literature review on sewage sludge

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Sanitary and environmental aspects of sewage sludge management

Currently, sewage sludge management is a huge challenge in the field of environmental engineering. New effective solutions for the treatment of wastewater led to an improvement of the quality of the final effluent but considerably increased the volume of produced sewage sludge, which increases each year. Two points of view conflict regarding the recycling of those “wastes.” Primarily, dehydrated sewage sludge is considered a reservoir of nutrients and organic matter that can be used as a fertilizer in agriculture or as an organic amendment in the remediation of contaminated sites or to build “anthroposoils.” On the other hand, recycled sewage sludge is seen as a potential source of soil contamination by organic and inorganic pollutants and pathogens; potentially toxic elements (such as zinc, copper, cadmium, lead, silver, etc.); polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH); polychlorobiphenyls (PCB); biocides and phytopharmaceuticals; pharmaceuticals, personal care products (PPCP), and residuals; synthetic hormones; microplastics; nanotechnology life cycle end products; and microorganisms such as Escherichia coli O157:H7 or Salmonella typhimurium .

This chapter will focus on these aspects, highlighting the health and ecotoxicological risks associated with the presence of such contaminants in sludge. The environmental dangers of sludge spreading on soils will be presented as well as their possible treatment scenarios to propose an acceptable reuse of sewage sludge in a circular economy.

1. Introduction

Globally, 80% of wastewater is discharged untreated into the world's waterways ( Opec, 2018 ). Failure to treat effluents constitutes a serious threat to the environment, the climate, and human health, but this can also be considered a waste of resources. According to the goals of sustainable development and a circular economy, the wastewater shall be considered primarily as a source of water, then energy, organics, metals, and other resources. Consequently, sewage sludge is recognized as a source of renewable energy and material recovery ( Christodoulou and Stamatelatou, 2016 ). Thus, no longer considered a “waste,” it became a byproduct to be posttreated in order to be recycled into nature as energy, matter, or both. Sewage sludge is a reservoir of organic matter and nutrients, so it constitutes a potential substrate for a variety of possible reuse scenarios. Therefore, all potentially applied strategies shall fulfill the requirements of ecoinnovation. Thus, they shall lead to an important reduction of the negative environmental impacts by decreasing the consumption of natural resources or the release of harmful substances ( Rorat and Kacprzak, 2017 ). Consequently, contemporary trends in organic waste treatment follow the sustainable development strategy in terms of environmental, economic, and social impacts. The composition of sewage sludge is highly variable and may depend on many various factors such as the seasons, the technology applied in wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), the specificity of the source area of the influent, etc. On average, dewatered sewage sludge contains 50%–70% organic matter and 30%–50% mineral components (including 1%–4% of inorganic carbon), 3.4%–4.0% nitrogen (N), 0.5%–2.5% phosphorus (P), and significant amounts of other nutrients, including micronutrients that could be recovered. For instance, extractable resources such as phosphorus (P) are predicted to become scarce or exhausted in the next 50–100 years, thus P recovery from wastewater is becoming an increasingly viable alternative ( Connor et al., 2017 ). Nevertheless, a relatively low content of lignin and cellulose makes the organic matter easy to decompose. Hence, it degrades fast and can cause a sharp peak in the nitrate and pollutant concentration in the soil if applied without pretreatment. The biggest challenge, though, is seen in the contaminants, (1) organic (such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), adsorbable organohalogens (AOX), pesticides, surfactants, hormones, pharmaceuticals) and (2) inorganic (metals and their nanoparticles), and (3) pathogenic species of living organisms for example, bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and parasitic helminths (see review by Fijalkowski et al., 2017 ).

In this context, this chapter focuses on the sanitary and environmental dangers of the presence of the above-mentioned contaminants in sludge. The environmental risks of sludge spreading on soils will be presented as well as their possible treatment scenarios to propose an acceptable reuse of sewage sludge in a circular economy.

2. The global production of sewage sludge and the main directions of its management

At the European scale, the 91/271/ECC urban wastewater treatment directive adopted in May 1991 imposed the collection and treatment of wastewater in agglomerations with a population equivalent (PE) of more than 2000. Consequently, the substantial and constant increase of wastewater sludge and its disposal are becoming a growing challenge for municipalities in Europe. The annual sludge production in EU-27 will grow from 11.5 million tons of dry solids (DS) in 2010 to 13 million tons DS in 2020 ( EC, 2008 ).

Table 1 shows the more recent data considering the production and disposal of sewage sludge for selected countries, according to OECD. While legislation more or less compels European countries to improve their sewage sludge management policies, many poor and developing countries are still studying possible wastewater treatment practices. For instance, the Federated States of Micronesia dumped almost 30% of produced sludge into the Pacific Ocean without any pretreatment in 2012 ( Rouse, 2013 ).

Sewage sludge production and disposal in selected countries in 2012

n.d. , no data.

The global population exceeded 7.5 billion this year and is expected to surpass 9 billion by 2050. Urban populations may rise nearly twice as fast as they are projected to nearly double from 3.4 billion in 2012 to 6.4 billion by 2050, especially in developing countries, where the number of people living in slums may rise even faster, from 1 billion to 1.4 billion in just a decade ( Matiasi, 2012 ).

2.1. Sewage sludge as a substrate—Characteristics

The composition of sewage sludge is highly changeable during the process and also varies a lot between wastewater treatment facilities. Typically, raw (untreated) sewage sludge contains 2.0%–8.0% total dry solids (TS), 60%–80% of TS of volatile solids (VS), grease and fats, proteins, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, cellulose, iron, silica, alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3), and organic acids (mg/L as Hac) ( Metcalf and Eddy, 1991 ).

The potential danger of using raw sewage sludge (not stabilized, only mechanically treated) for the sewage-to-matter final disposal strategies is huge due to the presence of pathogenic organisms and other contaminants. Therefore, some stabilization processes shall be applied at the WWTPs. The choice of applied technology depends strongly on the characteristics of raw sludge. Some parameters are crucial for the processes of stabilization, for example, pH, organic acid content, and alkalinity limit the anaerobic digestion process ( Metcalf et al., 2013 ) while pH, ammonia, and other parameters are important for the composting and vermicomposting processes ( Suleiman et al., 2017 ).

Fig. 1 presents the most typical pathways of sewage sludge treatment, including the processes at the WWTPs (thickening/stabilization/dewatering) and final disposal strategies. After thickening, sludge stabilization is usually performed. It is crucial for the further applications and aims primarily to reduce the potential risks by lowering the number of pathogens in organic matters. Two types of stabilization of liquid sewage sludge shall be distinguished:

• 1) Chemical stabilization by the addition of lime to alter the value of the pH to > 11; eliminates the microbiological risk.
• 2) Biological stabilization, meaning anaerobic or aerobic digestion. Aerobic digestion is a process of treating the secondary sludge from the biological wastewater treatment process as activated sludge or trickling filters; anaerobic digestion can be conducted in low (< 10%) as well as medium (15%–20%) and high 22%–40% solid anaerobic digestion systems; this technology is described in detail in the next section.

Typical sewage sludge treatment process including processes at wastewater treatment plants (thickening/stabilization/dewatering) and the most common final disposal strategies applied worldwide.

After stabilization, the sludge shall be dewatered. Usually, this process is carried out using filter presses or centrifuges. As proper dewatering is crucial for the further disposal of sewage sludge, often an additional step of conditioning is required. The conditioners, synthetic organic polymers, or metal ions (typically iron salts) are used in order to coagulate the colloids in sludge and thus fasten the dewatering process ( Novak, 2006 ). Only an efficient stage of water removal allows applying efficiently the selected techniques of final treatment and disposal of sewage sludge.

2.2. Sewage sludge final treatment and disposal

The main directions for sustainable sewage sludge management are:

• a) Matter recovery (sewage-to-matter): use in agriculture (directly as a fertilizer) and remediation of devastated or degraded lands.
• b) Energy recovery (sewage-to-energy) by incineration and alternate thermal methods as pyrolysis, quasipyrolysis and gasification or coincineration (in cement plants). Wastewater contains a chemical energy that shall be converted to the usable form and thus fulfill a part of the worldwide need for renewable energy sources ( Puyol et al., 2016 ). Different technologies can be used to transfer the excess sewage sludge into energy. This strategy has lately been of great interest. Primarily, it allows using the potential of sewage sludge without the environmental risks often discussed for land applications that could introduce contaminants into the soil. Moreover, it responds to a global call for renewable energy sources.
• c) Others, such as landfilling or dumping at sea, which are forbidden by most countries but still practiced in some parts of the world, mostly in developing countries.

2.2.1. Anaerobic digestion

At first recognized mainly as a process of the stabilization of sewage sludge with the main aim of pathogen bacteria removal, now anaerobic digestion (AD) is often considered as a technically mature and cost-effective process that converts sludge into biogas ( Cao and Pawłowski, 2012 ). The produced biogas can be used for the self-purposes of WWTPs that are characterized by a high demand for electricity, up to 0.78 kWh per m 3 of treated wastewater ( Cano et al., 2015 ). Ideally, the process of anaerobic digestion shall fulfill this high demand. In order to increase efficiency and thus biogas yields, it was proposed to introduce the other ingredients in the so-called codigestion. For instance, Grosser (2018) used grease trap sludge and an organic fraction of municipal waste as cosubstrates in the process, which enhanced the efficiency of sewage sludge anaerobic digestion. Similarly, other organic wastes have been tested with success, for example, food waste, cheese whey, and olive mill wastewater ( Maragkaki et al., 2018 ). Thus, codigestion of sewage sludge can be understood as a method of management of different organic wastes. Nevertheless, it cannot be fully seen as a final disposal of sludge, as it generates another byproduct, digested sludge (digestate), that still contains a high quantity of nutrients and contaminants and must be treated. It was proven that the utilization of digestates may replace or reduce the use of mineral fertilizer in agronomic plant production, as it is rich in plant-available nutrients (ammonium, phosphate, and potassium) ( Sogn et al., 2018 ). Yet, in-land use as a biofertilizer is possible only if the product can be qualified according to applicable norms, usually regulated by soil protection legislation, fertilizer, or waste legislation. Otherwise, other options shall be considered. Lately, Peng et al. (2018) proposed using the digestate in landfill bioreactors in order to remove the nitrogen of old landfill leachate. Digestate was also successfully applied with other organic wastes as the organic fraction of municipal wastes, sawdust, and green wastes in the process of vermicomposting ( Rorat et al., 2017 ). As the chemical composition of digestate corresponds to the composition of the used substrates, the long-term effects of its introduction to the soil shall be studied in order to appreciate the impact on soil functions (soil biodiversity and microbial cycles). The existing studies focus mainly on the fertilizer properties of the digestates produced from different substrates. According to Nkoa (2014) , the most common risks associated with the application of digestate in land are related to:

• a) Risks of atmospheric pollution (ammonia emission and fallout, nitrous oxide emission).
• b) Risks of nutrient pollution (excess nitrogen and phosphorus).
• c) Risk of soil contamination (chemical/biological contamination).

2.2.2. Composting and vermicomposting

Composting as a method of biological decomposition of biowastes in the presence of oxygen contributes powerfully to the recycling and conservation of several macro- and micronutrients from sewage sludge in the soil. Its alternative, vermicomposting, is a modern, inexpensive, and eco-friendly biotechnology in which earthworms are employed as natural bioreactors in order to decompose the organic matter ( Suleiman et al., 2017 ). Their metabolic activity and cooperation with microorganisms lead to a 40%–60% reduction of volume, an increase of bioavailability of nutrients to plants, a reduction in the C/N ratio, and a decrease of the availability of some dangerous contaminants such as metals ( Rorat et al., 2015 ). Although composting can be considered highly beneficial and a low cost sewage-to-matter strategy that allows recycling organic nutrients into the ecosystem, it still causes some important problems from an environmental point of view. Due to the rapid degradation of nitrogenous organic matter, important nitrogen losses and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can be noted ( Sánchez-Monedero et al., 2010 ). Those effects can be partially reduced by the introduction of different bulking agents, for example, agricultural wastes and alkaline amendments such as lime, zeolite, and bentonite. Recently, biochar has also been considered an efficient agent causing a reduction of greenhouse gases, ammonia, and extractable ammonia emissions ( Malińska et al., 2014 ; Awasthi et al., 2016 ). Although these effects can be partially eliminated, researchers are concerned about the input of potentially toxic metal elements and therefore their possible accumulation for several in the soil horizon ( Fang et al., 2017 ). The same type of risk is related to the presence of other chemical compounds and pharmaceuticals as well as some pathogens that can survive the process.

2.2.3. Thermal processes

All thermal processes are considered sludge-to-energy systems that lead to the complete oxidation of the volatile matter with production of a residue (ash). Generally, the most famous technologies are incineration, gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma gasification. Combustion and/or incineration are considered the most attractive disposal methods for sewage sludge in Europe ( EC, 2008 ), as they replace potentially dangerous landfilling and agricultural strategies. This also allows largely reducing the volume of sewage sludge to destroy the microbiological danger, minimize the odors, and simultaneously recover the renewable energy. Three main variants of this process are used: incineration in dedicated plants, coincineration with municipal solid wastes, and incineration in cement kilns. The environmental cost related to those systems is mostly related to the high energy consumption and production of harmful gaseous emissions (i.e., dioxins and furans) ( Garrido-Baserba et al., 2015 ). Moreover, the ashes coming from the process can be considered a concentrated pollutant that accumulates chemical contaminants. The interesting alternative for ash disposal is a cement replacement. After incineration, sewage sludge is still rich in silica, alumina, calcium oxide, and iron oxide, so it can be used in the production of building materials. Moreover, in this form, metals are stabilized and solidified, so the potential risk is reduced ( Samolada and Zabaniotou, 2014 ).

Pyrolysis is being recognized as a relatively expensive but highly effective technology. Basically, the process converts the organic matter into bioenergy (oil/gas) with a byproduct in the form of so-called biochar. Thus, pyrolysis allows yielding a major bio-oil fraction potentially useful as a fuel or as a source of chemical products. Generally, pyrolysis and similar processes of combustion of sewage sludge are regarded as endothermic. Nevertheless, Atienza-Martínez et al. (2018) have shown lately that the necessity of pretreatment of this substrate (dehydration) moves it more to the exothermic processes, although it is still the most cost-consuming throughout the scenario. Thus, improvement of the steps allowing water removal is crucial for the future potential of the process. Independently, numerous studies have shown many advantages of using biochar for environmental management. For instance, it can be applied for soil improvement, to improve the efficiency of the resources, for remediation and/or protection of lands, and future greenhouse gas mitigation ( Joseph and Lehmann, 2015 ). In general, biochar can thus be defined as a solid, carbon-rich material obtained in the process of zero or low oxygen pyrolysis from different C-based feedstocks, which, applied to the soils, sustainably sequesters carbon and thus improves soil quality in the long term ( Verheijen et al., 2010 ).

As far as the process of combustion eliminates the microbiological risk related to the land application of sewage sludge, still some questions considering chemical pollutants are being posed. These need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, not only with concern to the biochar product itself but also to soil type and environmental conditions ( Verheijen et al., 2010 ). Nevertheless, lately it has been recognized that the addition of activated carbon or biochar to sewage sludge immobilizes the bioavailable fractions of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and metal elements ( Kończak and Oleszczuk, 2018 ). Moreover, Frišták and Soja (2015) recognized that the addition of biochar produced from wood chips and garden residues into the sewage sludge and its application as soil amendments have increased the content of available forms of phosphorus. The positive effects of the addition of sewage sludge-derived biochar were also observed during the process of vermicomposting of sewage sludge, where it significantly reduced the bioavailability of Cd and Zn for Eisenia fetida earthworms ( Malińska et al., 2017 ).

3. Sewage sludge as sources and drive pathways for contaminants

Considering all valuable resources present in sewage sludge (organic matter, plant culture available nutrients), many countries recognized this byproduct as a potential substrate for fertilization in agriculture or remediation of polluted areas. Nevertheless, sewage sludge applications on agricultural land might contribute to the dispersal of a broad range of unwanted constituents on soils possibly used for food production. Such undesirable contaminants (potentially toxic elements (PTE) such as metals, trace organic compounds (TrOC), and pathogenic organisms) may pose sanitary and environmental risks ( Andreoli et al., 2017 ). Toxic pollutants in sewage sludge could even, in some cases, increase preexisting environmental problems and lead to secondary environmental contaminants and poisonings if not properly managed.

As a reflection of our chemical-based consumer society, our wastewater and sewage sludge mirror compounds we use, produce, release, and discharge. Sludge composition, its agronomic interests, and contaminations may so differ greatly. Such parameters depend on the wastewater origins (agricultural, industrial areas or urban), the local household and consumer habits, the sewer collection (separation or not for wastewater and runoff), the regional environmental regulations, the season and obviously of the size and the process used by the considered WWTP.

3.1. Chemical contaminants in sludge

The environmental risk of sludge contaminants and their concentrations in soil after land application is dependent on their initial concentrations (in both soils and sludge) and the application rate (cumulative effects), management practices, and losses. Therefore, volatile and easily degradable contaminants may still pose environmental risks in the case of high initial concentrations and repeated applications ( Harrison et al., 2006 ).

There are two environmental and public health issues involved with the use or disposal of WWTP biosolids: potentially toxic elements (PTEs) and organic contaminants (OCs), chiefly persistent chemicals. Concerns relate to potential trophic transfers (via cultivated plants) and possible contamination of groundwater. PTE is a common general term that includes metal elements, formerly known as “heavy metals” or “metal trace elements.” They are naturally present in soils and the current concerns come more from anthropogenic soil contamination by these elements through the use of fertilizers (including sludge, slurries, and manures), pesticides, and poor waste management. They classically comprise the following metals and metalloids: arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni), and zinc (Zn). Potential environmental risks associated with these PTEs in the context of sludge land applications have been extensively studied and environmental guidelines and regulations defined. For several OCs, such a regulatory framework exists as for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and several persistent organic pollutants (POPs, such as PCBs, dioxins, and related compounds (PCDD/F)). The list and limit values for concentrations of metal elements and OCs that should restrict the use of sewage sludge in agriculture have been updated recently in Europe ( EC, 2000 ). They have suggested the regulation of linear alkylbenzene sulfonates (LAS; extensively used as surfactants), Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), nonylphenol and nonylphenol ethoxylates (NP(E)), halogenated organic compounds (i.e., adsorbable organic halides (AOX)), PAH, PCBs, and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzo-furans (PCDD/F). Studies on sludge contaminants started in the 1970s. Most of the chemicals we use in our everyday lives and those with industrial applications are likely to end their lifecycle in biosolids, not to mention byproducts of human activities. We could only exclude highly volatile products and those that are rapidly degraded. In addition to the OCs in urban wastewaters, surface run-off of atmospheric-deposited environmental contaminants onto artificialized areas (concreted and paved, consequently impervious) contribute to the accumulation in sewage sludge of lipophilic compounds that tend to adsorb to solid particles. This situation is like that of sediments in aquatic ecosystems. It is the nonpolar and some persistent compounds that could represent an environmental risk with sludge recycling. One of the most concrete examples may be that of surfactants such as LAS (little worrying, even considering present uses but above all realized risk assessments, ( Schowanek et al., 2007 )) and more worrisome fluorosurfactants such as perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) ( Smith, 2009 ).

As an introduction to their review of emerging OC in sludge, Clarke and Smith (2011) considered that of the 100,000 chemicals registered in the EU, all are likely to be found in WWTP sludge. In 1996, Wilson et al. (1996) proposed a list of 300 products to prioritize in sludge research work and surveys (priority organic pollutants on environmental agency and country lists and compounds identified in sludge worldwide). This number is close to the one (332) from ( Drescher-Kaden et al., 1992 ) on toxic or suspected toxic OC residues in German sludge, based on a review of the literature on more than 900 articles. Harrison et al. (2006) reported 516 OCs for which concentration data were available in the peer-reviewed literature and official government reports. More recently, Eriksson et al. (2008) concluded after a literature review that 541 OCs could potentially be present in sewage sludge due to their use in construction materials, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products. However, some OC concentrations are not sufficiently characterized in such matrices as sludge and biosolids because their analyses are confined on regulated or identified contaminants on priority lists that represent only a small fraction of the present OCs ( Harrison et al., 2006 ). These authors highlight the lack of knowledge for OCs as nitrosamines with high environmental risks while the knowledge is more comprehensive for some families such as pesticides, PAHs, and PCBs. Thus, a global vision of the contaminants present in the sludge is possible for some as metals, PCB, PAH ... Besides, the concentrations for these compounds in sludge tend to decrease. As an illustration of sludge contaminations around the world, we propose Table 2 , Table 3 . Such an overall worldwide inventory could also be made for PCBs and PCDD/Fs, but it would not be possible for most other TrOCs.

Total concentrations (averages of selected metals present in sewage sludge of different countries worldwide)

WWTP , wastewater treatment plant; n.r. , not reported; n.d. , not detected or under quantification limits.

Total concentrations (average or range values) of selected PAH congeners in sewage sludge of different countries worldwide

Less and more present congener reported values in a table line are in bold. Abbreviations: n.r. , not reported; 0 , not detected or under detection or quantification limits. Na , Naphthalene; Ace , Acenaphthylene; Ac , Acenaphtene; Fl , Fluorene; Phen , Phenanthrene; Ant , Anthracene; Fluo , Fluoranthene; Pyr , Pyrene; B[a]A , Benz[a]anthracene; Ch , Chrysene; B[b]F , Benzo[b]fluoranthene; B[k]F , Benzo[k] fluoranthene; B[a]P , Benzo[a]pyrene; B[e]P , Benzo[e]pyrene; D[ah]A , Dibenz[a,h] anthracene; B[ghi]P , Benzo[ghi]perylene; Ind , Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene.

16 US EPA priority PAH: acenaphtene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, benzo[a]anthracene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, benzo[ghi]perylene, benzo[a]pyrene, chrysene, dibenzo[a,h]anthracene, fluoranthene, fluorene, indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene, naphthalene, phenanthrene and pyrene.

9 CEC: EU proposed sum of PAHs (acenaphthene, fluorene, phenanthrene, fluoranthene, pyrene, benzo[b + j + k]fluoranthene, benzo[a]pyrene, indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene, benzo[ghi]perylene) should not exceed 6 mg/kg dry matter. in sludge for land application) ( EC, 2000 ) ; § reported concentrations for benzo[b + j + k]fluoranthene; §§ reported concentrations for benzo[b + k]fluoranthene.

The first lesson of Table 2 on metal concentrations in sludge is that there is a real scientific consensus for these elements. Zn is always the predominant metal in terms of concentrations. PTE is one of the few families of contaminants for which sequential or selective extraction approaches could be used to approach the key issue in contaminant risk assessment, which is bioavailability. The origins of PTEs in wastewater are also well described and understood and even some technical solutions for metal removal from sludge have been developed and proposed (see ( Babel and Del Mundo Dacera, 2006 ) for an example of review).

The fact that PAHs ( Table 3 ) are priority environmental pollutants relies mainly on their possible harmful effects on biota as well as carcinogenicity in humans. They are too lipophilic with low biodegradability and they accumulate in sludge, sediments, and soils. The main sources of sludge PAH are industrial wastes as well as domestic sewage, atmospheric rainfall, precipitation of airborne pollutants, and road surface and tire abrasion products (PAHs) ( Bomboi and Hernandez, 1991 ). We will emphasize the study of ( Stefaniuk et al., 2018 ), which proposes to analyze the freely dissolved PAH concentrations rather than the total concentrations in order to better estimate their potential environmental availabilities.

For so-called “emerging” contaminants, scientific works appear and a global scheme is emerging since a decade. These contaminants are considered emerging because either the current analytical techniques finally allow their analyses in sludge, or the new industrial and domestic uses of certain products increase their concentrations in environmental matrices. Among these compounds are prominent pharmaceuticals, personal care products and residues, endocrine disruptors, and, more recently, nanoparticles and microplastics. In the excellent review of Clarke and Smith (2011) , these authors ranked the following biosolid emerging contaminants (priority decreasing order): PFOS and PFOA, polychlorinated alkanes, polychlorinated naphthalenes, organotins, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, triclosan, triclocarban, benzothiazoles, antibiotics and pharmaceuticals, synthetic musks, bisphenol A, quaternary ammonium compounds, steroids, phthalate acid esters, and polydimethylsiloxanes.

The field of such OCs in sludge as well as their fates and behaviors following sludge land application are largely to be investigated to finally allow their comprehensive risk assessment and case-by-case sludge environmental (even ecotoxicological) assessments must be favored.

3.2. Pathogenic organisms

Sewage sludge contains biological agents that can be problematic for living organisms because some are pathogenic or may simply disturb natural ecosystems. Generally, four groups of pathogens can be found in sewage sludge: viruses, bacteria, parasites, and fungi. In fact, due to its very rich organic matter, sewage sludge can include many bacteria and fungi species in large quantities ( Fijalkowski et al., 2017 ). Other organisms such as viruses and parasites are also regularly present in sewage sludge ( Frąc et al., 2014 ). The concentration and type of pathogen depend on the type of WWTP, the source of wastewater, and some environmental factors ( Romdhana et al., 2009 ). However, the majority of these pathogenic organisms are derived from human or animal feces ( Bloem et al., 2017 ).

The microbial flora present in sewage sludge is very diverse and abundant due to the high content of organic matter. The majority of these bacteria are saprophytes; they are safe and play an important role in the process of wastewater treatment by forming flocs and degrading some contaminants ( Tozzoli et al., 2017 ). However, some of these bacteria are pathogenic. Huang et al. (2018) identified 243 potentially pathogenic bacterial species in activated sludge, including six major pathogens ( Bacillus anthracis , Clostridium perfringens , Enterococcus faecalis , Escherichia coli , Pseudomonas aeruginosa , and Vibrio cholera ) that can reach abundances of 14% of the bacterial flora. Others pathogens such as Salmonella , Shigella , Klebsiella , Serratia , Enterobacter, or Proteus have also been identified ( Korzeniewska, 2011 ). All these bacteria may cause various infections such as urinary tract infections ( E. coli ), pneumonia ( Klebsiella and Enterobacter ), blood infections ( Enterobacteriaceae ), and gastrointestinal infections ( E. coli , Salmonella ). These diseases can appear after contamination by gastrointestinal, respiratory, urinary, and biliary tracts ( Korzeniewska, 2011 ).

E. coli is already part of one of the quality criteria for sludge (European Directive 86/278/EEC) ( EC, 1986 ). Also, Salmonella is one of the most-studied bacteria in WWTP sludge ( Jr Krzyzanowski et al., 2016 ). These bacteria can survive once released into the environment in part through sludge spreading on agricultural plots ( Jr Krzyzanowski et al., 2016 ; Bloem et al., 2017 ; Ellis et al., 2018 ). Thus, the consumption of food from these lands could be a way of contamination. It has been shown that even with low concentrations of Salmonella in sludge, some vegetables such as lettuce ( Manios et al., 2013 ) and tomatoes ( Asplund and Nurmi, 1991 ) may contain those bacteria in their tissues ( Jr Krzyzanowski et al., 2016 ).

The risk of the presence of pathogenic bacteria could be aggravated by the presence of antibiotics in wastewater. This increases the number of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Moreover, the high density of bacteria in WWTP reactors increases the probability of transfer of genetic material between bacteria ( Turolla et al., 2018 ). In Austria, for example, Galler et al. (2018) isolated three multiresistant enterobacteria (extended-spectrum β-lactamase bacteria (ESBL)) from activated sludge: Gram-negative bacilli, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and Vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE)). This could pose sanitary problems because of the dispersion of such antibiotic-resistant bacteria through trophic webs and in the environment ( Reinthaler et al., 2013 ; Fijalkowski et al., 2017 ; Tozzoli et al., 2017 ).

The microflora of sewage sludge is also very rich in fungi ( Frąc et al., 2014 ). Fungi play a crucial role in the treatment of wastewater by participating in the degradation of various contaminants ( Tozzoli et al., 2017 ). Several are nevertheless pathogens for plants. For example, two common phytopathogens, M. circinelloides and G. citri-aurantii , are regularly observed and they affect crop yield by causing diseases in fruits and vegetables. In addition to this ecological and environmental/agronomic risk, with fungi being opportunistic organisms, they have potential pathogenic properties for humans and animals as well ( Frąc et al., 2014 ). Frąc et al. (2017) have found in sewage sludge the fungus Trichophyton sp., which is responsible for dermatophytose.

Due to the origin of wastewater, sludge regularly contains viruses, especially of an intestinal origin. Schlindwein et al. (2010) highlighted the most common viruses in WWTP sludge samples from Brazil and tested their viability. The most common viruses were the adenovirus (AdV), the rotavirus (RV), the poliovirus (PV), and finally the hepatitis A virus (HAV). The viability of RV and HAV is around 15%–25% while that of AdV and PV is very high (100% and 90%, respectively), which shows that water and sludge treatment processes are not sufficient to inactivate viruses. This highlights the potential sanitary risks of the dispersal of sludge in the environment.

Furthermore, Bibby and Peccia (2013) found that the most abundant pathogenic viruses were herpes viruses in some US sludge samples. DNA viruses (adenovirus, herpes virus, papillomavirus, and bocavirus) are present in 90% of the samples, and RNA viruses (coronavirus, klassevirus, and rotavirus) are present in 80% of the sludge samples. These viruses can cause serious respiratory and gastrointestinal infections in humans and animals.

Like bacteria, viruses are able to survive once in the environment. Bloem et al. (2017) reported the persistence of enteric viruses for about 100 days in soils.

Works on sewage sludge also reported the presence of parasites such as nematodes and cestodes. Some of them are pathogens for humans and animals and are responsible for various diseases ( Chaoua et al., 2017 ). Sludge frequently contains helminth eggs ( Ascaris , Trichuris , Toxocara ) ( Da Rocha et al., 2016 ), which are among the most resistant organisms to sludge treatment. Their survival has already been observed for several years after the biosolid to soil application ( Bloem et al., 2017 ).

Other parasites of the protozoan family are also present. Corrêa Medeiros and Antonio Daniel (2018) observed the presence of protozoan cysts in 100% of the samples they controlled and the presence of oocysts in more than half the same samples. A change in sludge treatment had no impact on the concentration and viability of these protozoan forms. Families with some pathogenic species for animals and humans have been observed such as Cryptosporidium , Giardia, and Entamoeba ( Sabbahi et al., 2018 ; Khouja et al., 2010 ).

4. Conclusions and perspectives

Legislative pressure forces all countries to respect the common waste management hierarchy with prevention, reuse, recycling, and recovery the most preferable pathways while landfilling and disposal should be strictly limited ( Rorat and Kacprzak, 2017 ). Authorities, communities, wastewater industries should therefore apply environmental assessments as decision-making tools, in addition to the economic and technical evaluation of each proposed solution. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a tool that allows quantifying the environmental impact/cost of particular options for management of sewage sludge in order to choose the best suitable option for each stakeholder. The result of an LCA shall be understood to be an environmental profile of total and single lifecycle stages considering the use of resources, human health, and ecologic consequences; it does not show any economic or social factors ( Cherubini et al., 2009 ). For instance, the impacts related to wastewater treatment could concern mainly: (1) energy consumption at different stages (global warming), (2) the presence of PTEs (toxicity) and (3) the content of chemical oxygen demand (COD), N and P (eutrophication) ( Feijoo et al., 2018 ). In the case of sewage sludge, most studies examine environmental aspects related to sludge application through fuel requirements (transport on agricultural land), introduction of metals into soils, the reduced use of mineral fertilizers, greenhouse gas emissions, carbon storage, and nutrient leaching ( Yoshida et al., 2013 ). Generally, land application is a contributor to global warming, eutrophication, and acidification while toxicity was considered to be related to the presence of Zn and Cu, according to ( Yoshida et al., 2018 ). Lundin et al. (2004) have compared four different options for final disposal of sewage sludge: agricultural application, coincineration with waste, incineration combined with phosphorus recovery, and fractionation with phosphorus recovery. In most aspects, the agricultural land disposal was recognized as the least preferable from an environmental point of view while other options have good potential of sustainability. Lately, Turunen et al. (2018) have developed a multiattribute value theory (MAVT)-based decision support tool (DST) in order to supply the simple scoring method to count the environmental risks of particular scenarios. The constructed value tree helped to select pyrolysis above the other tested alternatives of composting and incineration.

It is worth noticing that no universal solution can be pointed to as the environmental cost depends on local conditions, which can be highly variable between regions/countries. Often, the decision-making tools omit the problems of the properties of soil, climate, fauna, and flora present in the environment that can also greatly change the final impact of the sewage sludge on the ecosystems. Unfortunately, the most important decisions considering the treatment of sewage sludge are still being made based on economic and political criteria.

• ADEME . ADEME Editions; Paris: 1995. Les micropolluants métalliques dans les boues résiduaires des stations d'épuration urbaines; p. 209. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ahmad U., Ujang Z., Woon C., Indran S., Mian M. Development of extraction procedures for the analysis of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and organochlorine pesticides in municipal sewage sludge. Water Sci. Technol. 2004; 50 :137–144. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alhafez L., Muntean N., Muntean E., Mihăiescu T., Mihăiescu R., Ristoiu D. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in wastewater sewerage system from the Cluj-Napoca Area. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2012; 11 [ Google Scholar ]
• Alvarez E.A., Mochón M.C., Sanchez J.C.J., Rodríguez M.T. Heavy metal extractable forms in sludge from wastewater treatment plants. Chemosphere. 2002; 47 :765–775. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Andreoli C.V., Von Sperling M., Fernandes F., Ronteltap M. IWA Publishing; 2017. Sludge Treatment and Disposal. [ Google Scholar ]
• Asplund K., Nurmi E. The growth of salmonellae in tomatoes. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 1991; 13 :177–181. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Atienza-Martínez M., Ábrego J., Mastral J.F., Ceamanos J., Gea G. Energy and exergy analyses of sewage sludge thermochemical treatment. Energy. 2018; 144 :723–735. [ Google Scholar ]
• Awasthi M.K., Wang Q., Ren X., Zhao J., Huang H., Awasthi S.K., Lahori A.H., Li R., Zhou L., Zhang Z. Role of biochar amendment in mitigation of nitrogen loss and greenhouse gas emission during sewage sludge composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2016; 219 :270–280. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Babel S., Del Mundo Dacera D. Heavy metal removal from contaminated sludge for land application: a review. Waste Manag. 2006; 26 :988–1004. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baran S., Oleszczuk P. The concentration of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in sewage sludge in relation to the amount and origin of purified sewage. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2003; 12 :523–530. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bastian R.K. The biosolids (sludge) treatment, beneficial use, and disposal situation in the USA. Eur. Water Pollut. Control. 1997; 7 :62–79. [ Google Scholar ]
• Benmoussa H., Tyagi R., Campbell P. Simultaneous sewage sludge digestion and metal leaching using an internal loop reactor. Water Res. 1997; 31 :2638–2654. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bibby K., Peccia J. Identification of viral pathogen diversity in sewage sludge by metagenome analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013; 47 :1945–1951. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blanchard M., Teil M., Ollivon D., Legenti L., Chevreuil M. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and polychlorobiphenyls in wastewaters and sewage sludges from the Paris area (France) Environ. Res. 2004; 95 :184–197. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bloem E., Albihn A., Elving J., Hermann L., Lehmann L., Sarvi M., Schaaf T., Schick J., Turtola E., Ylivainio K. Contamination of organic nutrient sources with potentially toxic elements, antibiotics and pathogen microorganisms in relation to P fertilizer potential and treatment options for the production of sustainable fertilizers: a review. Sci. Total Environ. 2017; 607 :225–242. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bomboi M., Hernandez A. Hydrocarbons in urban runoff: their contribution to the wastewaters. Water Res. 1991; 25 :557–565. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cano R., Pérez-Elvira S.I., Fdz-Polanco F. Energy feasibility study of sludge pretreatments: a review. Appl. Energy. 2015; 149 :176–185. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cao Y., Pawłowski A. Sewage sludge-to-energy approaches based on anaerobic digestion and pyrolysis: brief overview and energy efficiency assessment. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2012; 16 :1657–1665. [ Google Scholar ]
• CEC, C. O. T. E. C The landfill directive (1999/31/EC) Off. J. Eur. Communities L. 1999; 182 :1–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chaoua S., Boussaa S., Khadra A., Boumezzough A. Efficiency of two sewage treatment systems (activated sludge and natural lagoons) for helminth egg removal in Morocco. J. Infect. Public Health. 2017 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cherubini F., Bargigli S., Ulgiati S. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of waste management strategies: landfilling, sorting plant and incineration. Energy. 2009; 34 :2116–2123. [ Google Scholar ]
• Christodoulou A., Stamatelatou K. Overview of legislation on sewage sludge management in developed countries worldwide. Water Sci. Technol. 2016; 73 :453–462. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clarke B.O., Smith S.R. Review of “emerging”organic contaminants in biosolids and assessment of international research priorities for the agricultural use of biosolids. Environ. Int. 2011; 37 :226–247. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Connor R., Renata A., Ortigara C., Koncagül E., Uhlenbrook S., Lamizana-Diallo B.M., Zadeh S.M., Qadir M., Kjellén M., Sjödin J. The United Nations World Water Development Report; 2017. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2017. Wastewater: The Untapped Resource. [ Google Scholar ]
• Corrêa Medeiros R., Antonio Daniel L. Quantification and analysis of the viability of (oo) cysts of pathogenic protozoa in sewage sludge. Acta Scientiar. Technol. 2018; 40 [ Google Scholar ]
• Da Rocha M.C.V., BarÉS M.E., Braga M.C.B. Quantification of viable helminth eggs in samples of sewage sludge. Water Res. 2016; 103 :245–255. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dai J., Xu M., Chen J., Yang X., Ke Z. PCDD/F, PAH and heavy metals in the sewage sludge from six wastewater treatment plants in Beijing, China. Chemosphere. 2007; 66 :353–361. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Drescher-Kaden U., Brüggeman R., Matthes B., Matthies M. Effects of Organic Contaminants in Sewage Sludge on Soil Fertility, Plants and Animals. 1992. Contents of organic pollutants in German sewage sludges; pp. 14–34. [ Google Scholar ]
• EC 86/278/EEC: Council Directive of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture. Official J. Eur. Commun. L. 1986; 181 :04. [ Google Scholar ]
• EC European Commission working document on sludge. Third Draft, Brussels 27 April 2000, DG Environment; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• EC . Environmental, economic and social impacts of the use of sewage sludge on land. Final report. Part I: overview report. In: Milieu Ltd, W. A. R. F. T. E. C, editor. DG Environment Under Study Contract DG ENV.G.4/ETU/2008/0076R (ed.) 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellis S., Tyrrel S., O'leary E., Richards K., Griffiths B., Ritz K. Proportion of sewage sludge to soil influences the durvival of Salmonella Dublin and Escherichia coli . Clean Soil Air Water. 2018; 46 :1800042. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eriksson E., Christensen N., Schmidt J.E., Ledin A. Potential priority pollutants in sewage sludge. Desalination. 2008; 226 :371–388. [ Google Scholar ]
• EU 31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste. Official J. L. 1999; 182 :07. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fang W., Delapp R.C., Kosson D.S., Van Der Sloot H.A., Liu J. Release of heavy metals during long-term land application of sewage sludge compost: percolation leaching tests with repeated additions of compost. Chemosphere. 2017; 169 :271–280. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feijoo G., Andrea A., Moreira M.T. Life Cycle Assessment of Wastewater Treatment. CRC Press; 2018. Life cycle assessment of municipal wastewater and sewage sludge treatment. [ Google Scholar ]
• Feizi M., Jalali M., Renella G. Nanoparticles and modified clays influenced distribution of heavy metals fractions in a light-textured soil amended with sewage sludges. J. Hazard. Mater. 2018; 343 :208–219. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fijalkowski K., Rorat A., Grobelak A., Kacprzak M.J. The presence of contaminations in sewage sludge—the current situation. J. Environ. Manag. 2017; 203 :1126–1136. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Filali-Meknassi Y., Tyagi R., Narasiah K. Simultaneous sewage sludge digestion and metal leaching: effect of aeration. Process Biochem. 2000; 36 :263–273. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frąc M., Jezierska-Tys S., Oszust K., Gryta A., Pastor M. Assessment of microbiological and biochemical properties of dairy sewage sludge. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017; 14 :679–688. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frąc M., Oszust K., Lipiec J., Jezierska-Tys S., Nwaichi E.O. Soil microbial functional and fungal diversity as influenced by municipal sewage sludge accumulation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2014; 11 :8891–8908. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frišták V., Soja G. Effect of wood-based biochar and sewage sludge amendments for soil phosphorus availability. Nova Biotechnologica et Chimica. 2015; 14 :104. [ Google Scholar ]
• Galler H., Feierl G., Petternel C., Reinthaler F.F., Haas D., Habib J., Kittinger C., Luxner J., Zarfel G. Multiresistant bacteria isolated from activated sludge in Austria. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2018; 15 :479. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garrido-Baserba M., Molinos-Senante M., Abelleira-Pereira J.M., Fdez-Güelfo L.A., Poch M., Hernández-Sancho F. Selecting sewage sludge treatment alternatives in modern wastewater treatment plants using environmental decision support systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2015; 107 :410–419. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gawlik B. Fate SEES results of a Pan-European Snapshot of randomly taken sewage sludge sample. Presented at the Proceedings of Workshop DG ENV and DG JrC; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gianico A., Braguglia C.M., Mascolo G., Mininni G. Partitioning of nutrients and micropollutants along the sludge treatment line: a case study. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2013; 20 :6256–6265. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grosser A. Determination of methane potential of mixtures composed of sewage sludge, organic fraction of municipal waste and grease trap sludge using biochemical methane potential assays. A comparison of BMP tests and semi-continuous trial results. Energy. 2018; 143 :488–499. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harrison E.Z., Oakes S.R., Hysell M., Hay A. Organic chemicals in sewage sludges. Sci. Total Environ. 2006; 367 :481–497. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Healy M.G., Fenton O., Forrestal P.J., Danaher M., Brennan R.B., Morrison L. Metal concentrations in lime stabilised, thermally dried and anaerobically digested sewage sludges. Waste Manag. 2016; 48 :404–408. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hua L., Wu W.-X., Liu Y.-X., Tientchen C.M., Chen Y.-X. Heavy metals and PAHs in sewage sludge from twelve wastewater treatment plants in Zhejiang Province. Biomed. Environ. Sci. 2008; 21 :345–352. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang K., Mao Y., Zhao F., Zhang X.-X., Ju F., Ye L., Wang Y., Li B., Ren H., Zhang T. Free-living bacteria and potential bacterial pathogens in sewage treatment plants. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2018; 102 :2455–2464. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• ICON . Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; Luxembourg: 2001. Pollutants in urban wastewater and sewage sludge. Final Report. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jiries A., Hussain H., Lintelmann J. Determination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in wastewater, sediments, sludge and plants in Karak Province, Jordan. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2000; 121 :217–228. [ Google Scholar ]
• Joseph S., Lehmann J. Biochar for Environmental Management. Routledge; 2015. Biochar for environmental management: an introduction. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jr Krzyzanowski F., De Souza Lauretto M., Nardocci A.C., Sato M.I.Z., Razzolini M.T.P. Assessing the probability of infection by Salmonella due to sewage sludge use in agriculture under several exposure scenarios for crops and soil ingestion. Sci. Total Environ. 2016; 568 :66–74. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• JRC . 2012. Occurrence and Levels of Selected Compounds in European Sewage Sludge Samples. EUR 25598 EN. [ Google Scholar ]
• Khouja L.B.A., Cama V., Xiao L. Parasitic contamination in wastewater and sludge samples in Tunisia using three different detection techniques. Parasitol. Res. 2010; 107 :109–116. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kończak M., Oleszczuk P. Application of biochar to sewage sludge reduces toxicity and improve organisms growth in sewage sludge-amended soil in long term field experiment. Sci. Total Environ. 2018; 625 :8–15. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Korzeniewska E. Emission of bacteria and fungi in the air from wastewater treatment plants—a review. Front. Biosci. 2011; 3 :393–407. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lazzari L., Sperni L., Bertin P., Pavoni B. Correlation between inorganic (heavy metals) and organic (PCBs and PAHs) micropollutant concentrations during sewage sludge composting processes. Chemosphere. 2000; 41 :427–435. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Li Z., Deng H., Yang L., Zhang G., Li Y., Ren Y. Influence of potassium hydroxide activation on characteristics and environmental risk of heavy metals in chars derived from municipal sewage sludge. Bioresour. Technol. 2018; 256 :216–223. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lundin M., Olofsson M., Pettersson G.J., Zetterlund H. Environmental and economic assessment of sewage sludge handling options. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2004; 41 :255–278. [ Google Scholar ]
• Malińska K., Golańska M., Caceres R., Rorat A., Weisser P., Ślęzak E. Biochar amendment for integrated composting and vermicomposting of sewage sludge—the effect of biochar on the activity of Eisenia fetida and the obtained vermicompost. Bioresour. Technol. 2017; 225 :206–214. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Malińska K., Zabochnicka-Świątek M., Dach J. Effects of biochar amendment on ammonia emission during composting of sewage sludge. Ecol. Eng. 2014; 71 :474–478. [ Google Scholar ]
• Manios S.G., Konstantinidis N., Gounadaki A.S., Skandamis P.N. Dynamics of low (1–4 cells) vs high populations of Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella typhimurium in fresh-cut salads and their sterile liquid or solidified extracts. Food Control. 2013; 29 :318–327. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maragkaki A., Vasileiadis I., Fountoulakis M., Kyriakou A., Lasaridi K., Manios T. Improving biogas production from anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge with a thermal dried mixture of food waste, cheese whey and olive mill wastewater. Waste Manag. 2018; 71 :644–651. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Matiasi T.M. Wastewater Management and reuse for sustainable development. Scholar. J. Agri. Sci. 2012; 2 (11):269–276. [ Google Scholar ]
• Metcalf E., Eddy P. 3rd ed. McGraw Hill; Singapore: 1991. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, Reuse. [ Google Scholar ]
• Metcalf, Inc, Tchobanoglous G., Burton F.L., Stensel H.D. In: Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Resource Recovery. Metcalf E., editor. McGraw-Hill Education; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nikovski G.N., Kalinichenko K.V. Biotechnology of utilization of municipal wastewater sediments. Biotechnol Acta. 2014; 7 :21–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nissim W., Cincinelli A., Martellini T., Alvisi L., Palm E., Mancuso S., Azzarello E. Phytoremediation of sewage sludge contaminated by trace elements and organic compounds. Environ. Res. 2018; 164 :356–366. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nkoa R. Agricultural benefits and environmental risks of soil fertilization with anaerobic digestates: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014; 34 :473–492. [ Google Scholar ]
• Novak J.T. Dewatering of sewage sludge. Dry. Technol. 2006; 24 :1257–1262. [ Google Scholar ]
• Opec F.F.I.D. International Water Association: IWA; 2018. Wastewater Report 2018: The Reuse Opportunity. [ Google Scholar ]
• Östman M., Lindberg R.H., Fick J., Björn E., Tysklind M. Screening of biocides, metals and antibiotics in Swedish sewage sludge and wastewater. Water Res. 2017; 115 :318–328. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ozaki N., Nakazato A., Nakashima K., Kindaichi T., Ohashi A. Loading and removal of PAHS, fragrance compounds, triclosan and toxicity by composting process from sewage sludge. Sci. Total Environ. 2017; 605 :860–866. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pathak A., Dastidar M., Sreekrishnan T. Bioleaching of heavy metals from sewage sludge: a review. J. Environ. Manag. 2009; 90 :2343–2353. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pathak A., Dastidar M.G., Sreekrishnan T.R. Bioleaching of heavy metals from anaerobically digested sewage sludge. J. Environ. Sci. Health A. Tox. Hazard. Subst. Environ. Eng. 2008; 43 :402–411. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peng W., Pivato A., Lavagnolo M.C., Raga R. Digestate application in landfill bioreactors to remove nitrogen of old landfill leachate. Waste Manag. 2018; 74 :335–346. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pérez S., Guillamón M., Barceló D. Quantitative analysis of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in sewage sludge from wastewater treatment plants. J. Chromatogr. A. 2001; 938 :57–65. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Puyol D., Batstone D.J., Hülsen T., Astals S., Peces M., Krömer J.O. Resource recovery from wastewater by biological technologies: opportunities, challenges, and prospects. Front. Microbiol. 2016; 7 :2106. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reinthaler F.F., Galler H., Feierl G., Haas D., Leitner E., Mascher F., Melkes A., Posch J., Pertschy B., Winter I. Resistance patterns of Escherichia coli isolated from sewage sludge in comparison with those isolated from human patients in 2000 and 2009. J. Water Health. 2013; 11 :13–20. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Romdhana M.H., Lecomte D., Ladevie B., Sablayrolles C. Monitoring of pathogenic microorganisms contamination during heat drying process of sewage sludge. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2009; 87 :377–386. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rorat A., Kacprzak M. Eco-innovations in sustainable waste management strategies for smart cities. In: Brdulak A., Brdulak H., editors. Happy City—How to Plan and Create the Best Livable Area for the People. Springer International Publishing; Cham: 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rorat A., Suleiman H., Grobelak A., Grosser A., Kacprzak M., Płytycz B., Vandenbulcke F. Interactions between sewage sludge-amended soil and earthworms—comparison between Eisenia fetida and Eisenia andrei composting species. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015; 23 :3026–3035. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rorat A., Wloka D., Grobelak A., Grosser A., Sosnecka A., Milczarek M., Jelonek P., Vandenbulcke F., Kacprzak M. Vermiremediation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heavy metals in sewage sludge composting process. J. Environ. Manag. 2017; 187 :347–353. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rouse J.D. Sustainability of wastewater treatment and excess sludge handling practices in the federated states of Micronesia. Sustainability. 2013; 5 :4183–4194. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sabbahi S., Trad M., Ayed L.B., Marzougui N. Occurrence of intestinal parasites in sewage samples and efficiency of wastewater treatment systems in Tunisia. Water Qual. Res. J. 2018; 53 (2):86–101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Salihoglu N.K., Salihoglu G., Tasdemir Y., Cindoruk S.S., Yolsal D., Ogulmus R., Karaca G. Comparison of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons levels in sludges from municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2010; 58 :523–534. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Samolada M., Zabaniotou A. Comparative assessment of municipal sewage sludge incineration, gasification and pyrolysis for a sustainable sludge-to-energy management in Greece. Waste Manag. 2014; 34 :411–420. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sánchez-Brunete C., Miguel E., Tadeo J.L. Analysis of 27 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by matrix solid-phase dispersion and isotope dilution gas chromatography-mass spectrometry in sewage sludge from the Spanish area of Madrid. J. Chromatogr. A. 2007; 1148 :219–227. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sánchez-Monedero M.A., Serramiá N., Civantos C.G.-O., Fernández-Hernández A., Roig A. Greenhouse gas emissions during composting of two-phase olive mill wastes with different agroindustrial by-products. Chemosphere. 2010; 81 :18–25. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schlindwein A., Rigotto C., Simões C., Barardi C. Detection of enteric viruses in sewage sludge and treated wastewater effluent. Water Sci. Technol. 2010; 61 :537–544. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schowanek D., David H., Francaviglia R., Hall J., Kirchmann H., Krogh P.H., Schraepen N., Smith S., Wildemann T. Probabilistic risk assessment for linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (LAS) in sewage sludge used on agricultural soil. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2007; 49 :245–259. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shamuyarira K.K., Gumbo J.R. Assessment of heavy metals in municipal sewage sludge: a case study of Limpopo Province, South Africa. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2014; 11 :2569–2579. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Singh K.P., Mohan D., Sinha S., Dalwani R. Impact assessment of treated/untreated wastewater toxicants discharged by sewage treatment plants on health, agricultural, and environmental quality in the wastewater disposal area. Chemosphere. 2004; 55 :227–255. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith S. Organic contaminants in sewage sludge (biosolids) and their significance for agricultural recycling. Philos. Trans. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2009; 367 :4005–4041. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sogn T.A., Dragicevic I., Linjordet R., Krogstad T., Eijsink V.G.H., Eich-Greatorex S. Recycling of biogas digestates in plant production: NPK fertilizer value and risk of leaching. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. 2018; 7 :49–58. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stefaniuk M., Tsang D.C., Ok Y.S., Oleszczuk P. A field study of bioavailable polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in sewage sludge and biochar amended soils. J. Hazard. Mater. 2018; 349 :27–34. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stevens J.L., Northcott G.L., Stern G.A., Tomy G.T., Jones K.C. PAHs, PCBs, PCNs, organochlorine pesticides, synthetic musks, and polychlorinated n-alkanes in U.K. sewage sludge: survey results and implications. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003; 37 :462–467. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Suciu N.A., Lamastra L., Trevisan M. PAHs content of sewage sludge in Europe and its use as soil fertilizer. Waste Manag. 2015; 41 :119–127. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Suleiman H., Rorat A., Grobelak A., Grosser A., Milczarek M., Płytycz B., Kacprzak M., Vandenbulcke F. Determination of the performance of vermicomposting process applied to sewage sludge by monitoring of the compost quality and immune responses in three earthworm species: Eisenia fetida , Eisenia andrei and Dendrobaena veneta . Bioresour. Technol. 2017; 241 :103–112. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tozzoli R., Di Bartolo I., Gigliucci F., Brambilla G., Monini M., Vignolo E., Caprioli A., Morabito S. Pathogenic Escherichia coli and enteric viruses in biosolids and related top soil improvers in Italy. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2017; 122 :239–247. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Turolla A., Cattaneo M., Marazzi F., Mezzanotte V., Antonelli M. Antibiotic resistant bacteria in urban sewage: role of full-scale wastewater treatment plants on environmental spreading. Chemosphere. 2018; 191 :761–769. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Turunen V., Sorvari J., Mikola A. A decision support tool for selecting the optimal sewage sludge treatment. Chemosphere. 2018; 193 :521–529. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tyagi R., Couillard D., Tran F. Heavy metals removal from anaerobically digested sludge by chemical and microbiological methods. Environ. Pollut. 1988; 50 :295–316. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Un-Habitat . 2008. United Nations Human Settlements Programme, 2008, Global Atlas of Excreta, Wastewater Sludge, and Biosolids Management: Moving Forward the Sustainable and Welcome Uses of a Global Resource. 608 p. [ Google Scholar ]
• Urbaniak M., Wyrwicka A., Tołoczko W., Serwecińska L., Zieliński M. The effect of sewage sludge application on soil properties and willow (Salix sp.) cultivation. Sci. Total Environ. 2017; 586 :66–75. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vácha R., Horváthová V., Vysloužilová M. The application of sludge on agriculturally used soils and the problem of persistent organic pollutants. Plant Soil Environ. 2005; 51 :12–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Veeken A., Hamelers H. Removal of heavy metals from sewage sludge by extraction with organic acids. Water Sci. Technol. 1999; 40 :129–136. [ Google Scholar ]
• Verheijen F., Jeffery S., Bastos A., Van Der Velde M., Diafas I. European Commision; 2010. Biochar application to soils. A critical scientific review of effects on soil properties, processes, and functions; p. 162. 24099. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang X., Li C., Zhang B., Lin J., Chi Q., Wang Y. Migration and risk assessment of heavy metals in sewage sludge during hydrothermal treatment combined with pyrolysis. Bioresour. Technol. 2016; 221 :560–567. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson S., Duarte-Davidson R.Z., Jones K. Screening the environmental fate of organic contaminants in sewage sludges applied to agricultural soils: 1. The potential for downward movement to groundwaters. Sci. Total Environ. 1996; 185 :45–57. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wołejko E., Wydro U., Jabłońska-Trypuć A., Butarewicz A., Łoboda T. The effect of sewage sludge fertilization on the concentration of PAHs in urban soils. Environ. Pollut. 2018; 232 :347–357. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wong J.W.C., Selvam A. Speciation of heavy metals during co-composting of sewage sludge with lime. Chemosphere. 2006; 63 :980–986. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xiang L., Chan L., Wong J. Removal of heavy metals from anaerobically digested sewage sludge by isolated indigenous iron-oxidizing bacteria. Chemosphere. 2000; 41 :283–287. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang T., Huang H.-J., Lai F.-Y. Pollution hazards of heavy metals in sewage sludge from four wastewater treatment plants in Nanchang, China. Trans. Nonferrous Metals Soc. China. 2017; 27 :2249–2259. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yoshida H., Christensen T.H., Scheutz C. Life cycle assessment of sewage sludge management: a review. Waste Manag. Res. 2013; 31 :1083–1101. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yoshida H., Ten Hoeve M., Christensen T.H., Bruun S., Jensen L.S., Scheutz C. Life cycle assessment of sewage sludge management options including long-term impacts after land application. J. Clean. Prod. 2018; 174 :538–547. [ Google Scholar ]

Sewage Sludge Management for Environmental Sustainability: An Introduction

• First Online: 01 January 2022

Cite this chapter

• Jussara Borges Regitano 6   na1 ,
• Mayra Maniero Rodrigues 6   na1 ,
• Guilherme Lucio Martins 6   na1 ,
• Júlio Flávio Osti 6   na1 ,
• Douglas Gomes Viana 6   na1 &
• Adijailton José de Souza 6   na1  

736 Accesses

1 Citations

The environmentally sound management of the increasing amounts of sewage sludges generated in urban centers is one of the greatest challenges of modern society. It is estimated more than half of the world’s population will be concentrated in urban areas by 2050. Sewage sludges contain organic matter and nutrients that can be reused in agriculture, but the public is concerned about its potential to contaminate natural ecosystems spreading hazardous trace elements, toxic organic pollutants, and pathogens to the environment. In this chapter, a broad approach on sewage sludge generation as well as modern treatments, disposal strategies, and adequate management practices at a global level will be addressed to properly educate the public population concerned with the use of this residue and to introduce the book contents. Currently, SSs are mostly landfilled or amended to soils, but they can also be incinerated or used in construction. Therefore, an overview of SS treatments, reuse, and disposal strategies is fundamental to guaranteed maintenance of ecosystem sustainability. Sewage sludge land application and its chemical and microbiological composition, as well as legislation, risk assessment, and methodological aspects related to its characterization, will also be addressed in this book trying to show their advantages and disadvantages. As would be expected, it will allow to review current science on sewage sludge management and to assure environmental sustainability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Sewage Sludge Recycling and Disposal

A systematic overview of current advancements for chemical, material, and energy production using sewage sludge for industrial ecology and sustainability transition

Overview of Sludge in Waste Treatment Plant

Abreu-Junior CH, de Oliveira MG, Cardoso PHS et al (2020) Sewage sludge application in eucalyptus urograndis plantation: availability of phosphorus in soil and wood production. Front Environ Sci 8:1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2020.00116

Article   Google Scholar  

Aida AA, Kuroda K, Yamamoto M et al (2015) Diversity profile of microbes associated with anaerobic sulfur oxidation in an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor treating municipal sewage. Microbes Environ 30:157–163. https://doi.org/10.1264/jsme2.ME14105

Ali M, Nelson AR, Lopez AL, Sack DA (2015) Updated global burden of cholera in endemic countries. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 9:e0003832

Alvarenga P, Mourinha C, Farto M et al (2015) Sewage sludge, compost and other representative organic wastes as agricultural soil amendments: benefits versus limiting factors. Waste Manag 40:44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.01.027

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Alves LDF, Westmann CA, Lovate GL, et al (2018) Metagenomic approaches for understanding new concepts in microbial science. Int J Genomics 2018. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2312987

Angela M, Béatrice B, Mathieu S (2011) Biologically induced phosphorus precipitation in aerobic granular sludge process. Water Res 45:3776–3786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.04.031

Arif MS, Riaz M, Shahzad SM et al (2018) Fresh and composted industrial sludge restore soil functions in surface soil of degraded agricultural land. Sci Total Environ 619–620:517–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.143

Arthurson V (2008) Proper sanitization of sewage sludge: a critical issue for a sustainable society. Appl Environ Microbiol 74:5267–5275. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00438-08

Bartram J, Cairncross S (2010) Hygiene, sanitation, and water: forgotten foundations of health. PLoS Med 7:e1000367

Bastida F, Jehmlich N, Martínez-Navarro J et al (2019) The effects of struvite and sewage sludge on plant yield and the microbial community of a semiarid Mediterranean soil. Geoderma 337:1051–1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.10.046

Beale DJ, Karpe AV, McLeod JD et al (2016) An “omics” approach towards the characterisation of laboratory scale anaerobic digesters treating municipal sewage sludge. Water Res 88:346–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.10.029

Bettiol W, Ghini R (2011) Impacts of sewage sludge in tropical soil: a case study in Brazil. Appl Environ Soil Sci 2011:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/212807

Biswas R, Sarkar A (2018) ‘Omics’ tools in soil microbiology: the state of the art. Springer, Singapore, pp 35–64

Google Scholar  

Bittencourt S (2018) Agricultural use of sewage sludge in Paraná State, Brazil: a decade of national regulation. Recycling 3:50–53. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling3040053

Bondarczuk K, Markowicz A, Piotrowska-Seget Z (2016) The urgent need for risk assessment on the antibiotic resistance spread via sewage sludge land application. Environ Int 87:49–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2015.11.011

Börjesson G, Kirchmann H, Kätterer T (2014) Four Swedish long-term field experiments with sewage sludge reveal a limited effect on soil microbes and on metal uptake by crops. J Soils Sediments 14:164–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-013-0800-5

Borowski S, Szopa JS (2007) Experiences with the dual digestion of municipal sewage sludge. Bioresour Technol 98:1199–1207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2006.05.017

Brooks JP, McLaughlin MR, Gerba CP, Pepper IL (2012) Land application of manure and class B biosolids: an occupational and public quantitative microbial risk assessment. J Environ Qual 41:2009–2023. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2011.0430

Buonocore E, Mellino S, De Angelis G et al (2018) Life cycle assessment indicators of urban wastewater and sewage sludge treatment. Ecol Indic 94:13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.04.047

Čadková Z, Száková J, Mukhtorova D, et al (2020) The response of soil nematode Caenorhabditis elegans on the sewage sludge-derived micropollutants. J Hazard Mater 384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121468

Camargo FP, Sérgio Tonello P, dos Santos ACA, Duarte ICS (2016) Removal of toxic metals from sewage sludge through chemical, physical, and biological treatments—a review. Water Air Soil Pollut 227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-016-3141-3

Chanaka Udayanga WD, Veksha A, Giannis A et al (2018) Fate and distribution of heavy metals during thermal processing of sewage sludge. Fuel 226:721–744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.04.045

Chang Z, Long G, Zhou JL, Ma C (2020) Valorization of sewage sludge in the fabrication of construction and building materials: a review. Resour Conserv Recycl 154:104606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104606

Charlton A, Sakrabani R, Tyrrel S et al (2016) Long-term impact of sewage sludge application on soil microbial biomass: an evaluation using meta-analysis. Environ Pollut 219:1021–1035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.07.050

Chiaradia JJ, Chiba MK, de Andrade CA et al (2009) Yield and plant nutrition of castor bean in crop rotation with sugarcane in a sewage sludge-treated soil. Rev Bras Ciência do Solo 33:701–709

Chung C, Choi K, Kim C et al (2020) Overview of the policies for phasing out ocean dumping of sewage sludge in the Republic of Korea. Sustainability 12:4553. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114553

Cieślik B, Konieczka P (2017) A review of phosphorus recovery methods at various steps of wastewater treatment and sewage sludge management. The concept of “no solid waste generation” and analytical methods. J Clean Prod 142:1728–1740

Cies̈lik BM, Namies̈nik J, Konieczka P (2015) Review of sewage sludge management: standards, regulations and analytical methods. J Clean Prod 90:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.031

Colla G, Nardi S, Cardarelli M et al (2015) Protein hydrolysates as biostimulants in horticulture. Sci Hortic (Amsterdam) 196:28–38

Collivignarelli MC, Abbà A, Frattarola A et al (2019a) Legislation for the reuse of biosolids on agricultural land in Europe: overview. Sustainability 11:6015

Collivignarelli MC, Canato M, Abbà A, Carnevale Miino M (2019b) Biosolids: what are the different types of reuse? J Clean Prod 238

CONAMA, (Environment National Council) (2020) Define criteria and procedures for the production and application of biosolids in soils, and other measures. (In portuguese). http://www2.mma.gov.br/port/conama/legiabre.cfm?codlegi=749 . Accessed 19 Set 2020

Cordell D, Rosemarin A, Schröder JJ, Smit AL (2011) Towards global phosphorus security: a systems framework for phosphorus recovery and reuse options. Chemosphere 84:747–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.02.032

Cytryn E, Kautsky L, Ofek M et al (2011) Short-term structure and functional changes in bacterial community composition following amendment with biosolids compost. Appl Soil Ecol 48:160–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2011.03.010

De Corato U (2020) Disease-suppressive compost enhances natural soil suppressiveness against soil-borne plant pathogens: a critical review. Rhizosphere 13:100192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rhisph.2020.100192

de Oliveira MS, Oshiro-Junior JA, Sato MR et al (2020) Polymeric nanoparticle associated with ceftriaxone and extract of schinopsis brasiliensis engler against Multiresistant enterobacteria. Pharmaceutics 12:1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics12080695

Deeks LK, Chaney K, Murray C et al (2013) A new sludge-derived organo-mineral fertilizer gives similar crop yields as conventional fertilizers. Agron Sustain Dev 33:539–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0135-z

Deen J, Mengel MA, Clemens JD (2020) Epidemiology of cholera. Vaccine 38:A31–A40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.07.078

Delgado-Baquerizo M, Maestre FT, Reich PB et al (2016) Carbon content and climate variability drive global soil bacterial diversity patterns. Ecol Monogr 86:373–380. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecm.1216/suppinfo

Dhama K, Patel SK, Yatoo MI, et al (2021) SARS-CoV-2 existence in sewage and wastewater: a global public health concern? J Environ Manag 280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111825

Donatello S, Cheeseman CR (2013) Recycling and recovery routes for incinerated sewage sludge ash (ISSA): a review. Waste Manag 33:2328–2340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.05.024

Donde OO, Atoni E, Muia AW, Yillia PT (2021) COVID-19 pandemic: water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) as a critical control measure remains a major challenge in low-income countries. Water Res 191:116793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116793

dos Santos FJ, Volschan I, Cammarota MC (2018) Co-digestion of sewage sludge with crude or pretreated glycerol to increase biogas production. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:21811–21821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2260-3

du Jardin P (2015) Plant biostimulants: definition, concept, main categories and regulation. Sci Hortic (Amsterdam) 196:3–14

Duan B, Zhang W, Zheng H et al (2017) Comparison of health risk assessments of heavy metals and as in sewage sludge from wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) for adults and children in the urban district of Taiyuan, China Int J Environ Res Public Health 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14101194

Dubey M, Mohapatra S, Tyagi VK et al (2021) Occurrence, fate, and persistence of emerging micropollutants in sewage sludge treatment. Environ Pollut 273:116515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.116515

Edmondson JL, Davies ZG, McHugh N et al (2012) Organic carbon hidden in urban ecosystems. Sci Rep 2:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00963

EEC (European Economic Community) (1986) On the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture. Council Directive 86/278. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/f76faa39-2b27-42f2-be1e-9332f795e324/language-en . Accessed 19 Set 2020

El Fels L, El Hayany B, Aguelmous A et al (2019) The use of microorganisms for the biodegradation of sewage sludge and the production of biocompost for sustainable agriculture. Springer, Cham, pp 301–316

Fan W, Huo G, Li X et al (2014) Impact of diet in shaping gut microbiota revealed by a comparative study in infants during the first six months of life. J Microbiol Biotechnol 24:133–143. https://doi.org/10.4014/jmb.1309.09029

Figueiredo Lobo T, Grassi Filho H (2009) Sewage sludge levels on the development and nutrition of sunflower plants. Rev la Cienc del suelo y Nutr Veg 9:245–255

Franco A, Marques MO, de Melo WJ (2008) Sugarcane grown in an Oxisol amended with sewage sludge and vinasse: nitrogen contents in soil and plant. Sci Agric 65:408–414

Franzosa EA, Hsu T, Sirota-Madi A et al (2015) Sequencing and beyond: integrating molecular “omics” for microbial community profiling. Nat Rev Microbiol 13:360–372. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro3451

Freeman MC, Garn JV, Sclar GD et al (2017) The impact of sanitation on infectious disease and nutritional status: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Hyg Environ Health 220:928–949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2017.05.007

Fykse EM, Aarskaug T, Madslien EH, Dybwad M (2016) Microbial community structure in a full-scale anaerobic treatment plant during start-up and first year of operation revealed by high-throughput 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing. Bioresour Technol 222:380–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.09.118

García-Sánchez M, Klouza M, Holečková Z et al (2016) Organic and inorganic amendment application on mercury-polluted soils: effects on soil chemical and biochemical properties. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:14254–14268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-6591-7

Geng H, Xu Y, Zheng L et al (2020) An overview of removing heavy metals from sewage sludge: achievements and perspectives. Environ Pollut 266:115375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115375

Ghini R, Fortes N, Navas Cortés J et al (2016) Combined effects of soil biotic and abiotic factors, influenced by sewage sludge incorporation, on the incidence of corn stalk rot. PLoS One 11:e0155536. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155536

Giagnoni L, dos Anjos Borges LG, Giongo A et al (2020) Dolomite and compost amendments enhance cu phytostabilization and increase microbiota of the leachates from a cu-contaminated soil. Agronomy 10:1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10050719

Goberna M, Simón P, Hernández MT, García C (2018) Prokaryotic communities and potential pathogens in sewage sludge: response to wastewaster origin, loading rate and treatment technology. Sci Total Environ 615:360–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.240

Gonzalez-Gil L, Papa M, Feretti D et al (2016) Is anaerobic digestion effective for the removal of organic micropollutants and biological activities from sewage sludge? Water Res 102:211–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.06.025

Gu C, Bai Y (2018) Heavy metal leaching and plant uptake in mudflat soils amended with sewage sludge. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:31031–31039. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3089-5

Gu XY, Wong JWC, Tyagi RD (2017) Bioleaching of heavy metals from sewage sludge for land application. Curr Dev Biotechnol Bioeng Solid Waste Manag 241–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63664-5.00011-3

Guedes P, Magro C, Couto N et al (2015) Potential of the electrodialytic process for emerging organic contaminants remediation and phosphorus separation from sewage sludge. Electrochim Acta 181:109–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2015.03.167

Guo J, Peng Y, Ni BJ et al (2015) Dissecting microbial community structure and methane-producing pathways of a full-scale anaerobic reactor digesting activated sludge from wastewater treatment by metagenomic sequencing. Microb Cell Factories 14:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12934-015-0218-4

Guo Z, Wan S, Hua K et al (2020) Fertilization regime has a greater effect on soil microbial community structure than crop rotation and growth stage in an agroecosystem. Appl Soil Ecol 149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2020.103510

Hamdi H, Hechmi S, Khelil MN et al (2019) Repetitive land application of urban sewage sludge: effect of amendment rates and soil texture on fertility and degradation parameters. Catena 172:11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2018.08.015

Havukainen J, Nguyen MT, Hermann L et al (2016) Potential of phosphorus recovery from sewage sludge and manure ash by thermochemical treatment. Waste Manag 49:221–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.01.020

Heck DW, Ghini R, Bettiol W (2019) Deciphering the suppressiveness of banana Fusarium wilt with organic residues. Appl Soil Ecol 138:47–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2019.02.021

Hu J, Lin X, Wang J et al (2011) Microbial functional diversity, metabolic quotient, and invertase activity of a sandy loam soil as affected by long-term application of organic amendment and mineral fertilizer. J Soils Sediments 11:271–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-010-0308-1

Hu M, Wang X, Wen X, Xia Y (2012) Microbial community structures in different wastewater treatment plants as revealed by 454-pyrosequencing analysis. Bioresour Technol 117:72–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.04.061

Hu Y, Xia Y, Maio F Di, et al (2020) Investigation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) formed in three-phase products from the pyrolysis of various wastewater sewage sludge PAHs content distribution and TEQ values in pyrolysis liquid products of sludge from different sources. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122045

Hua K, Zhu B (2020) Phosphorus loss through surface runoff and leaching in response to the long-term application of different organic amendments on sloping croplands. J Soils Sediments 20:3459–3471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-020-02675-3

Hughes JM, Koplan JP (2005) Saving lives through global safe water. Emerg Infect Dis 11:1636

Ibarbalz FM, Figuerola ELM, Erijman L (2013) Industrial activated sludge exhibit unique bacterial community composition at high taxonomic ranks. Water Res 47:3854–3864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.04.010

Kacprzak M, Neczaj E, Fijalkowski K et al (2017) Sewage sludge disposal strategies for sustainable development. Environ Res 156:39–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.03.010

Kataki S, West H, Clarke M, Baruah DC (2016) Phosphorus recovery as struvite: recent concerns for use of seed, alternative Mg source, nitrogen conservation and fertilizer potential. Resour Conserv Recycl 107:142–156

Kaza S, Yao L (2018) At a glance: a global picture of solid waste management

Keil A, Wing S, Lowman A (2011) Suitability of public records for evaluating health effects of treated sewage sludge in North Carolina. N C Med J 72:98–104. https://doi.org/10.18043/ncm.72.2.98

Kelessidis A, Stasinakis AS (2012) Comparative study of the methods used for treatment and final disposal of sewage sludge in European countries. Waste Manag 32:1186–1195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.01.012

Khalil AI, Hassouna MS, El-Ashqar HMA, Fawzi M (2011) Changes in physical, chemical and microbial parameters during the composting of municipal sewage sludge. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 27:2359–2369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-011-0704-8

Kirchmann H, Börjesson G, Kätterer T, Cohen Y (2017) From agricultural use of sewage sludge to nutrient extraction: a soil science outlook. Ambio 46:143–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0816-3

Knobeloch L, Salna B, Hogan A, et al (2000) Blue babies and nitrate-contaminated well water. Gd Rounds Environ Med 675–678

Kominko H, Gorazda K, Wzorek Z (2017) The possibility of organo-mineral fertilizer production from sewage sludge. Waste Biomass Valorization 8:1781–1791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-016-9805-9

Krüger O, Adam C (2014) Recovery potential of German sewage sludge ash. Waste Manag 45:400–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.01.025

Kulikowska D (2016) Kinetics of organic matter removal and humification progress during sewage sludge composting. Waste Manag 49:196–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.01.005

LeBlanc RJ, Matthews P, Richard RP (2009) Global atlas of excreta, wastewater sludge, and biosolids management: moving forward the sustainable and welcome uses of a global resource. Un-habitat

Li B, Zhang T (2010) Biodegradation and adsorption of antibiotics in the activated sludge process. Environ Sci Technol 44:3468–3473. https://doi.org/10.1021/es903490h

Li C, Wang X, Zhang G et al (2017) Hydrothermal and alkaline hydrothermal pretreatments plus anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge for dewatering and biogas production: bench-scale research and pilot-scale verification. Water Res 117:49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.03.047

Liu H, Pu C, Yu X et al (2018) Removal of tetracyclines, sulfonamides, and quinolones by industrial-scale composting and anaerobic digestion processes. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:35835–35844. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-1487-3

Lloret E, Pascual JA, Brodie EL et al (2016) Sewage sludge addition modifies soil microbial communities and plant performance depending on the sludge stabilization process. Appl Soil Ecol 101:37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2016.01.002

Lofrano G, Brown J (2010) Wastewater management through the ages: a history of mankind. Sci Total Environ 408:5254–5264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.07.062

Lü H, Chen XH, Mo CH et al (2021) Occurrence and dissipation mechanism of organic pollutants during the composting of sewage sludge: a critical review. Bioresour Technol 328:124847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.124847

Luo H, Sun Z, Arndt W et al (2009) Gene order phylogeny and the evolution of methanogens. PLoS One 4:2–6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006069

Ma C, Hu B, Wei MB et al (2019) Influence of matured compost inoculation on sewage sludge composting: enzyme activity, bacterial and fungal community succession. Bioresour Technol 294:122165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122165

Macdonald CA, Clark IM, Zhao FJ et al (2011) Long-term impacts of zinc and copper enriched sewage sludge additions on bacterial, archaeal and fungal communities in arable and grassland soils. Soil Biol Biochem 43:932–941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.01.004

Magela MLM, de Camargo R, Lana RMQ et al (2019) Efficacy of organomineral fertilizers derived from biosolid or filter cake on early maize development. Aust J Crop Sci 13:662–670. https://doi.org/10.21475/ajcs.19.13.05.p1132

Margot J, Rossi L, Barry DA, Holliger C (2015) A review of the fate of micropollutants in wastewater treatment plants. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Water 2:457–487. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1090

Martínez-García C, Eliche-Quesada D, Pérez-Villarejo L et al (2012) Sludge valorization from wastewater treatment plant to its application on the ceramic industry. J Environ Manag 95:S343–S348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.016

Martins DR, de Camargo OA, Melo LCA et al (2015) Nutritional status of commercial coffee crop following the application of sewage sludge as a soil conditioner. Rev Ciências Agrárias/Amazonian J Agric Environ Sci 58:248–256

Mateo-Sagasta J, Raschid-Sally L, Thebo A (2015) Global wastewater and sludge production, Treatment and Use Wastewater Econ Asset an Urban World 15–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9545-6_2

Mattana S, Petrovičová B, Landi L et al (2014) Sewage sludge processing determines its impact on soil microbial community structure and function. Appl Soil Ecol 75:150–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2013.11.007

Maulini-Duran C, Artola A, Font X, Sánchez A (2013) A systematic study of the gaseous emissions from biosolids composting: raw sludge versus anaerobically digested sludge. Bioresour Technol 147:43–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.07.118

Mayer BK, Baker LA, Boyer TH, et al (2016) Total value of phosphorus recovery. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b01239

McMahon A (2015) Waste management in early urban southern Mesopotamia. Sanit Latrines Intest Parasites Past Popul Farnham 19–40

Melo W, Delarica D, Guedes A et al (2018) Ten years of application of sewage sludge on tropical soil. A balance sheet on agricultural crops and environmental quality. Sci Total Environ 643:1493–1501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.254

Menyailo OV, Lehmann J, Da Silva CM, Zech W (2003) Soil microbial activities in tree-based cropping systems and natural forests of the Central Amazon, Brazil. Biol Fertil Soils 38:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-003-0631-4

Moretti SML, Bertoncini EI, Abreu-Junior CH (2015) Composting sewage sludge with green waste from tree pruning. Sci Agric 72:432–439. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-9016-2014-0341

Morgan C, Bowling M, Bartram J, Lyn Kayser G (2017) Water, sanitation, and hygiene in schools: status and implications of low coverage in Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia. Int J Hyg Environ Health 220:950–959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2017.03.015

Moško J, Pohořelý M, Cajthaml T, et al (2021) Effect of pyrolysis temperature on removal of organic pollutants present in anaerobically stabilized sewage sludge. Chemosphere 265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.129082

Munir MT, Li B, Boiarkina I et al (2017) Phosphate recovery from hydrothermally treated sewage sludge using struvite precipitation. Bioresour Technol 239:171–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.04.129

Nascimento AL, Sampaio RA, Fernandes LA et al (2013) Yield and nutrition of sunflower fertilized with sewage sludge stabilized by different processes. Rev Ceres 60:683–689

Nascimento AL, Souza AJ, Andrade PAM et al (2018) Sewage sludge microbial structures and relations to their sources, treatments, and chemical attributes. Front Microbiol 9:1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.01462

Nascimento AL, de Souza AJ, Oliveira FC, et al (2020) Chemical attributes of sewage sludges: relationships to sources and treatments, and implications for sludge usage in agriculture. J Clean Prod 258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120746

Newcomb CJ, Qafoku NP, Grate JW, et al (2017) Developing a molecular picture of soil organic matter-mineral interactions by quantifying organo-mineral binding. Nat Commun 8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00407-9

Nicolas I, Bordeau V, Bondon A et al (2019) Novel antibiotics effective against gram-positive and -negative multi-resistant bacteria with limited resistance. PLoS Biol 17:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000337

Nogueira TAR, Franco A, He Z et al (2013) Short-term usage of sewage sludge as organic fertilizer to sugarcane in a tropical soil bears little threat of heavy metal contamination. J Environ Manag 114:168–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.09.012

Ozcan S, Tor A, Aydin ME (2013) Investigation on the levels of heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and polychlorinated biphenyls in sewage sludge samples and ecotoxicological testing. Clean (Weinh) 41:411–418. https://doi.org/10.1002/clen.201100187

Pal C, Bengtsson-Palme J, Kristiansson E, Larsson DGJ (2015) Co-occurrence of resistance genes to antibiotics, biocides and metals reveals novel insights into their co-selection potential. BMC Genomics 16:964. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-015-2153-5

Pascual I, Azcona I, Aguirreolea J et al (2010) Growth, yield, and fruit quality of pepper plants amended with two sanitized sewage sludges. J Agric Food Chem 58:6951–6959. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf100282f

Paul D, Kumar S, Mishra M et al (2018) Molecular genomic techniques for identification of soil microbial community structure and dynamics. Springer, Singapore, pp 9–33

Pavan Fernandes SA, Bettiol W, Cerri CC (2005) Effect of sewage sludge on microbial biomass, basal respiration, metabolic quotient and soil enzymatic activity. Appl Soil Ecol 30:65–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2004.03.008

Pepper IL, Brooks JP, Gerba CP (2006) Pathogens in biosolids. Adv Agron 90:1–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(06)90001-7

Pérez-Lemus N, López-Serna R, Pérez-Elvira SI, Barrado E (2019) Analytical methodologies for the determination of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in sewage sludge: a critical review. Anal Chim Acta 1083:19–40

Pinto Z, Morandi M, Bettiol W (2013) Induction of suppressiveness to Fusarium wilt of chrysanthemum with composted sewage sludge. Trop Plant Pathol 38:414–422. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1982-56762013005000026

Poulsen TG, Bester K (2010) Organic micropollutant degradation in sewage sludge during composting under thermophilic conditions. Environ Sci Technol 44:5086–5091. https://doi.org/10.1021/es9038243

Prüss-Ustün A, Wolf J, Bartram J et al (2019) Burden of disease from inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene for selected adverse health outcomes: an updated analysis with a focus on low- and middle-income countries. Int J Hyg Environ Health 222:765–777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2019.05.004

Raheem A, Sikarwar VS, He J et al (2018) Opportunities and challenges in sustainable treatment and resource reuse of sewage sludge: a review. Chem Eng J 337:616–641

Regkouzas P, Diamadopoulos E (2019) Adsorption of selected organic micro-pollutants on sewage sludge biochar. Chemosphere 224:840–851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.02.165

Rigby H, Dowding A, Fernandes A, et al (2021) Concentrations of organic contaminants in industrial and municipal bioresources recycled in agriculture in the UK. Sci Total Environ 765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142787

Ritchie H, Roser M (2018) Urbanization. Our world data

Roldán M, Bouzas A, Seco A, et al (2020) An integral approach to sludge handling in a WWTP operated for EBPR aiming phosphorus recovery: Simulation of alternatives, LCA and LCC analyses. Water Res 175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.115647

Rorat A, Courtois P, Vandenbulcke F, Lemiere S (2019) Sanitary and environmental aspects of sewage sludge management. In: Industrial and Municipal Sludge. Elsevier, pp. 155–180

Rutgersson C, Ebmeyer S, Lassen SB et al (2020) Long-term application of Swedish sewage sludge on farmland does not cause clear changes in the soil bacterial resistome. Environ Int 137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105339

Saleem M, Hu J, Jousset A (2019) More than the sum of its parts: microbiome biodiversity as a driver of plant growth and soil health. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 50:145–168

Samaras V, Tsadilas CD, Stamatiadis S (2008) Effects of repeated application of municipal sewage sludge on soil fertility, cotton yield, and nitrate leaching. Agron J 100:477–483

Savci S (2012) An agricultural pollutant: chemical fertilizer. Int J Environ Sci Dev 3:73

Scaglia B, D’Imporzano G, Garuti G et al (2014) Sanitation ability of anaerobic digestion performed at different temperature on sewage sludge. Sci Total Environ 466–467:888–897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.07.114

Schütte T, Niewersch C, Wintgens T, Yüce S (2015) Phosphorus recovery from sewage sludge by nanofiltration in diafiltration mode. J Memb Sci 480:74–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2015.01.013

Semblante GU, Hai FI, Huang X et al (2015) Trace organic contaminants in biosolids: impact of conventional wastewater and sludge processing technologies and emerging alternatives. J Hazard Mater 300:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.06.037

Shaddel S, Bakhtiary-Davijany H, Kabbe C, et al (2019) Sustainable sewage sludge management: from current practices to emerging nutrient recovery technologies. Sustainability 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123435

Sharma B, Sarkar A, Singh P, Singh RP (2017) Agricultural utilization of biosolids: a review on potential effects on soil and plant grown. Waste Manag 64:117–132

Shi W, Feng C, Huang W et al (2014) Study on interaction between phosphorus and cadmium in sewage sludge during hydrothermal treatment by adding hydroxyapatite. Bioresour Technol 159:176–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.02.108

Siebielec G, Siebielec S, Lipski D (2018) Long-term impact of sewage sludge, digestate and mineral fertilizers on plant yield and soil biological activity. J Clean Prod 187:372–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.245

Silva E, Melo M, Sombra K, et al (2019) Organic nitrogen in agricultural systems, pp 1–22

Stalder T, Barraud O, Jové T et al (2014) Quantitative and qualitative impact of hospital effluent on dissemination of the integron pool. ISME J 8:768–777. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2013.189

Stunda-Zujeva A, Kreicbergs I, Medne O (2018) Sustainable utilization of sewage sludge: review of technologies. In: Key Engineering Materials. Trans Tech Publ, pp. 121–125

Sui Q, Zhang J, Chen M et al (2016) Distribution of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) in anaerobic digestion and land application of swine wastewater. Environ Pollut 213:751–759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.03.038

Sun Y, Qiu T, Gao M et al (2019) Inorganic and organic fertilizers application enhanced antibiotic resistome in greenhouse soils growing vegetables. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 179:24–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.04.039

Swann L, Downs D, Waye M (2017) Waste to energy solution–The sludge treatment facility in Tuen Mun, Hong Kong. Energy Procedia 143:500–505

Świerczek L, Cieślik BM, Konieczka P (2018) The potential of raw sewage sludge in construction industry – a review. J Clean Prod 200:342–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.188

Tacconelli E, Carrara E, Savoldi A et al (2018) Discovery, research, and development of new antibiotics: the WHO priority list of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and tuberculosis. Lancet Infect Dis 18:318–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30753-3

Tao J, Wu S, Sun L et al (2012) Composition of waste sludge from municipal wastewater treatment plant. Procedia Environ Sci 12:964–971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2012.01.372

Taylor DL, Kahawita TM, Cairncross S, Ensink JHJ (2015) The impact of water, sanitation and hygiene interventions to control cholera: a systematic review. PLoS One 10:e0135676

Tejada M, Rodríguez-Morgado B, Gómez I et al (2016) Use of biofertilizers obtained from sewage sludges on maize yield. Eur J Agron 78:13–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2016.04.014

Tezotto T, Favarin JL, Azevedo RA et al (2012) Coffee is highly tolerant to cadmium, nickel and zinc: plant and soil nutritional status, metal distribution and bean yield. F Crop Res 125:25–34

Tomei MC, Rita S, Mininni G (2011) Performance of sequential anaerobic/aerobic digestion applied to municipal sewage sludge. J Environ Manag 92:1867–1873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.03.016

Troeger C, Blacker BF, Khalil IA et al (2018) Estimates of the global, regional, and national morbidity, mortality, and aetiologies of diarrhoea in 195 countries: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Infect Dis 18:1211–1228

Tyagi VK, Lo S-L (2013) Sludge: a waste or renewable source for energy and resources recovery? https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.05.029

United Nations U (2019) World population prospects 2019

Urban RC, Isaac R d L (2018) WTP and WWTP sludge management: a case study in the metropolitan area of Campinas, southeastern Brazil. Environ Monit Assess 190:584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-018-6972-0

US-EPA (1993) Standards for the use or disposal of sewage sludge (40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 503) US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC

US-EPA (2000) Inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry 1.0 1:220

US-EPA (2007) Microwave assisted acid digestion of sediments, sludges, soils, and oils SW-846

Uysal A, Kuru B (2013) Magnesium ammonium phosphate production from wastewater through box-behnken design and its effect on nutrient element uptake in plants. Clean (Weinh) 41:447–454. https://doi.org/10.1002/clen.201200231

Van Frankenhuyzen JK, Trevors JT, Flemming CA et al (2013) Optimization, validation, and application of a real-time PCR protocol for quantification of viable bacterial cells in municipal sewage sludge and biosolids using reporter genes and Escherichia coli . J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 40:1251–1261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10295-013-1319-x

Vance ED, Brookes PC, Jenkinson DS (1987) Microbial biomass measurements in forest soils: The use of the chloroform fumigation-incubation method in strongly acid soils. Soil Biol Biochem 19:697–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(87)90051-4

Venegas M, Leiva AM, Reyes-Contreras C, et al (2021) Presence and fate of micropollutants during anaerobic digestion of sewage and their implications for the circular economy: a short review. J Environ Chem Eng 9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2020.104931

Viau E, Bibby K, Paez-Rubio T, Peccia J (2011) Toward a consensus view on the infectious risks associated with land application of sewage sludge. Environ Sci Technol 45:5459–5469. https://doi.org/10.1021/es200566f

Wang X, Cui H, Shi J et al (2015) Relationship between bacterial diversity and environmental parameters during composting of different raw materials. Bioresour Technol 198:395–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.09.041

Wang Y, Li C, Tu C et al (2017) Long-term no-tillage and organic input management enhanced the diversity and stability of soil microbial community. Sci Total Environ 609:341–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.053

Wei L, Zhu F, Li Q et al (2020) Development, current state and future trends of sludge management in China: based on exploratory data and CO 2 -equivaient emissions analysis. Environ Int 144:106093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106093

WHO (2020) State of the world’s sanitation: an urgent call to transform sanitation for better health, environments, economies and societies

Wilfert P, Dugulan AI, Goubitz K et al (2018) Vivianite as the main phosphate mineral in digested sewage sludge and its role for phosphate recovery. Water Res 144:312–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.07.020

Wolinska A, Stepniewsk Z (2012) Dehydrogenase activity in the soil environment. In: Dehydrogenases. InTech

Wolters B, Fornefeld E, Jechalke S et al (2018) Soil amendment with sewage sludge affects soil prokaryotic community composition, mobilome and resistome. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 95:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiy193

Wyrwicka A, Urbaniak M (2016) The different physiological and antioxidative responses of zucchini and cucumber to sewage sludge application. PLoS One 11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157782

Xia Y, Wen X, Zhang B, Yang Y (2018) Diversity and assembly patterns of activated sludge microbial communities: a review. Biotechnol Adv 36:1038–1047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2018.03.005

Xie WY, McGrath SP, Su JQ et al (2016) Long-term impact of field applications of sewage sludge on soil antibiotic resistome. Environ Sci Technol 50:12602–12611. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02138

Xu L, Geelen D (2018) Developing biostimulants from agro-food and industrial by-products. Front Plant Sci 871

Xue D, Huang X (2013) The impact of sewage sludge compost on tree peony growth and soil microbiological, and biochemical properties. Chemosphere 93:583–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.05.065

Yada MM, De Melo WJ, de Melo VP (2020) Trace elements in soil, plant and grain of corn plants cultivated in Latosols after sixteen years with application of sewage sludge. Eng Sanit e Ambient 25:371–379. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1413-41522020150124

Zhang J, Gao D, Bin CT et al (2010) Simulation of substrate degradation in composting of sewage sludge. Waste Manag 30:1931–1938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.04.004

Zhang QH, Yang WN, Ngo HH et al (2016) Current status of urban wastewater treatment plants in China. Environ Int 92–93:11–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2016.03.024

Zhang W, Mo Y, Yang J et al (2018) Genetic diversity pattern of microeukaryotic communities and its relationship with the environment based on PCR-DGGE and T-RFLP techniques in Dongshan Bay, southeast China. Cont Shelf Res 164:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2018.05.006

Zhao Q, Liu Y (2019) Is anaerobic digestion a reliable barrier for deactivation of pathogens in biosludge? Sci Total Environ 668:893–902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.063

Zhen G, Lu X, Kato H et al (2017) Overview of pretreatment strategies for enhancing sewage sludge disintegration and subsequent anaerobic digestion: current advances, full-scale application and future perspectives. Renew Sust Energ Rev 69:559–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.187

Zheng X, Ye Y, Jiang Z et al (2020) Enhanced transformation of phosphorus (P) in sewage sludge to hydroxyapatite via hydrothermal carbonization and calcium-based additive. Sci Total Environ 738:139786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139786

Zhou J, Zheng G, Wong JWC, Zhou L (2013) Degradation of inhibitory substances in sludge by Galactomyces sp. Z3 and the role of its extracellular polymeric substances in improving bioleaching. Bioresour Technol 132:217–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.12.179

Zuloaga O, Navarro P, Bizkarguenaga E et al (2012) Overview of extraction, clean-up and detection techniques for the determination of organic pollutants in sewage sludge: a review. Anal Chim Acta 736:7–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2012.05.016

Download references

Author information

Jussara Borges Regitano, Mayra Maniero Rodrigues and Guilherme Lucio Martins contributed equally with all other contributors.

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Soil Science, “Luiz de Queiroz” College of Agriculture, University of São Paulo, Piracicaba, Brazil

Jussara Borges Regitano, Mayra Maniero Rodrigues, Guilherme Lucio Martins, Júlio Flávio Osti, Douglas Gomes Viana & Adijailton José de Souza

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jussara Borges Regitano .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Soil Science, Academy of Biology and Biotechnology, Southern Federal University, Rostov-on-Don, Russia

Vishnu D. Rajput

Department of Biotechnology, Dr. Khem Singh Gill Akal College of Agriculture, Eternal University, Sirmour, India

Ajar Nath Yadav

Department of Soil Science and Agriculture Chemistry, Sri Karan Narendra Agriculture University, Jobner, Jaipur, India

Hanuman Singh Jatav

Department Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India

Satish Kumar Singh

Tatiana Minkina

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Regitano, J.B., Rodrigues, M.M., Martins, G.L., Osti, J.F., Viana, D.G., de Souza, A.J. (2022). Sewage Sludge Management for Environmental Sustainability: An Introduction. In: Rajput, V.D., Yadav, A.N., Jatav, H.S., Singh, S.K., Minkina, T. (eds) Sustainable Management and Utilization of Sewage Sludge. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85226-9_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85226-9_1

Published : 01 January 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-85225-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-85226-9

eBook Packages : Chemistry and Materials Science Chemistry and Material Science (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Journal Proposal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Tertiary wastewater treatment technologies: a review of technical, economic, and life cycle aspects.

1. Introduction

2. tertiary wastewater treatment technologies, 2.1. chlorination, 2.2. ultraviolet irradiation, 2.3. membrane filtration, 2.4. constructed wetlands, 2.5. microalgae, 2.6. ozonation, 2.7. photo-fenton, 3. benchmarking of tertiary wastewater treatment technologies, 4. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest, abbreviations.

• Adam, D. How far will global population rise? Researchers can’t agree. Nature 2021 , 597 , 462–465. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Deaver, J.A.; Kerr, C.A.; Popat, S.C. Primary sludge-based blackwater favors electrical current over methane production in microbial electrochemical cells. J. Water Process Eng. 2022 , 47 , 102848. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wallin, J.; Knutsson, J.; Karpouzoglou, T. A multi-criteria analysis of building level graywater reuse for personal hygiene. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. Adv. 2021 , 12 , 200054. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saliu, T.D.; Ali, J.; Ololade, I.A.; Oladoja, N.A. Preparation and characterization of a decentralized modular yellow water nutrient recovery system. J. Environ. Manag. 2020 , 276 , 111345. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Tran, N.H.; Reinhard, M.; Gin, K.Y.-H. Occurrence and fate of emerging contaminants in municipal wastewater treatment plants from different geographical regions-a review. Water Res. 2018 , 133 , 182–207. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zagklis, D.; Katrivesis, F.K.; Sygouni, V.; Tsarouchi, L.; Tsigkou, K.; Kornaros, M.; Paraskeva, C.A. Recovery of Water from Secondary Effluent through Pilot Scale Ultrafiltration Membranes: Implementation at Patras’ Wastewater Treatment Plant. Membranes 2021 , 11 , 663. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Albolafio, S.; Marín, A.; Allende, A.; García, F.; Simón-Andreu, P.J.; Soler, M.A.; Gil, M.I. Strategies for mitigating chlorinated disinfection byproducts in wastewater treatment plants. Chemosphere 2022 , 288 , 132583. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tombini Decol, L.; López-Gálvez, F.; Truchado, P.; Tondo, E.C.; Gil, M.I.; Allende, A. Suitability of chlorine dioxide as a tertiary treatment for municipal wastewater and use of reclaimed water for overhead irrigation of baby lettuce. Food Control 2019 , 96 , 186–193. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Francy, D.S.; Stelzer, E.A.; Bushon, R.N.; Brady, A.M.G.; Williston, A.G.; Riddell, K.R.; Borchardt, M.A.; Spencer, S.K.; Gellner, T.M. Comparative effectiveness of membrane bioreactors, conventional secondary treatment, and chlorine and UV disinfection to remove microorganisms from municipal wastewaters. Water Res. 2012 , 46 , 4164–4178. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, B.; Zhang, T. Mass flows and removal of antibiotics in two municipal wastewater treatment plants. Chemosphere 2011 , 83 , 1284–1289. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tak, S.; Kumar, A. Chlorination disinfection by-products and comparative cost analysis of chlorination and UV disinfection in sewage treatment plants: Indian scenario. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017 , 24 , 26269–26278. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gallego Valero, L.; Moral Pajares, E.; Román Sánchez, I.M.; Sánchez Pérez, J.A. Analysis of Environmental Taxes to Finance Wastewater Treatment in Spain: An Opportunity for Regeneration? Water 2018 , 10 , 226. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Zhuang, Y.; Ren, H.; Geng, J.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Ding, L.; Xu, K. Inactivation of antibiotic resistance genes in municipal wastewater by chlorination, ultraviolet, and ozonation disinfection. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015 , 22 , 7037–7044. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Walsh, T.; Mellor, J. Comparative life cycle assessment of four commonly used point-of-use water treatment technologies. J. Water Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 2020 , 10 , 862–873. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pasqualino, J.C.; Meneses, M.; Castells, F. Life Cycle Assessment of Urban Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse Alternatives. J. Ind. Ecol. 2011 , 15 , 49–63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, Y.; Zhuang, Y.; Geng, J.; Ren, H.; Xu, K.; Ding, L. Reduction of antibiotic resistance genes in municipal wastewater effluent by advanced oxidation processes. Sci. Total Environ. 2016 , 550 , 184–191. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Qiao, R.-P.; Li, N.; Qi, X.-H.; Wang, Q.-S.; Zhuang, Y.-Y. Degradation of microcystin-RR by UV radiation in the presence of hydrogen peroxide. Toxicon 2005 , 45 , 745–752. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chin, A.; Bérubé, P.R. Removal of disinfection by-product precursors with ozone-UV advanced oxidation process. Water Res. 2005 , 39 , 2136–2144. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• De la Cruz, N.; Esquius, L.; Grandjean, D.; Magnet, A.; Tungler, A.; de Alencastro, L.F.; Pulgarín, C. Degradation of emergent contaminants by UV, UV/H2O2 and neutral photo-Fenton at pilot scale in a domestic wastewater treatment plant. Water Res. 2013 , 47 , 5836–5845. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guo, M.-T.; Yuan, Q.-B.; Yang, J. Ultraviolet reduction of erythromycin and tetracycline resistant heterotrophic bacteria and their resistance genes in municipal wastewater. Chemosphere 2013 , 93 , 2864–2868. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zagklis, D.P.; Papageorgiou, C.S.; Paraskeva, C.A. 18—Valorization of phenolic extracts from Olea europaea L. by membrane operations. In Membrane Engineering in the Circular Economy: Renewable Sources Valorization in Energy and Downstream Processing in Agro-Food Industry ; Iulianelli, A., Cassano, A., Conidi, C., Petrotos, K., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 495–524. ISBN 978-0-323-85253-1. [ Google Scholar ]
• Urtiaga, A.M.; Pérez, G.; Ibáñez, R.; Ortiz, I. Removal of pharmaceuticals from a WWTP secondary effluent by ultrafiltration/reverse osmosis followed by electrochemical oxidation of the RO concentrate. Desalination 2013 , 331 , 26–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cheng, H.; Hong, P.-Y. Removal of Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria and Antibiotic Resistance Genes Affected by Varying Degrees of Fouling on Anaerobic Microfiltration Membranes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017 , 51 , 12200–12209. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Ren, S.; Boo, C.; Guo, N.; Wang, S.; Elimelech, M.; Wang, Y. Photocatalytic Reactive Ultrafiltration Membrane for Removal of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria and Antibiotic Resistance Genes from Wastewater Effluent. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018 , 52 , 8666–8673. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Dolar, D.; Ignjatić Zokić, T.; Košutić, K.; Ašperger, D.; Mutavdžić Pavlović, D. RO/NF membrane treatment of veterinary pharmaceutical wastewater: Comparison of results obtained on a laboratory and a pilot scale. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2012 , 19 , 1033–1042. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ho, K.C.; Teoh, Y.X.; Teow, Y.H.; Mohammad, A.W. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of electrically-enhanced POME filtration: Environmental impacts of conductive-membrane formulation and process operating parameters. J. Environ. Manag. 2021 , 277 , 111434. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pérez, G.; Gómez, P.; Ortiz, I.; Urtiaga, A. Techno-economic assessment of a membrane-based wastewater reclamation process. Desalination 2022 , 522 , 115409. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zepon Tarpani, R.R.; Azapagic, A. Life cycle environmental impacts of advanced wastewater treatment techniques for removal of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs). J. Environ. Manag. 2018 , 215 , 258–272. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Teow, Y.H.; Chong, M.T.; Ho, K.C.; Mohammad, A.W. Comparative environmental impact evaluation using life cycle assessment approach: A case study of integrated membrane-filtration system for the treatment of aerobically-digested palm oil mill effluent. Sustain. Environ. Res. 2021 , 31 , 15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vymazal, J. Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment. Water 2010 , 2 , 530–549. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Breitholtz, M.; Näslund, M.; Stråe, D.; Borg, H.; Grabic, R.; Fick, J. An evaluation of free water surface wetlands as tertiary sewage water treatment of micro-pollutants. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2012 , 78 , 63–71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Adrados, B.; Sánchez, O.; Arias, C.A.; Becares, E.; Garrido, L.; Mas, J.; Brix, H.; Morató, J. Microbial communities from different types of natural wastewater treatment systems: Vertical and horizontal flow constructed wetlands and biofilters. Water Res. 2014 , 55 , 304–312. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Younger, P.L.; Henderson, R. Synergistic wetland treatment of sewage and mine water: Pollutant removal performance of the first full-scale system. Water Res. 2014 , 55 , 74–82. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Huang, X.; Liu, C.; Li, K.; Su, J.; Zhu, G.; Liu, L. Performance of vertical up-flow constructed wetlands on swine wastewater containing tetracyclines and tet genes. Water Res. 2015 , 70 , 109–117. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yi, X.; Tran, N.H.; Yin, T.; He, Y.; Gin, K.Y.-H. Removal of selected PPCPs, EDCs, and antibiotic resistance genes in landfill leachate by a full-scale constructed wetlands system. Water Res. 2017 , 121 , 46–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fang, H.; Zhang, Q.; Nie, X.; Chen, B.; Xiao, Y.; Zhou, Q.; Liao, W.; Liang, X. Occurrence and elimination of antibiotic resistance genes in a long-term operation integrated surface flow constructed wetland. Chemosphere 2017 , 173 , 99–106. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, J.; Ying, G.-G.; Wei, X.-D.; Liu, Y.-S.; Liu, S.-S.; Hu, L.-X.; He, L.-Y.; Chen, Z.-F.; Chen, F.-R.; Yang, Y.-Q. Removal of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance genes from domestic sewage by constructed wetlands: Effect of flow configuration and plant species. Sci. Total Environ. 2016 , 571 , 974–982. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, L.; Liu, C.; Zheng, J.; Huang, X.; Wang, Z.; Liu, Y.; Zhu, G. Elimination of veterinary antibiotics and antibiotic resistance genes from swine wastewater in the vertical flow constructed wetlands. Chemosphere 2013 , 91 , 1088–1093. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nõlvak, H.; Truu, M.; Tiirik, K.; Oopkaup, K.; Sildvee, T.; Kaasik, A.; Mander, Ü.; Truu, J. Dynamics of antibiotic resistance genes and their relationships with system treatment efficiency in a horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland. Sci. Total Environ. 2013 , 461–462 , 636–644. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, J.; Wei, X.-D.; Liu, Y.-S.; Ying, G.-G.; Liu, S.-S.; He, L.-Y.; Su, H.-C.; Hu, L.-X.; Chen, F.-R.; Yang, Y.-Q. Removal of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance genes from domestic sewage by constructed wetlands: Optimization of wetland substrates and hydraulic loading. Sci. Total Environ. 2016 , 565 , 240–248. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, X.; Zheng, J.; Liu, C.; Liu, L.; Liu, Y.; Fan, H. Removal of antibiotics and resistance genes from swine wastewater using vertical flow constructed wetlands: Effect of hydraulic flow direction and substrate type. Chem. Eng. J. 2017 , 308 , 692–699. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Casas Ledón, Y.; Rivas, A.; López, D.; Vidal, G. Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions assessment and extended exergy accounting of a horizontal-flow constructed wetland for municipal wastewater treatment: A case study in Chile. Ecol. Indic. 2017 , 74 , 130–139. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Corbella, C.; Puigagut, J.; Garfí, M. Life cycle assessment of constructed wetland systems for wastewater treatment coupled with microbial fuel cells. Sci. Total Environ. 2017 , 584–585 , 355–362. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Flores, L.; García, J.; Pena, R.; Garfí, M. Constructed wetlands for winery wastewater treatment: A comparative Life Cycle Assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 2019 , 659 , 1567–1576. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Resende, J.D.; Nolasco, M.A.; Pacca, S.A. Life cycle assessment and costing of wastewater treatment systems coupled to constructed wetlands. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019 , 148 , 170–177. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lakho, F.H.; Qureshi, A.; Igodt, W.; Le, H.Q.; Depuydt, V.; Rousseau, D.P.L.; Van Hulle, S.W.H. Life cycle assessment of two decentralized water treatment systems combining a constructed wetland and a membrane based drinking water production system. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022 , 178 , 106104. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pan, T.; Zhu, X.-D.; Ye, Y.-P. Estimate of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from a vertical subsurface flow constructed wetland and conventional wastewater treatment plants: A case study in China. Ecol. Eng. 2011 , 37 , 248–254. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lutterbeck, C.A.; Kist, L.T.; Lopez, D.R.; Zerwes, F.V.; Machado, Ê.L. Life cycle assessment of integrated wastewater treatment systems with constructed wetlands in rural areas. J. Clean. Prod. 2017 , 148 , 527–536. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Garfí, M.; Flores, L.; Ferrer, I. Life Cycle Assessment of wastewater treatment systems for small communities: Activated sludge, constructed wetlands and high rate algal ponds. J. Clean. Prod. 2017 , 161 , 211–219. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Magalhães, I.B.; Ferreira, J.; de Castro, J.S.; de Assis, L.R.; Calijuri, M.L. Agro-industrial wastewater-grown microalgae: A techno-environmental assessment of open and closed systems. Sci. Total Environ. 2022 , 834 , 155282. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Silambarasan, S.; Logeswari, P.; Sivaramakrishnan, R.; Incharoensakdi, A.; Cornejo, P.; Kamaraj, B.; Chi, N.T.L. Removal of nutrients from domestic wastewater by microalgae coupled to lipid augmentation for biodiesel production and influence of deoiled algal biomass as biofertilizer for Solanum lycopersicum cultivation. Chemosphere 2021 , 268 , 129323. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marangon, B.B.; Calijuri, M.L.; de Siqueira Castro, J.; Assemany, P.P. A life cycle assessment of energy recovery using briquette from wastewater grown microalgae biomass. J. Environ. Manag. 2021 , 285 , 112171. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Li, P.; Luo, Y.; Yuan, X. Life cycle and techno-economic assessment of source-separated wastewater-integrated microalgae biofuel production plant: A nutrient organization approach. Bioresour. Technol. 2022 , 344 , 126230. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wang, J.; Chen, H. Catalytic ozonation for water and wastewater treatment: Recent advances and perspective. Sci. Total Environ. 2020 , 704 , 135249. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lamba, M.; Ahammad, S.Z. Performance comparison of secondary and tertiary treatment systems for treating antibiotic resistance. Water Res. 2017 , 127 , 172–182. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nasuhoglu, D.; Isazadeh, S.; Westlund, P.; Neamatallah, S.; Yargeau, V. Chemical, microbial and toxicological assessment of wastewater treatment plant effluents during disinfection by ozonation. Chem. Eng. J. 2018 , 346 , 466–476. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shi, Q.; Chen, Z.; Liu, H.; Lu, Y.; Li, K.; Shi, Y.; Mao, Y.; Hu, H.-Y. Efficient synergistic disinfection by ozone, ultraviolet irradiation and chlorine in secondary effluents. Sci. Total Environ. 2021 , 758 , 143641. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maniakova, G.; Salmerón, I.; Nahim-Granados, S.; Malato, S.; Oller, I.; Rizzo, L.; Polo-López, M.I. Sunlight advanced oxidation processes vs ozonation for wastewater disinfection and safe reclamation. Sci. Total Environ. 2021 , 787 , 147531. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Z.; Chys, M.; Yang, Y.; Demeestere, K.; Van Hulle, S. Oxidation of Trace Organic Contaminants (TrOCs) in Wastewater Effluent with Different Ozone-Based AOPs: Comparison of Ozone Exposure and •OH Formation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2019 , 58 , 8896–8902. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Antoniou, M.G.; Hey, G.; Rodríguez Vega, S.; Spiliotopoulou, A.; Fick, J.; Tysklind, M.; la Cour Jansen, J.; Andersen, H.R. Required ozone doses for removing pharmaceuticals from wastewater effluents. Sci. Total Environ. 2013 , 456–457 , 42–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Chys, M.; Audenaert, W.T.M.; Stapel, H.; Ried, A.; Wieland, A.; Weemaes, M.; Van Langenhove, H.; Nopens, I.; Demeestere, K.; Van Hulle, S.W.H. Techno-economic assessment of surrogate-based real-time control and monitoring of secondary effluent ozonation at pilot scale. Chem. Eng. J. 2018 , 352 , 431–440. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pérez-Moya, M.; Graells, M.; Castells, G.; Amigó, J.; Ortega, E.; Buhigas, G.; Pérez, L.M.; Mansilla, H.D. Characterization of the degradation performance of the sulfamethazine antibiotic by photo-Fenton process. Water Res. 2010 , 44 , 2533–2540. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Trovó, A.G.; Pupo Nogueira, R.F.; Agüera, A.; Fernandez-Alba, A.R.; Malato, S. Degradation of the antibiotic amoxicillin by photo-Fenton process—Chemical and toxicological assessment. Water Res. 2011 , 45 , 1394–1402. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Giannakis, S.; Le, T.-T.M.; Entenza, J.M.; Pulgarin, C. Solar photo-Fenton disinfection of 11 antibiotic-resistant bacteria (ARB) and elimination of representative AR genes. Evidence that antibiotic resistance does not imply resistance to oxidative treatment. Water Res. 2018 , 143 , 334–345. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Miralles-Cuevas, S.; Oller, I.; Ruiz Aguirre, A.; Sánchez Pérez, J.A.; Malato Rodríguez, S. Removal of pharmaceuticals at microg L−1 by combined nanofiltration and mild solar photo-Fenton. Chem. Eng. J. 2014 , 239 , 68–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Elmolla, E.S.; Chaudhuri, M. Combined photo-Fenton–SBR process for antibiotic wastewater treatment. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011 , 192 , 1418–1426. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rodríguez, R.; Espada, J.J.; Pariente, M.I.; Melero, J.A.; Martínez, F.; Molina, R. Comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) study of heterogeneous and homogenous Fenton processes for the treatment of pharmaceutical wastewater. J. Clean. Prod. 2016 , 124 , 21–29. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pesqueira, J.F.J.R.; Pereira, M.F.R.; Silva, A.M.T. A life cycle assessment of solar-based treatments (H 2 O 2 , TiO 2 photocatalysis, circumneutral photo-Fenton) for the removal of organic micropollutants. Sci. Total Environ. 2021 , 761 , 143258. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gallego-Schmid, A.; Tarpani, R.R.Z.; Miralles-Cuevas, S.; Cabrera-Reina, A.; Malato, S.; Azapagic, A. Environmental assessment of solar photo-Fenton processes in combination with nanofiltration for the removal of micro-contaminants from real wastewaters. Sci. Total Environ. 2019 , 650 , 2210–2220. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Foteinis, S.; Monteagudo, J.M.; Durán, A.; Chatzisymeon, E. Environmental sustainability of the solar photo-Fenton process for wastewater treatment and pharmaceuticals mineralization at semi-industrial scale. Sci. Total Environ. 2018 , 612 , 605–612. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Belalcázar-Saldarriaga, A.; Prato-Garcia, D.; Vasquez-Medrano, R. Photo-Fenton processes in raceway reactors: Technical, economic, and environmental implications during treatment of colored wastewaters. J. Clean. Prod. 2018 , 182 , 818–829. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hey, G.; Ledin, A.; la Cour Jansen, J.; Andersen, H.R. Removal of pharmaceuticals in biologically treated wastewater by chlorine dioxide or peracetic acid. Environ. Technol. 2012 , 33 , 1041–1047. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Akhoundi, A.; Nazif, S. Life-cycle assessment of tertiary treatment technologies to treat secondary municipal wastewater for reuse in agricultural irrigation, artificial recharge of groundwater, and industrial usages. J. Environ. Eng. 2020 , 146 , 4020031. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Licciardello, F.; Milani, M.; Consoli, S.; Pappalardo, N.; Barbagallo, S.; Cirelli, G. Wastewater tertiary treatment options to match reuse standards in agriculture. Agric. Water Manag. 2018 , 210 , 232–242. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, I.; Yamashita, N.; Tanaka, H. Performance of UV and UV/H 2 O 2 processes for the removal of pharmaceuticals detected in secondary effluent of a sewage treatment plant in Japan. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009 , 166 , 1134–1140. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, W.; Zhou, H.; Cicek, N. Treatment of Organic Micropollutants in Water and Wastewater by UV-Based Processes: A Literature Review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014 , 44 , 1443–1476. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carré, E.; Beigbeder, J.; Jauzein, V.; Junqua, G.; Lopez-Ferber, M. Life cycle assessment case study: Tertiary treatment process options for wastewater reuse. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2017 , 13 , 1113–1121. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ganiyu, S.O.; van Hullebusch, E.D.; Cretin, M.; Esposito, G.; Oturan, M.A. Coupling of membrane filtration and advanced oxidation processes for removal of pharmaceutical residues: A critical review. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2015 , 156 , 891–914. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, J.; Liu, Y.-S.; Su, H.-C.; Ying, G.-G.; Liu, F.; Liu, S.-S.; He, L.-Y.; Chen, Z.-F.; Yang, Y.-Q.; Chen, F.-R. Removal of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance genes in rural wastewater by an integrated constructed wetland. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015 , 22 , 1794–1803. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cardinal, P.; Anderson, J.C.; Carlson, J.C.; Low, J.E.; Challis, J.K.; Beattie, S.A.; Bartel, C.N.; Elliott, A.D.; Montero, O.F.; Lokesh, S.; et al. Macrophytes may not contribute significantly to removal of nutrients, pharmaceuticals, and antibiotic resistance in model surface constructed wetlands. Sci. Total Environ. 2014 , 482–483 , 294–304. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kong, Q.; Li, L.; Martinez, B.; Chen, P.; Ruan, R. Culture of Microalgae Chlamydomonas reinhardtii in Wastewater for Biomass Feedstock Production. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2009 , 160 , 9. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ansari, F.A.; Ravindran, B.; Gupta, S.K.; Nasr, M.; Rawat, I.; Bux, F. Techno-economic estimation of wastewater phycoremediation and environmental benefits using Scenedesmus obliquus microalgae. J. Environ. Manag. 2019 , 240 , 293–302. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Salama, E.-S.; Abou-Shanab, R.A.I.; Kim, J.R.; Lee, S.; Kim, S.-H.; Oh, S.-E.; Kim, H.-C.; Roh, H.-S.; Jeon, B.-H. The effects of salinity on the growth and biochemical properties of Chlamydomonas mexicana GU732420 cultivated in municipal wastewater. Environ. Technol. 2014 , 35 , 1491–1498. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hena, S.; Gutierrez, L.; Croué, J.-P. Removal of pharmaceutical and personal care products (PPCPs) from wastewater using microalgae: A review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021 , 403 , 124041. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chaudry, S. Integrating Microalgae Cultivation with Wastewater Treatment: A Peek into Economics. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2021 , 193 , 3395–3406. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• De Schneider, R.C.S.; de Moura Lima, M.; Hoeltz, M.; de Farias Neves, F.; John, D.K.; de Azevedo, A. Life cycle assessment of microalgae production in a raceway pond with alternative culture media. Algal Res. 2018 , 32 , 280–292. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Igos, E.; Mailler, R.; Guillossou, R.; Rocher, V.; Gasperi, J. Life cycle assessment of powder and micro-grain activated carbon in a fluidized bed to remove micropollutants from wastewater and their comparison with ozonation. J. Clean. Prod. 2021 , 287 , 125067. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Arzate, S.; Pfister, S.; Oberschelp, C.; Sánchez-Pérez, J.A. Environmental impacts of an advanced oxidation process as tertiary treatment in a wastewater treatment plant. Sci. Total Environ. 2019 , 694 , 133572. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Muñoz, I.; Rodríguez, A.; Rosal, R.; Fernández-Alba, A.R. Life Cycle Assessment of urban wastewater reuse with ozonation as tertiary treatment: A focus on toxicity-related impacts. Sci. Total Environ. 2009 , 407 , 1245–1256. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sánchez Pérez, J.A.; Arzate, S.; Soriano-Molina, P.; García Sánchez, J.L.; Casas López, J.L.; Plaza-Bolaños, P. Neutral or acidic pH for the removal of contaminants of emerging concern in wastewater by solar photo-Fenton? A techno-economic assessment of continuous raceway pond reactors. Sci. Total Environ. 2020 , 736 , 139681. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Zagklis, D.P.; Bampos, G. Tertiary Wastewater Treatment Technologies: A Review of Technical, Economic, and Life Cycle Aspects. Processes 2022 , 10 , 2304. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10112304

Zagklis DP, Bampos G. Tertiary Wastewater Treatment Technologies: A Review of Technical, Economic, and Life Cycle Aspects. Processes . 2022; 10(11):2304. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10112304

Zagklis, Dimitris P., and Georgios Bampos. 2022. "Tertiary Wastewater Treatment Technologies: A Review of Technical, Economic, and Life Cycle Aspects" Processes 10, no. 11: 2304. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10112304

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals