period, although recolonization by environmental microorganisms may occur after the sanitization phase.</p>
      <p>The fungal flora, represented by yeasts and molds, also varied among treatments. At 20 t/ha, loads ranged from 0.35 ± 0.10 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under CBK to 3.80 ± 0.12 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under CS. At 40 t/ha, values ranged from 0.67 ± 0.23 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under NPK to 2.60 ± 1.40 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under CG. Yeasts and molds are strongly influenced by microclimatic conditions, particularly surface moisture, the availability of carbon-rich substrates, and the characteristics of the phyllosphere [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B14">14</xref>][<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B27">27</xref>]. Sweet pepper fruits may provide favorable conditions for these microorganisms because of their nutrient-rich surfaces and moisture availability. Therefore, the observed variations may result from interactions among compost characteristics, soil properties, and the crop microenvironment [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B28">28</xref>].</p>
      <p>Planting density may also influence the microbial dynamics of fresh produce by modifying air circulation, solar radiation penetration, and the duration of surface wetness. Denser plant canopies can create more humid microclimates that favor microbial persistence, whereas wider spacing may improve air circulation and accelerate tissue drying [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B29">29</xref>]. However, the present results indicate that the relationship between planting density and microbial loads was not systematic across all compost treatments. This suggests that the effect of density may depend on the interaction between crop microclimate and the characteristics of the organic amendment.</p>
      <p>Regarding application rate, increasing the amount of compost applied may modify the availability of organic matter, nutrients, and microorganisms in the soil. However, the effect of application rate depends strongly on the intrinsic quality and maturity of the compost, particularly its microbiological [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B9">9</xref>][<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">19</xref>]. The results obtained at 20 and 40 t/ha under a fixed density of 50 × 50 cm confirm that the response was not uniform among compost types. Consequently, the application rate should not be considered independently of compost origin and quality when assessing the microbiological quality of crops.</p>
      <p>Among the potentially pathogenic microorganisms investigated, coagulase-positive staphylococci showed significant variations among treatments. At 20 t/ha, their loads ranged from 0.18 ± 0.05 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under CBK and 0.18 ± 0.07 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under CB to 3.76 ± 0.21 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under CS. At 40 t/ha, values ranged from 0.50 ± 0.01 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under NPK to 2.78 ± 0.58 × 10<sup>4</sup> CFU/g under CS. The presence of these microorganisms cannot, however, be directly attributed to compost application, since coagulase-positive staphylococci may originate from human or animal sources and can be transferred to fresh produce during agricultural practices, handling, or environmental exposure [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B30">30</xref>].</p>
      <p>The most important finding from a food safety perspective was the consistent absence of <italic>E. coli</italic> at detectable levels (&lt;1 CFU/g) and the absence of <italic>Salmonella</italic>spp. in all analyzed sweet pepper samples. This result suggests that, under the experimental conditions evaluated, the composting process was effective in limiting the transfer of these major enteric microorganisms to the fruits. However, pathogen survival and transfer in agricultural systems depend not only on the initial microbiological quality of compost but also on post-application environmental conditions, including soil moisture, temperature, solar radiation, and the interval between compost application and harvest [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B31">31</xref>]. Therefore, appropriate composting management and good agricultural practices remain essential to maintain the microbiological safety of vegetables produced with faecal sludge-derived composts.</p>
      <p>Overall, the results demonstrate that compost type, planting density, and application rate were associated with variations in the levels of several hygiene and spoilage indicators in sweet pepper fruits. However, these variations were not accompanied by detectable contamination by <italic>E. coli</italic> or <italic>Salmonella</italic>spp. under the conditions evaluated. The findings therefore highlight the importance of controlling composting conditions and monitoring the microbiological quality of both organic amendments and harvested vegetables when promoting the agricultural reuse of faecal sludge-derived composts.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec5">
      <title>5. Conclusions</title>
      <p>Considering all the findings, the faecal sludge-derived composts evaluated after four months of composting showed physicochemical characteristics indicative of satisfactory stabilization and potential for agricultural use. Their microbiological characteristics, particularly the absence of Salmonella spp. and the detection of <italic>E. coli</italic> below the detection limit, also indicated effective reduction of the major enteric microorganisms investigated.</p>
      <p>The application of the different composts resulted in variations in the microbiological quality of sweet pepper fruits, particularly for aerobic mesophilic bacteria, coliforms, yeasts and molds, and coagulase-positive staphylococci. These variations differed according to compost type, planting density, and application rate, indicating that the microbiological response of the crop was influenced by both the characteristics of the composts and the conditions of cultivation.</p>
      <p>However, <italic>E. coli</italic> remained below the detection limit and <italic>Salmonella</italic>spp. was not detected in any of the analyzed fruits, regardless of the fertilization treatment, planting density, or compost application rate. Thus, under the experimental conditions evaluated, the use of properly composted faecal sludge did not result in detectable contamination of sweet pepper fruits by the major enteric pathogens investigated.</p>
      <p>Overall, faecal sludge-derived composts may represent a promising organic alternative to exclusive reliance on mineral fertilizers, provided that they undergo adequate composting and are applied under appropriate agricultural practices. Continued monitoring of compost maturity and microbiological quality remains necessary to ensure the safe and sustainable reuse of these organic amendments in vegetable production.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec6">
      <title>Author Contributions</title>
      <p>Bomassaye Roland TAHO: Data collection, investigation, and original draft preparation; Kouakou Ahossi KONAN: Statistical analysis, data validation, manuscript writing and revision; Kra Athanase KOUASSI: Funding acquisition, supervision, and validation of data and results; N’dri Jacob KOUASSI: Tudy direction, project administration, funding acquisition, supervision, and manuscript writing and revision.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec7">
      <title>Acknowledgements</title>
      <p>The authors sincerely thank all members of the Laboratory for the Improvement of Agricultural Production and the Agro-Valorisation Laboratory at Jean Lorougnon Guédé University for their availability, guidance, advice, and technical support throughout the completion of this work.</p>
      <p>The authors also express their deep gratitude to all colleagues, technicians, field workers, and all individuals who, directly or indirectly, contributed to the successful completion of this study. Their support, cooperation, and valuable advice greatly contributed to the achievement of this work.</p>
      <p>To all these individuals, the authors extend their deepest appreciation and sincere thanks.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <title>References</title>
      <ref id="B1">
        <label>1.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Liu, R.H. (2013) Health-Promoting Components of Fruits and Vegetables in the Diet. <italic>Advances in Nutrition</italic>, 4, 384S-392S. https://doi.org/10.3945/an.112.003517 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3945/an.112.003517</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">23674808</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3945/an.112.003517">https://doi.org/10.3945/an.112.003517</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Liu, R.H.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2013</year>
            <article-title>Health-Promoting Components of Fruits and Vegetables in the Diet</article-title>
            <source>Advances in Nutrition</source>
            <volume>4</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3945/an.112.003517</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">23674808</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B2">
        <label>2.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Maffei, D.F., Batalha, E.Y., Landgraf, M., Schaffner, D.W. and Franco, B.D.G.M. (2016) Microbiology of Organic and Conventionally Grown Fresh Produce. <italic>Brazilian Journal of Microbiology</italic>, 47, 99-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjm.2016.10.006 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.bjm.2016.10.006</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">27825766</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjm.2016.10.006">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjm.2016.10.006</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Maffei, D.F.</string-name>
              <string-name>Batalha, E.Y.</string-name>
              <string-name>Landgraf, M.</string-name>
              <string-name>Schaffner, D.W.</string-name>
              <string-name>Franco, B.D.G.M.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2016</year>
            <article-title>Microbiology of Organic and Conventionally Grown Fresh Produce</article-title>
            <source>Brazilian Journal of Microbiology</source>
            <volume>47</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.bjm.2016.10.006</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">27825766</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B3">
        <label>3.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Slavin, J.L. and Lloyd, B. (2012) Health Benefits of Fruits and Vegetables. <italic>Advances in Nutrition</italic>, 3, 506-516. https://doi.org/10.3945/an.112.002154 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3945/an.112.002154</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">22797986</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3945/an.112.002154">https://doi.org/10.3945/an.112.002154</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Slavin, J.L.</string-name>
              <string-name>Lloyd, B.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2012</year>
            <article-title>Health Benefits of Fruits and Vegetables</article-title>
            <source>Advances in Nutrition</source>
            <volume>3</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3945/an.112.002154</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">22797986</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B4">
        <label>4.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Akande, M.O., Makinde, E.A. and Adetunji, M.T. (2011) Response of Maize and Cowpea Grown Sequentially to Application of Phosphate Rock in the Humid Tropics. <italic>Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis</italic>, 42, 1027-1037. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2011.562584 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/00103624.2011.562584</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2011.562584">https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2011.562584</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Akande, M.O.</string-name>
              <string-name>Makinde, E.A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Adetunji, M.T.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2011</year>
            <article-title>Response of Maize and Cowpea Grown Sequentially to Application of Phosphate Rock in the Humid Tropics</article-title>
            <source>Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis</source>
            <volume>42</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/00103624.2011.562584</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B5">
        <label>5.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="thesis">Bado, B.V. (2002) Rôle des légumineuses sur la fertilité des sols fer-rugineux tropicaux des zones guinéenne et soudanienne du Burkina Faso. Ph.D. Thesis, Département des sols et de Génie Agroalimentaire, Faculté des Sciences de L’agriculture et de L’alimentation, Université Laval, Québec, 197 p.</mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="thesis">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Bado, B.V.</string-name>
              <string-name>Thesis, D</string-name>
              <string-name>Agroalimentaire, F</string-name>
              <string-name>Laval, Q</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2002</year>
            <article-title>Rôle des légumineuses sur la fertilité des sols fer-rugineux tropicaux des zones guinéenne et soudanienne du Burkina Faso</article-title>
            <source>Ph.D. Thesis</source>
            <volume>197</volume>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B6">
        <label>6.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Kiba, D.I., Zongo, N.A., Lompo, F., Jansa, J., Compaore, E., Sedogo, P.M., <italic>et al</italic>. (2012) The Diversity of Fertilization Practices Affects Soil and Crop Quality in Urban Vegetable Sites of Burkina Faso. <italic>European Journal of Agronomy</italic>, 38, 12-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2011.11.012 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.eja.2011.11.012</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2011.11.012">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2011.11.012</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Kiba, D.I.</string-name>
              <string-name>Zongo, N.A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Lompo, F.</string-name>
              <string-name>Jansa, J.</string-name>
              <string-name>Compaore, E.</string-name>
              <string-name>Sedogo, P.M.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2012</year>
            <article-title>The Diversity of Fertilization Practices Affects Soil and Crop Quality in Urban Vegetable Sites of Burkina Faso</article-title>
            <source>European Journal of Agronomy</source>
            <volume>38</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.eja.2011.11.012</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B7">
        <label>7.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Pale, S., Barro, A., Koumbem, M., Sere, A. and Traore, H. (2021) Effets du travail du sol et de la fertilisation organo-minérale sur les rendements du mil en zone soudano-sahélienne du Burkina Faso. <italic>International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences</italic>, 15, 497-510. https://doi.org/10.4314/ijbcs.v15i2.10 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4314/ijbcs.v15i2.10</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.4314/ijbcs.v15i2.10">https://doi.org/10.4314/ijbcs.v15i2.10</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Pale, S.</string-name>
              <string-name>Barro, A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Koumbem, M.</string-name>
              <string-name>Sere, A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Traore, H.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2021</year>
            <article-title>Effets du travail du sol et de la fertilisation organo-minérale sur les rendements du mil en zone soudano-sahélienne du Burkina Faso</article-title>
            <source>International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences</source>
            <volume>15</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4314/ijbcs.v15i2.10</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B8">
        <label>8.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Yannick, U.S., Louis, B.L., Luciens, N.K. and Mubemba, M. (2012) Effets des apports combinés de biodéchets et de fertilisants inorganiques sur le rendement de trois variétés de <italic>Zea mays</italic> L. cultivées dans la région de Lubumbashi. <italic>Journal of Applied Biosciences</italic>, <italic>54</italic>, 3935-3943.</mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Yannick, U.S.</string-name>
              <string-name>Louis, B.L.</string-name>
              <string-name>Luciens, N.K.</string-name>
              <string-name>Mubemba, M.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2012</year>
            <article-title>Effets des apports combinés de biodéchets et de fertilisants inorganiques sur le rendement de trois variétés de Zea mays L</article-title>
            <source>cultivées dans la région de Lubumbashi. Journal of Applied Biosciences</source>
            <volume>54</volume>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B9">
        <label>9.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Sidhu, J. and Toze, S. (2009) Human Pathogens and Their Indicators in Biosolids: A Literature Review. <italic>Environment International</italic>, 35, 187-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2008.07.006 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.envint.2008.07.006</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">18790538</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2008.07.006">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2008.07.006</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Sidhu, J.</string-name>
              <string-name>Toze, S.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2009</year>
            <article-title>Human Pathogens and Their Indicators in Biosolids: A Literature Review</article-title>
            <source>Environment International</source>
            <volume>35</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.envint.2008.07.006</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">18790538</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B10">
        <label>10.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Deepa, N., Kaur, C., George, B., Singh, B. and Kapoor, H.C. (2007) Constituants anti-oxydants de certains génotypes de poivron doux ( <italic>Capsicum annuum</italic> L.) au cours de leur maturation. <italic>LWT</italic>- <italic>Food Science and Technology</italic>, 40, 121-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2005.09.016 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.lwt.2005.09.016</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2005.09.016">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2005.09.016</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Deepa, N.</string-name>
              <string-name>Kaur, C.</string-name>
              <string-name>George, B.</string-name>
              <string-name>Singh, B.</string-name>
              <string-name>Kapoor, H.C.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2007</year>
            <article-title>Constituants anti-oxydants de certains génotypes de poivron doux (Capsicum annuum L</article-title>
            <source>) au cours de leur maturation. LWT-Food Science and Technology</source>
            <volume>40</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.lwt.2005.09.016</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B11">
        <label>11.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Hornero‐Méndez, D., Pérez‐Gálvez, A. and Mínguez‐Mosquera, M.I. (2001) A Rapid Spectrophotometric Method for the Determination of Peroxide Value in Food Lipids with High Carotenoid Content. <italic>Journal of the American Oil Chemists</italic>’ <italic>Society</italic>, 78, 1151-1155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11746-001-0404-y <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s11746-001-0404-y</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11746-001-0404-y">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11746-001-0404-y</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Mosquera, M.I.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2001</year>
            <article-title>A Rapid Spectrophotometric Method for the Determination of Peroxide Value in Food Lipids with High Carotenoid Content</article-title>
            <source>Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society</source>
            <volume>78</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s11746-001-0404-y</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B12">
        <label>12.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Sun, T., Xu, Z., Wu, C.‐T., Janes, M., Prinyawiwatkul, W. and No, H.K. (2007) Antioxidant Activities of Different Colored Sweet Bell Peppers ( <italic>Capsicum annuum</italic> L.). <italic>Journal of Food Science</italic>, 72, S98-S102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2006.00245.x <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/j.1750-3841.2006.00245.x</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">17995862</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2006.00245.x">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2006.00245.x</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Sun, T.</string-name>
              <string-name>Xu, Z.</string-name>
              <string-name>Wu, C.</string-name>
              <string-name>Janes, M.</string-name>
              <string-name>Prinyawiwatkul, W.</string-name>
              <string-name>No, H.K.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2007</year>
            <article-title>Antioxidant Activities of Different Colored Sweet Bell Peppers (Capsicum annuum L</article-title>
            <source>). Journal of Food Science</source>
            <volume>72</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/j.1750-3841.2006.00245.x</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">17995862</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B13">
        <label>13.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Olaimat, A.N. and Holley, R.A. (2012) Factors Influencing the Microbial Safety of Fresh Produce: A Review. <italic>Food Microbiology</italic>, 32, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2012.04.016 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.fm.2012.04.016</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">22850369</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2012.04.016">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2012.04.016</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Olaimat, A.N.</string-name>
              <string-name>Holley, R.A.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2012</year>
            <article-title>Factors Influencing the Microbial Safety of Fresh Produce: A Review</article-title>
            <source>Food Microbiology</source>
            <volume>32</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.fm.2012.04.016</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">22850369</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B14">
        <label>14.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Brandl, M.T. (2006) Fitness of Human Enteric Pathogens on Plants and Implications for Food Safety. <italic>Annual Review of Phytopathology</italic>, 44, 367-392. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.phyto.44.070505.143359 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1146/annurev.phyto.44.070505.143359</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">16704355</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.phyto.44.070505.143359">https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.phyto.44.070505.143359</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Brandl, M.T.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2006</year>
            <article-title>Fitness of Human Enteric Pathogens on Plants and Implications for Food Safety</article-title>
            <source>Annual Review of Phytopathology</source>
            <volume>44</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1146/annurev.phyto.44.070505.143359</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">16704355</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B15">
        <label>15.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Islam, M., Morgan, J., Doyle, M.P., Phatak, S.C., Millner, P. and Jiang, X. (2004) Persistence of <italic>salmonella Enterica</italic> Serovar Typhimurium on Lettuce and Parsley and in Soils on Which They Were Grown in Fields Treated with Contaminated Manure Composts or Irrigation Water. <italic>Foodborne Pathogens and Disease</italic>, 1, 27-35. https://doi.org/10.1089/153531404772914437 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1089/153531404772914437</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">15992259</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1089/153531404772914437">https://doi.org/10.1089/153531404772914437</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Islam, M.</string-name>
              <string-name>Morgan, J.</string-name>
              <string-name>Doyle, M.P.</string-name>
              <string-name>Phatak, S.C.</string-name>
              <string-name>Millner, P.</string-name>
              <string-name>Jiang, X.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2004</year>
            <article-title>Persistence of salmonella Enterica Serovar Typhimurium on Lettuce and Parsley and in Soils on Which They Were Grown in Fields Treated with Contaminated Manure Composts or Irrigation Water</article-title>
            <source>Foodborne Pathogens and Disease</source>
            <volume>1</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1089/153531404772914437</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">15992259</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B16">
        <label>16.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="web">Guellaadem, B. (2024) Étude comparative de la composition et de la charge polluante des eaux usées résidentielles et des eaux usées des établissements publics de Santé de Proximité (Ghardaïa). University ghardaia. https://dspace.univ-ghardaia.edu.dz/xmlui/handle/123456789/8205</mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="web">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Guellaadem, B.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2024</year>
            <article-title>Étude comparative de la composition et de la charge polluante des eaux usées résidentielles et des eaux usées des établissements publics de Santé de Proximité (Ghardaïa)</article-title>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B17">
        <label>17.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Bernal, M.P., Alburquerque, J.A. and Moral, R. (2009) Composting of Animal Manures and Chemical Criteria for Compost Maturity Assessment. A Review. <italic>Bioresource Technology</italic>, 100, 5444-5453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.11.027 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.biortech.2008.11.027</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19119002</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.11.027">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.11.027</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Bernal, M.P.</string-name>
              <string-name>Alburquerque, J.A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Moral, R.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2009</year>
            <article-title>Composting of Animal Manures and Chemical Criteria for Compost Maturity Assessment</article-title>
            <source>A Review. Bioresource Technology</source>
            <volume>100</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.biortech.2008.11.027</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19119002</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B18">
        <label>18.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Cofie, O., Kone, D., Rothenberger, S., Moser, D. and Zubruegg, C. (2009) Co-Composting of Faecal Sludge and Organic Solid Waste for Agriculture: Process Dynamics. <italic>Water Research</italic>, 43, 4665-4675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2009.07.021 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.watres.2009.07.021</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19660779</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2009.07.021">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2009.07.021</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Cofie, O.</string-name>
              <string-name>Kone, D.</string-name>
              <string-name>Rothenberger, S.</string-name>
              <string-name>Moser, D.</string-name>
              <string-name>Zubruegg, C.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2009</year>
            <article-title>Co-Composting of Faecal Sludge and Organic Solid Waste for Agriculture: Process Dynamics</article-title>
            <source>Water Research</source>
            <volume>43</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.watres.2009.07.021</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19660779</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B19">
        <label>19.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Noble, R. and Roberts, S.J. (2004) Eradication of Plant Pathogens and Nematodes during Composting: A Review. <italic>Plant Pathology</italic>, 53, 548-568. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0032-0862.2004.01059.x <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/j.0032-0862.2004.01059.x</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0032-0862.2004.01059.x">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0032-0862.2004.01059.x</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Noble, R.</string-name>
              <string-name>Roberts, S.J.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2004</year>
            <article-title>Eradication of Plant Pathogens and Nematodes during Composting: A Review</article-title>
            <source>Plant Pathology</source>
            <volume>53</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/j.0032-0862.2004.01059.x</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B20">
        <label>20.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">da Silva, Y.J.A.B., do Nascimento, C.W.A. and Biondi, C.M. (2014) Comparison of USEPA Digestion Methods to Heavy Metals in Soil Samples. <italic>Environmental Monitoring and Assessment</italic>, 186, 47-53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-013-3354-5 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s10661-013-3354-5</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">23887889</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-013-3354-5">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-013-3354-5</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Silva, Y.J.A.B.</string-name>
              <string-name>Nascimento, C.W.A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Biondi, C.M.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2014</year>
            <article-title>Comparison of USEPA Digestion Methods to Heavy Metals in Soil Samples</article-title>
            <source>Environmental Monitoring and Assessment</source>
            <volume>186</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s10661-013-3354-5</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">23887889</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B21">
        <label>21.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Manga, M., Camargo-Valero, M.A., Anthonj, C. and Evans, B.E. (2021) Fate of Faecal Pathogen Indicators during Faecal Sludge Composting with Different Bulking Agents in Tropical Climate. <italic>International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health</italic>, 232, Article 113670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2020.113670 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.ijheh.2020.113670</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">33310349</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2020.113670">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2020.113670</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Manga, M.</string-name>
              <string-name>Camargo-Valero, M.A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Anthonj, C.</string-name>
              <string-name>Evans, B.E.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2021</year>
            <article-title>Fate of Faecal Pathogen Indicators during Faecal Sludge Composting with Different Bulking Agents in Tropical Climate</article-title>
            <source>International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health</source>
            <volume>232</volume>
            <elocation-id>113670</elocation-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.ijheh.2020.113670</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">33310349</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B22">
        <label>22.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Obrist, D., Faïn, X. and Berger, C. (2010) Émissions de mercure élémentaire gazeux et taux de respiration du CO <sub>2</sub> dans les sols terrestres dans des conditions de la-boratoire aérobies et anaérobies contrôlées. <italic>Science of the Total Environment</italic>, 408, 1691-1700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.12.008 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.12.008</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">20071007</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.12.008">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.12.008</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Obrist, D.</string-name>
              <string-name>Berger, C.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2010</year>
            <article-title>Émissions de mercure élémentaire gazeux et taux de respiration du CO2 dans les sols terrestres dans des conditions de la-boratoire aérobies et anaérobies contrôlées</article-title>
            <source>Science of the Total Environment</source>
            <volume>408</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.12.008</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">20071007</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B23">
        <label>23.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="web">Novinscak, A. (2007) Caractérisation des communautés microbiennes associées au com-postage de biosolides et des risques potentiels pour l’environnement et la santé humaine. Université de Moncton. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14658/6923</mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="web">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Novinscak, A.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2007</year>
            <article-title>Caractérisation des communautés microbiennes associées au com-postage de biosolides et des risques potentiels pour l’environnement et la santé humaine</article-title>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B24">
        <label>24.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Eftoda, G. and McCartney, D. (2004) Determining the Critical Bulking Agent Requirement for Municipal Biosolids Composting. <italic>Compost Science &amp; Utilization</italic>, 12, 208-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/1065657x.2004.10702185 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/1065657x.2004.10702185</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/1065657x.2004.10702185">https://doi.org/10.1080/1065657x.2004.10702185</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Eftoda, G.</string-name>
              <string-name>McCartney, D.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2004</year>
            <article-title>Determining the Critical Bulking Agent Requirement for Municipal Biosolids Composting</article-title>
            <source>Compost Science &amp; Utilization</source>
            <volume>12</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/1065657x.2004.10702185</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B25">
        <label>25.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Tremier, A., de Guardia, A., Massiani, C., Paul, E. and Martel, J.L. (2005) A Respirometric Method for Characterising the Organic Composition and Biodegradation Kinetics and the Temperature Influence on the Biodegradation Kinetics, for a Mixture of Sludge and Bulking Agent to Be Co-Composted. <italic>Bioresource Technology</italic>, 96, 169-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2004.05.005 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.biortech.2004.05.005</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">15381213</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2004.05.005">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2004.05.005</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Tremier, A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Guardia, A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Massiani, C.</string-name>
              <string-name>Paul, E.</string-name>
              <string-name>Martel, J.L.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2005</year>
            <article-title>A Respirometric Method for Characterising the Organic Composition and Biodegradation Kinetics and the Temperature Influence on the Biodegradation Kinetics, for a Mixture of Sludge and Bulking Agent to Be Co-Composted</article-title>
            <source>Bioresource Technology</source>
            <volume>96</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.biortech.2004.05.005</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">15381213</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B26">
        <label>26.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="thesis">Annabi, M. (2005) Stabilisation de la structure d’un sol limoneux par des apports de composts d’origine urbaine: Relation avec les caractéristiques de leur matière organique. PH.D. Thesis, INAPG (AgroParisTech). https://pastel.hal.science/pastel-00001588</mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="thesis">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Annabi, M.</string-name>
              <string-name>Thesis, I</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2005</year>
            <article-title>Stabilisation de la structure d’un sol limoneux par des apports de composts d’origine urbaine: Relation avec les caractéristiques de leur matière organique</article-title>
            <source>PH.D. Thesis</source>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B27">
        <label>27.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="thesis">Derguine-Mecheri, L. (2019) Production et caractérisation des biosurfactants par des levures et des moisissures. Ph.D. Thesis, Universite Mouloud MAMMERI Tizi-Ouzou. https://dspace.ummto.dz/items/ce30ceee-8fd0-4259-9ce8-d1dda11a9e26</mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="thesis">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Derguine-Mecheri, L.</string-name>
              <string-name>Thesis, U</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2019</year>
            <article-title>Production et caractérisation des biosurfactants par des levures et des moisissures</article-title>
            <source>Ph.D. Thesis</source>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B28">
        <label>28.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Sihem, A. (2021) Caractéristiques chimiques et biologiques ( <italic>Champignons mi-croscopiques</italic>) d’un sol agricole irrigué avec des eaux usées épurées et amendé avec des boues de station d’épuration, cas d’un vignoble dans la wilaya de Boumerdes. Université Mouloud Mammeri.</mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Sihem, A.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2021</year>
            <article-title>Caractéristiques chimiques et biologiques (Champignons mi-croscopiques) d’un sol agricole irrigué avec des eaux usées épurées et amendé avec des boues de station d’épuration, cas d’un vignoble dans la wilaya de Boumerdes</article-title>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B29">
        <label>29.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Berger, C., Schulze, M., Rieke‐Zapp, D. and Schlunegger, F. (2010) Rill Development and Soil Erosion: A Laboratory Study of Slope and Rainfall Intensity. <italic>Earth Surface Processes and Landforms</italic>, 35, 1456-1467. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1989 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1002/esp.1989</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1989">https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1989</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Berger, C.</string-name>
              <string-name>Schulze, M.</string-name>
              <string-name>Zapp, D.</string-name>
              <string-name>Schlunegger, F.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2010</year>
            <article-title>Rill Development and Soil Erosion: A Laboratory Study of Slope and Rainfall Intensity</article-title>
            <source>Earth Surface Processes and Landforms</source>
            <volume>35</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1002/esp.1989</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B30">
        <label>30.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Argudín, M.Á., Mendoza, M.C. and Rodicio, M.R. (2010) Food Poisoning and Staphylococcus Aureus Enterotoxins. <italic>Toxins</italic>, 2, 1751-1773. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins2071751 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/toxins2071751</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">22069659</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins2071751">https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins2071751</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Mendoza, M.C.</string-name>
              <string-name>Rodicio, M.R.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2010</year>
            <article-title>Food Poisoning and Staphylococcus Aureus Enterotoxins</article-title>
            <source>Toxins</source>
            <volume>2</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/toxins2071751</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">22069659</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B31">
        <label>31.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Franz, E. and van Bruggen, A.H.C. (2008) Ecology of <italic>e. Coli</italic> O157:H7 and <italic>Salmonella enterica</italic> in the Primary Vegetable Production Chain. <italic>Critical Reviews in Microbiology</italic>, 34, 143-161. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408410802357432 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/10408410802357432</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">18728991</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10408410802357432">https://doi.org/10.1080/10408410802357432</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Franz, E.</string-name>
              <string-name>Bruggen, A.H.C.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2008</year>
            <article-title>Ecology of e</article-title>
            <source>Coli O157:H7 and Salmonella enterica in the Primary Vegetable Production Chain. Critical Reviews in Microbiology</source>
            <volume>34</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/10408410802357432</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">18728991</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>