Sewage Sludge Management: Comparison
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Sirius Huang and Version 1 by Rabiga Musaparovna Kudaibergenova.

One of the most pressing environmental problems worldwide is sewage sludge (SS) management. Every year, wastewater volume increases and thus, the amount of SS produced increases as well. The disposal of SS in landfills, as practiced in many countries, is not a sustainable solution. Instead, SS, rich in organic matter and other nutrients, can be used as an alternative soil additive or fertilizer. The properties of these materials depend on their chemical composition and the method of treatment. Experience from a number of countries, such as the US and Europe, has shown that SS can be transformed from a waste into a valuable resource, provided that the final product fulfils the relevant regulatory standards. 

  • sewage sludge
  • anaerobic digestion
  • composting
  • fertilizer
  • agriculture

1. Introduction

Wastewater is produced in huge amounts in big cities and is typically treated in wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) employing biological reactors generating waste sewage sludge (SS). The principal sources of SS at municipal WWTPs are the primary sedimentation basin and the secondary clarifiers. Additional sludge may also come from chemical precipitation, screening, grinding, and filtration [2][1]. The amount of SS is constantly growing, and it currently constitutes a serious environmental problem. Unfortunately, the uncontrolled disposal of SS on land has been, and remains, the main method of solving this problem in many countries of the world. Another common practice is its disposal in landfills, many of which have reached their capacity and also do not meet the engineering standards. Waste management is directly or indirectly regulated by international conventions, national laws, and codes, as well as other regulatory and technical documentation. Each country has its own SS management system, regulated by domestic legislation, and international conventions regulate the transboundary movement of waste (e.g., the Basel Convention) [3,4][2][3]. Some conventions, i.e., the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants [5][4], provide detailed recommendations on the management of certain types of waste, but unfortunately, these conventions do not contain clear recommendations on the management of SS.

2. Sewage Sludge Production and Management

SS includes solids generated at facilities for the mechanical, biological, and physicochemical treatment of municipal and industrial wastewater and water intended for human consumption (i.e., surface and groundwater) [2][1]. The biological treatment of wastewater is one of the largest industries in the world, producing millions of tons of SS annually. Biological treatment is the most effective way to treat municipal and some types of industrial wastewater rich in organic load, although is known that certain types of organics either escape the treatment or are poorly degraded, for instance, antibiotics, drugs, pesticides, etc. [12][5]. The main portion of the organic load is turned into SS [13][6]. It is known that SS is an organogenic substrate containing biogenic elements (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and their compounds) in concentrations comparable to those of traditional organic fertilizers. Therefore, much attention has always been paid to the rational use of the biological potential of SS. The composition of silt deposits is 40% organic matter and up to 60% mineral component, in terms of dry weight [14][7]. Moreover, the humic acids and proteins content is high [15][8]. SS contains trace elements, such as heavy metals, which, inadequate concentrations, are vital for plant development, but in high concentrations, can cause sludge toxicity [16][9]. Depending on the region’s population density and industrial activity, the amount of heavy metals in SS can vary significantly and frequently exceed the maximum allowable concentrations [17,18][10][11].
The uncontrolled disposal of untreated SS in the environment, practiced in the past and still in use in many parts of the world, is a serious threat to the environment. Other common practices, such as disposal in landfills and incineration, are environmentally unsound and can be costly [19][12]. Therefore, alternative options for sludge management have been studied, such as in the production of building materials, biofuels, carbon, and electricity, as well as in agriculture. Efficient use of secondary resources, including SS, benefit many countries, both economically and environmentally. Waste disposal at open landfills is an irrational solution from both an environmental and an economic perspective, and it also contradicts legislative changes. There is a growing incentive to develop cost-effective reuse and recycling options by converting SS and bottom ash into new marketable materials [9][13]. The main methods of disposal of SS currently used in the EU are waste disposal, tillage, and incineration, which are used to treat almost 90% of the generated SS, as shown in Figure 1 [20][14]. Depending on the regional socio-economic, and geo-ecological characteristics of the countries, from 10 to 90% of the accumulated SS is used in agricultural production, with an average of 30–40% in the Western Europe, and at least 60% in the US.
Figure 1. Main processes of wastewater and SS treatment in the EU [20]. 
Main processes of wastewater and SS treatment in the EU [14]
Although in developed countries, such as in Europe, the technologies and legislation regarding pollution have long been developed, this is not the case for SS. However, the sustainable management of SS is of great importance as Europe moves towards a CE in line with the European Green Deal [21][15] and the goal of zero pollution. 
The experience of SS disposal in Germany, the USA, France, Finland, and several other countries indicates that if there is an effective sludge treatment technology and control over its use, most of the SS (up to 60%) can be used as a fertilizer in agriculture, in urban landscaping, as well as for inland reclamation, reforestation, and other works. The transformation of SS into a new substance or product that meets quality protocols, along with a new level of processing, will provide an opportunity to obtain scarce critical raw materials from secondary raw materials, leading to the successful management of SS waste. Ongoing research and development in the field of SS waste management shows that SS recycling can be used to produce valuable organic substances and plant nutrients that can be used as fertilizers [23,24,25][16][17][18] or additives to improve soil quality and to increase the fertility and productivity of agricultural land. In the Regulation on the European Waste list (waste code 19 08 05), municipal sludge from WWTP is assessed as safe. However, an exception is described in the article of the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC [26][19], stating that the sludge is safe only: if the competent authority of an EU Member State considers that the relevant evidence is sufficient to assign the code ANH to this type of waste. Once recovered, the SS must be processed to ensure economical and safe transport and disposal. Depending on the type of plant, primary and secondary sludges are treated separately or together. Co-treatment options include thickening, stabilizing, dewatering, and drying the sludge. Additional and well-established methods for controlling SS include lime treatment, anaerobic digestion (AD), and composting with other organic matter. The final disposal stage is the distribution of sludge over the soil surface, incineration, and disposal. In Europe, there are technologies for extracting phosphorus and, in rare cases, nitrogen. Removal of waste for agricultural purposes usually takes place in the area adjacent to the plant to minimize transport costs.

3. Treatment and Disposal Strategies for Sewage Sludge

The SS treatment methods are stabilization (composting, aerobic digestion, treatment with lime, etc.) and dewatering (air drying, vacuum filtering, centrifuging, etc.) [2][1]. The main objective of SS treatment is to produce biosolids that are safe for agricultural use (i.e., reduction or elimination of pathogens and reduction of fermentability of the final biosolids).

3.1. Anaerobic Digestion

AD is the most important SS treatment method. The SS is thickened, digested, and dewatered before it is used for other applications. A useful product of AD is the biogas, consisting of 60–70% CH4, 30–40% CO2 and small quantities of H2, N2, H2S and H2O, which is used for energy production. AD consists of a series of chemical reactions that lead to the decomposition of organic materials in the absence of oxygen [2][1]. Co-digestion is the simultaneous digestion of a homogenous mixture of two or more substrates. In the case of sludge digesters, this is a very common practice, with the addition of organic waste from the food industry or households as a co-substrate. Although AD has been known for over a century, it has only been studied in depth for various commercial applications in the last three decades [27][20]. The use of AD for organic fertilizers is challenging due to the long duration of microbial reactions, usually 20–40 days. Each stage of decomposition involves a different consortium of microorganisms, belonging to both bacterial and Archean domains, with varying needs for growth. The physicochemical characteristics of the co-substrates added to the AD bioreactors at the treatment plant significantly influence the co-fermentation and the quality of the digestate. The co-digestion process increases biogas production, as there is a higher degree of volatile solids decomposition [28][21], resulting in an 82% increase in CH4 yield, and a 29.5% removal of volatile solids compared to the treatment of SS alone. Digestate obtained after AD requires additional treatment before disposal. The solid fraction obtained after digestion consists of partially decomposed organic matter and a high content of NH4+-N and minerals [29][22]. Regardless of the type of food waste, NH4+-N levels in 2540–7200 mg/kg of dry matter and humidity of 70–96% have been reported in different countries [29][22]. The content of 60–70% NH3 generates emissions and phytotoxic effect on plants [30][23]. Therefore, further stabilization through the composting process is required to improve the properties of food SS into a beneficial soil change in an environmentally sustainable manner. Ting and Lee [31][24] reported H2 and CH4 production from SS using a strain of clostridium. In this work, the authors investigated the formation of H2 and CH4 during the AD of pre-treated SS (acidified, alkalized, and frozen/thawed). Yang and Wang [32][25] provided a critical review of AD sludge handling. H2 production during sludge fermentation was observed. The primary consumers of H2 are homoacetogenic bacteria, sulfate-reducing bacteria, and hydrogenotrophic methanogens. Homoacetogenic bacteria are strictly anaerobic and can catalyze acetate formation from H2 and CO2, such as Clostridium thermoaceticum and Clostridium aceticum [33,34][26][27]. A biochemical reaction can be described by the following equation:
2 HCO
3
+ H
+
+ 4 H
2
→ CH
3
COO
+ 4 H
2O
O   
Sulfate-reducing bacteria can use H2 to form sulfides in the presence of sulfate [35][28], even at extremely low H2 concentrations (0.02 ppm). The following equation describes the biochemical reaction:
SO
42−
+ 4 H
2
+ H
+
→ HS
+ 4 H
2O
O   
Hydrogenotrophic methanogens can use H2 and CO2 to form CH4 [36][29]. For example, a biochemical reaction is described as the following equation:
HCO
3
+ 4 H
2
+ H
+
→ CH
4
+ 3 H
2O
O   
Other H2 consumption pathways are also observed in the production of propionic, valeric, and caproic acids, and the detailed reactions can be described as follows [37][30]:
C
6
H
12
O
6
+ 2 H
2
→ 2 CH
3
CH
2
COOH + 2 H
2O
O   
C
6
H
12
O
6
+ 4 CO
2
+ 14 H
2
→ 2 CH
3
(CH
2
)
3
COOH + 10 H
2O
O   
C
6
H
12
O
6
+ 4 H
2
→ CH
3
(CH
2
)
4
COOH + 4 H
2O
O   
AD also contributes to a “short carbon cycle” by removing carbon from the atmosphere. Carbon from organic residues for biogas production continues to be reused in the digestate, returning it to the soil [38][31]. Biogas and biomethane production as renewable fuel sources is justified in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 and CH4) in agriculture and animal husbandry, as well as for improving the climate by 2050 [39,40,41][32][33][34]. Europe is the largest producer of biogas and biomethane globally [41][34]. Globally, more than 1000 M tons of biomethane could be produced by 2040, with average costs reduced by 15% compared to prices in 2018. Thus, digestate as a biofertilizer will increase shortly, contributing to agriculture and lessening the demand for the carbon-intensive production of mineral fertilizers.

3.2. Composting

One of the important treatment methods for the use of SS is composting or co-composting with other suitable biodegradable wastes and additives [42,43][35][36]. SS composting makes it possible to drastically reduce their volume, and such a technological process is not associated with significant emissions of hazardous substances, compared to incineration, and is acceptable from an environmental point of view. In recent years, compost production has gained wide popularity as a rational method of biowaste disposal due to its environmental friendliness, technological simplicity, and low cost [44,45,46][37][38][39]. In the process of composting, SS undergoes physical and chemical transformations with the formation of a stable humified final product, which ensures its disinfection and turns it into valuable components. However, the method is effective only at a specific moisture content of SS, and dehydration is required. This method makes it possible to obtain an inert and neutralized final product due to its (1) low cost and simple processing, (2) low energy consumption, and (3) environmental friendliness. During composting, there is a decrease in both organic contaminants and the bioavailability of heavy metals [47,48][40][41]. Composting improves sanitary and hygienic indicators due to the death of pathogenic microorganisms, helminth eggs, and fly larvae. Compost disinfection is effectively carried out by adding lime and calcite. The resulting product can be used to improve the structure and fertility of the soil. In this context, composting can be seen as the preferred strategy for the disposal of SS. However, the possible presence of heavy metal ions limits its application due to the impact on human health and environmental pollution [49,50][42][43]. Sludge composting is primarily considered an effective treatment method to overcome the problems associated with pathogenic microorganisms and other contaminants in the sludge, and prevents uncontrolled fermentation of organic components [51,52,53][44][45][46]. However, the latter can (1) interfere with plant growth, (2) cause inconvenience, and (3) be a source of CH4 emissions [54,55,56][47][48][49]. Cao et al. [57][50] studied composting additives and fillers to investigate the aerobic properties of the composting process for food waste and residual sludge. Residual sludge, food waste, and bagasse mass ratios of 1:1:1, 2:1:1, and 4:1:1 were used. During composting, changes in nitrogen and phosphorus content in nutrients, microbiota, and metabolic function were observed. It is advantageous to maintain a high reactor temperature when the amount of residual sludge is relatively large and the proportion of residual sludge in the reactor is higher than the content of the original protease. The analysis of the microbial community showed that the 1:1:1 mass ratio promotes the growth and reproduction of beneficial bacteria and the reduction of the number of pathogenic bacteria in the reactor. On the other hand, a reactor with a high proportion of residual sludge encourages the growth of phosphorus-releasing bacteria. The conversion of ammonia and pentose phosphate in a heap of 1:1:1 mass ratio proved to be more favorable for glycolysis and to promoted the pentose phosphate cycle of the heap [57][50]. Co-composting is an efficient solid waste management method that helps to manage various solid wastes (i.e., poultry waste, animal waste, food waste, agricultural waste, municipal solid waste, industrial sludge, sewage, etc.) and turn them into valuable products, which can increase soil fertility by acting as a soil conditioner. This simple process has the lowest operating costs and is an alternative to expensive fertilizers used to improve the soil. The co-composting process can promote the formation of heavy metal complexes, whose mobility and availability tend to decrease with decreasing toxicity. Biodegradable waste is successfully co-composted with various types of organic waste to produce a higher-quality product. To enhance aeration, achieve the required moisture content, and control the ratio of carbon to nitrogen, the composting of SS is carried out with fillers, such as solid household waste, peat, sawdust, foliage, plant tops, straw, ground bark, and a portion of the finished compost. Optimal conditions for implementing the process are created when the humidity of the mixture of the sediment with the filler is 60–65%, the ratio of carbon to nitrogen is 20–30:1, and the pH of the fermented mass is between 5.5 and 8. The intensity of the process and quality of the resulting compost depend on the conditions created for the vital activity of the microorganisms [58][51]. Using biochar in compost production helps to reduce the production of gaseous pollutants and to improve the compost quality. In addition, when combined with sensitivity analysis results, emissions of biogenic air pollutants from compost and biochar production, as well as essential issues contributing to undesirable environmental impacts, were identified [59][52]. Wang et al. [60][53] reported the use of four different phosphates, as well as a mixture of ferrous sulfate and potassium monophosphate for SS composting. The addition of phosphates contributed to an increase in the temperature and the decomposition of organic matter, as well as to the conservation of nitrogen. Moreover, ferrous sulfate and phosphate show a synergistic effect in reducing nitrogen losses. The content of total phosphorus and mobile phosphorus in the compost with the addition of 1% phosphate was 40.9% and 66.1% higher than in the compost with the control treatment. Sequential extraction with the addition of calcium magnesium phosphate (CMP) makes it possible to reduce the mobility of Cd, Zn, and Cu by 24.2%, 1.7%, and 18.8%, respectively. However, in most cases, lead mobility increased. Seed germination control showed that the compost of all processing methods is favorable for agricultural use. The germination index of treated CMP with monopotassium phosphate (MKP) was 99.9 ± 11.8%, which was the highest among all treatments [60][53]. Thus, the introduction of phosphate additives provided an increase in the temperature and decomposition of organic matter in the SS during composting. All treatments with phosphate additives showed higher nutrient content and maximum nitrogen retention, as well as an increase in total phosphorus and available phosphorus in the product.

3.3. Pyrolysis

One of the promising developing methods for SS treatment is pyrolysis. The pyrolysis method consists of the irreversible chemical change of waste under the influence of temperature, without access to oxygen. Such processing plants require large areas, expensive equipment and, as a result, significant investments; therefore, the processing of sludge by pyrolysis, similar to incineration, is challenging to implement on a large scale [61][54]. The advantages of the method include the ease of storage and transportation of the resulting products and the fact that the equipment has low power requirements. Compared to direct waste incineration, the advantage of this method lies in its effectiveness in preventing environmental pollution, that is, the release of harmful chemicals into the air. The products resulting from pyrolysis have a high density, drastically reducing the volume of residues subjected to underground storage. The material resulting from pyrolysis exhibit reduced sludge toxicity and can be when used in agriculture [62][55].

References

  1. Zorpas, A.A.; Inglezakis, V.J. Sewage Sludge Management: From the Past. to Our Century; Nova Science Publishers, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2012; ISBN 9781613243930.
  2. Inglezakis, V.J.; Zorpas, A.A.; Karagiannidis, A.; Samaras, P.; Voukkali, I.; Sklari, S. European Union Legislation on Sewage Sludge Management. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2014, 23, 635–639.
  3. Basel Convention. Available online: http://www.basel.int/Countries/StatusofRatifications/PartiesSignatories/tabid/4499/Default.aspx (accessed on 7 February 2023).
  4. Stockholm Convention. Available online: http://chm.pops.int/Countries/StatusofRatifications/PartiesandSignatoires/tabid/4500/Default.aspx (accessed on 7 February 2023).
  5. Inglezakis, V.J.J.; Poulopoulos, S.G.G.; Arkhangelsky, E.; Zorpas, A.A.A.; Menegaki, A.N.N. Aquatic Environment; Elsevier B.V.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; ISBN 9780444627339.
  6. García, L.; Leyva-Díaz, J.C.; Díaz, E.; Ordóñez, S. A Review of the Adsorption-Biological Hybrid Processes for the Abatement of Emerging Pollutants: Removal Efficiencies, Physicochemical Analysis, and Economic Evaluation. Sci. Total. Environ. 2021, 780, 146554.
  7. Shooner, F.; Tyagi, R.D. Thermophilic Microbial Leaching of Heavy Metals from Municipal Sludge Using Indigenous Sulphur-Oxidizing Microbiota. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 1996, 45, 440–446.
  8. Jaynes, W.F.; Zartman, R.E.; Sosebee, R.E.; Wester, D.B. Biosolids Decomposition after Surface Applications in West Texas. J. Environ. Qual. 2003, 32, 1773–1781.
  9. Stylianou, M.A.; Kollia, D.; Haralambous, K.J.; Inglezakis, V.J.; Moustakas, K.G.; Loizidou, M.D. Effect of Acid Treatment on the Removal of Heavy Metals from Sewage Sludge. Desalination 2007, 215, 73–81.
  10. Zorpas, A.A.A.; Inglezakis, V.J.V.J.; Loizidou, M. Heavy Metals Fractionation before, during and after Composting of Sewage Sludge with Natural Zeolite. Waste Manag. 2008, 28, 2054–2060.
  11. Zorpas, A.A.; Inglezakis, V.; Loizidou, M.; Grigoropoulou, H. Particle Size Effects on Uptake of Heavy Metals from Sewage Sludge Compost Using Natural Zeolite Clinoptilolite. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2002, 250, 1–4.
  12. McClellan, K.; Halden, R.U. Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in Archived U.S. Biosolids from the 2001 EPA National Sewage Sludge Survey. Water Res. 2010, 44, 658–668.
  13. European Environmental Agency. More from Less—Material Resource Efficiency in Europe. 2016. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/more-from-less (accessed on 1 January 2023).
  14. Đurđević, D.; Blecich, P.; Jurić, Ž. Energy Recovery from Sewage Sludge: The Case Study of Croatia. Energies 2019, 12, 1927.
  15. European Commission. A European Green Deal. 2020. Available online: https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/daef3e5c-a456-4fbb-a067-8f1cbe8d9c78_en (accessed on 1 January 2023).
  16. Iticescu, C.; Georgescu, P.L.; Arseni, M.; Rosu, A.; Timofti, M.; Carp, G.; Cioca, L.I. Optimal Solutions for the Use of Sewage Sludge on Agricultural Lands. Water 2021, 13, 585.
  17. Smirnov, Y.D.; Suchkova, M.V. Beneficial Use of Sewage Sludge Incineration Ash in the National Economy. Water Ecol. 2019, 24, 16–25.
  18. Kominko, H.; Gorazda, K.; Wzorek, Z.; Wojtas, K. Sustainable Management of Sewage Sludge for the Production of Organo-Mineral Fertilizers. Waste Biomass Valorization 2018, 9, 1817–1826.
  19. European Parliament. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on Waste and Repealing Certain Directives; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2008.
  20. Mohanakrishna, G.; Srikanth, S.; Pant, D. Bioprocesses for Waste and Wastewater Remediation for Sustainable Energy. Bioremediat. Bioeconomy 2016, 537–565.
  21. Wehner, M.; Lichtmannegger, T.; Robra, S.; do Carmo Precci Lopes, A.; Ebner, C.; Bockreis, A. Determination of the Dewatered Digestate Amounts and Methane Yields from the Co-Digestion of Biowaste as a Basis for a Cost-Benefit Analysis. Waste Manag. 2021, 126, 632–642.
  22. Manu, M.K.; Li, D.; Liwen, L.; Jun, Z.; Varjani, S.; Wong, J.W.C. A Review on Nitrogen Dynamics and Mitigation Strategies of Food Waste Digestate Composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 334, 125032.
  23. Rincón, C.A.; de Guardia, A.; Couvert, A.; le Roux, S.; Soutrel, I.; Daumoin, M.; Benoist, J.C. Chemical and Odor Characterization of Gas Emissions Released during Composting of Solid Wastes and Digestates. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 233, 39–53.
  24. Ting, C.; Lee, D. Production of Hydrogen and Methane from Wastewater Sludge Using Anaerobic Fermentation. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2007, 32, 677–682.
  25. Yang, G.; Wang, J. Fermentative Hydrogen Production from Sewage Sludge. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 47, 1219–1281.
  26. Wieringa, K.T. The Formation of Acetic Acid from Carbon Dioxide and Hydrogen by Anaerobic Spore-Forming Bacteria. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 1939, 6, 251–262.
  27. Fontaine, F.E.; Peterson, W.H.; McCoy, E.; Johnson, M.J.; Ritter, G.J. A New Type of Glucose Fermentation by Clostridium Thermoaceticum. J. Bacteriol. 1942, 43, 701–715.
  28. Yang, G.; Zhang, G.; Zhuan, R.; Yang, A.; Wang, Y. Transformations, Inhibition and Inhibition Control Methods of Sulfur in Sludge Anaerobic Digestion: A Review. Curr. Org. Chem. 2016, 20, 2780–2789.
  29. Demirel, B.; Scherer, P. The Roles of Acetotrophic and Hydrogenotrophic Methanogens during Anaerobic Conversion of Biomass to Methane: A Review. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 2008, 7, 173–190.
  30. Guo, X.M.; Trably, E.; Latrille, E.; Carrère, H.; Steyer, J.-P. Hydrogen Production from Agricultural Waste by Dark Fermentation: A Review. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2010, 35, 10660–10673.
  31. Horta, C.; Carneiro, J.P. Use of Digestate as Organic Amendment and Source of Nitrogen to Vegetable Crops. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 248.
  32. Tani, M.; Sakamoto, N.; Kishimoto, T.; Umetsu, K. Utilization of Anaerobically Digested Dairy Slurry Combined with Other Wastes Following Application to Agricultural Land. Int. Congr. Ser. 2006, 1293, 331–334.
  33. Tambone, F.; Genevini, P.; D’Imporzano, G.; Adani, F. Assessing Amendment Properties of Digestate by Studying the Organic Matter Composition and the Degree of Biological Stability during the Anaerobic Digestion of the Organic Fraction of MSW. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 3140–3142.
  34. International Energy Agency. Outlook for Biogas and Biomethane: Prospects for Organic Growth; IEA: Paris, France, 2020.
  35. Anwar, Z.; Irshad, M.; Fareed, I.; Saleem, A. Characterization and Recycling of Organic Waste after Co-Composting—A Review. J. Agric. Sci. 2015, 7, 68–79.
  36. Stylianou, M.A.A.; Inglezakis, V.J.J.; Moustakas, K.G.G.; Loizidou, M.D.D. Improvement of the Quality of Sewage Sludge Compost by Adding Natural Clinoptilolite. Desalination 2008, 224, 240–249.
  37. Al-Rumaihi, A.; McKay, G.; Mackey, H.R.; Al-Ansari, T. Environmental Impact Assessment of Food Waste Management Using Two Composting Techniques. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1595.
  38. Soudejani, H.T.; Kazemian, H.; Inglezakis, V.J.; Zorpas, A.A. Application of Zeolites in Organic Waste Composting: A Review. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2019, 22, 101396.
  39. Hamidpour, M.; Afyuni, M.; Khadivi, E.; Zorpas, A.; Inglezakis, V. Composted Municipal Waste Effect on Chosen Properties of Calcareous Soil. Int. Agrophys. 2012, 26, 365–374.
  40. Wong, J.W.C.; Selvam, A. Speciation of Heavy Metals during Co-Composting of Sewage Sludge with Lime. Chemosphere 2006, 63, 980–986.
  41. Kästner, M.; Mahro, B. Microbial Degradation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Soils Affected by the Organic Matrix of Compost. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 1996, 44, 668–675.
  42. Kominko, H.; Gorazda, K.; Wzorek, Z. Potentiality of Sewage Sludge-Based Organo-Mineral Fertilizer Production in Poland Considering Nutrient Value, Heavy Metal Content and Phytotoxicity for Rapeseed Crops. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 248, 09283.
  43. Lasaridi, K.E.; Manios, T.; Stamatiadis, S.; Chroni, C.; Kyriacou, A. The Evaluation of Hazards to Man and the Environment during the Composting of Sewage Sludge. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2618.
  44. Zhang, D.; Luo, W.; Li, Y.; Wang, G.; Li, G. Performance of Co-Composting Sewage Sludge and Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste at Different Proportions. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 250, 853–859.
  45. Wu, C.; Li, W.; Wang, K.; Li, Y. Usage of Pumice as Bulking Agent in Sewage Sludge Composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 190, 516–521.
  46. Asses, N.; Farhat, A.; Cherif, S.; Hamdi, M.; Bouallagui, H. Comparative Study of Sewage Sludge Co-Composting with Olive Mill Wastes or Green Residues: Process Monitoring and Agriculture Value of the Resulting Composts. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2018, 114, 25–35.
  47. Dumontet, S.; Dinel, H.; Baloda, S.B. Pathogen Reduction in Sewage Sludge by Composting and Other Biological Treatments: A Review. Biol. Agric. Hortic. 1999, 16, 409–430.
  48. Lasaridi, K.E.; Stentiford, E.I.; Evans, T. Windrow Composting of Wastewater Biosolids: Process Performance and Product Stability Assessment. Water Sci. Technol. 2000, 42, 217–226.
  49. Peigné, J.; Girardin, P. Environmental Impacts of Farm-Scale Composting Practices. Water Air Soil. Pollut. 2004, 153, 45–68.
  50. Cao, L.; Liao, L.; Su, C.; Mo, T.; Zhu, F.; Qin, R.; Li, R. Metagenomic Analysis Revealed the Microbiota and Metabolic Function during Co-Composting of Food Waste and Residual Sludge for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Transformation. Sci. Total. Environ. 2021, 773, 145561.
  51. Xiao, Y.; Zeng, G.M.; Yang, Z.H.; Shi, W.J.; Huang, C.; Fan, C.Z.; Xu, Z.Y. Continuous Thermophilic Composting (CTC) for Rapid Biodegradation and Maturation of Organic Municipal Solid Waste. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 4807–4813.
  52. Jiang, Z.; Zheng, H.; Xing, B. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Wheat Production Using Chemical Fertilizer, Manure Compost, and Biochar-Amended Manure Compost Strategies. Sci. Total. Environ. 2021, 760, 143342.
  53. Wang, X.; Zheng, G.; Chen, T.; Shi, X.; Wang, Y.; Nie, E.; Liu, J. Effect of Phosphate Amendments on Improving the Fertilizer Efficiency and Reducing the Mobility of Heavy Metals during Sewage Sludge Composting. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 235, 124–132.
  54. Raheem, A.; Sikarwar, V.S.; He, J.; Dastyar, W.; Dionysiou, D.D.; Wang, W.; Zhao, M. Opportunities and Challenges in Sustainable Treatment and Resource Reuse of Sewage Sludge: A Review. Chem. Eng. J. 2018, 337, 616–641.
  55. Frišták, V.; Pipíška, M.; Soja, G. Pyrolysis Treatment of Sewage Sludge: A Promising Way to Produce Phosphorus Fertilizer. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 1772–1778.
More
ScholarVision Creations