Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 85–92 | Cite as

The use of bioassays for evaluating the toxicity of sewage sludge and sewage sludge-amended soil

  • Svetlana Yu. Selivanovskaya
  • Venera Z. Latypova
Research Articles: Bioassays


Background and Aims

In soils, the most commonly mentioned hazardous substances are metals. One of the sources of its accumulation is the application of sewage sludge. However, little information is available regarding the estimation of the toxicity of sewage sludge or soil treated with sewage sludge, even by means of a battery of bioassays. In this study an evaluation of a battery of bioassays was carried out for toxicity assessment of sewage sludge and sewage sludge-treated soil. The objectives of this study were a) to compare the sensitivity of the different bioassays for the toxicity determination of sewage sludge contaminated with metals and soil treated with this sewage sludge, b) to elaborate a procedure for the attribution of sewage sludge samples to hazard classes based on the ecotoxicological data, and c) to evaluate the suitability of elutriate bioassays and microbial toxicity tests for the assessment of sewage sludge-treated soil.


Experiments were carried out on grey forest soil (Haplic Greyzem) treated with existent sewage sludge obtained from the Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant of the city of Kazan, Tatarstan, Russia. Portions of sludge were preliminary spiked by adding water-soluble chlorides or nitrates containing the following metals/metalloids: As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Mn, Ni, Pb, Zn. The test battery included four organisms —bacteriumPseudomonas putida, protozoanParamecium caudatum, water fleaDaphnia magna and higher plantRaphanus sativus. In addition, the toxicity of the soils treated with sludge was measured using microbial bioassays based on the estimation of microbial respiration, microbial biomass, N2-fixation activity and calculation of the metabolic quotient.

Results and Discussion

The comparison of the toxicity values (expressed as the lowest dilution factor which exhibits 10% inhibition of an estimated parameter) of three model samples of sewage sludge prepared by us showed different sensitivities for all test organisms. The most sensitive was observed in theDaphnia test, while a similar sensitivity was noted for theParamecium test. The other two tests proved to be less sensitive to the components of the sludge. The analysis of the soils treated with the sewage sludge samples, using the previously mentioned tests, showed that all metal-contaminated sludge treatments as well as the control soil were not significantly inhibitory to all elutriate tests except for that withDaphnia. The microbial toxicity studies including estimation of the microbial biomass C, respiration and N2-fixating activity appear to be more sensitive than the elutriate tests for toxicity in the case of soil treated with metal-contaminated sewage sludge.


An integrated ecotoxicological approach to classify the sewage sludge into hazard classes is proposed based on toxicological analyses. The test battery including four bioassays is elaborated to establish the toxicity status of the sewage sludge. The proposed procedure is easy to apply, cost effective and relatively fast. The application of microbial toxicity tests can be very useful for risk assessment in the case of soil treated with metal-contaminated sewage sludge.

Recommendations and Outlook

The application of the bioassays appears to be very promising mainly for the risk identification of highly contaminated matrices with hardly identified composition such as sewage sludge or soil-associated contaminants. However, the future success in elaborating reliable toxicity tests can be achieved only by the progress in standardizing, national legislators and efforts of researchers.


Bioassay Daphnia magna metals Paramecium caudatum Pseudomonas putida Raphanus sativus sewage sludge soil 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ahlf W, Förstner U (2001): Managing Contaminated Sediments: improving chemical and biological criteria. J Soils & Sediments 1, 30–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bierkens J, Klein G, Corbisier P, Heuvel R, Verschaeve L, Weltens R, Schoeters G (1998): Comparative sensitivity of 20 bioassays for soil quality. Chemosphere 37, 2935–2947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Campbell C, Warren A, Cameron C, Hope S (1997): Direct toxicity assessment of two soils amended with sewage sludge contaminated with heavy metals using protozoan (Colpoda steinii) bioassay. Chemosphere 34, 501–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cogliastro A, Domon G, Doigle S (2001): Effects of wastewater sludge and woodchip combinations on soil properties and growth of planted hardwood trees and willows on a restored site. Ecological Engineering 16, 471–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cornu S, Neal C, Ambrosi J-P, Whitehead P, Neal M, Sigolo J, Vachier P (2001): The environmental impact of heavy metals from sewage sludge in ferralsols (Sao Poulo, Brazil). The Science of the Total Environment 271, 27–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Criterii otneseniay opasnich otchodov k klassu opasnosti dlya okruzayushei prirodnoi sredi. Utv. 15.06.2001 MPR Rossii. Ecologicheskii konsalting 2, 30–34 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  7. DECHEMA (1995): Bioassays for Soils /Ad-Hoc-Committee ‘Methods for Toxicological/Ecotoxicological Assessment of Soils’; DECHEMA, Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Chemisches Apparatewesen, chemische Technik und Biotechnologie e. V., Frankfurt am Main [Hrsg.: G. Kreysa und J. Wiesner]. Frankfurt am Main: DECHEMA 1995 Print: Schon & Wetzel GmbH, 60599]. Frankfurt am M.Google Scholar
  8. Giller K, Witter E, McGrath S (1998): Toxicity of heavy metals to microorganisms and microbial processes in agricultural soils: a review. Soil Biol Biochem 10/11, 1389–1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. GOST N 26713-85 (1985): Metod opredeleniya vlagi i suchogo ostatka. Izdatelstvo Standartov, Moskwa, SSSR. (in Russian)Google Scholar
  10. GOST N 26715-85 (1985): Metodi opredeleniya obshego azota. Izdatelstvo Standartov, Moskwa, SSSR. (in Russian)Google Scholar
  11. GOST N 26717-85 (1985): Metod opredeleniya obshego phosphora. Izdatelstvo Standartov, Moskwa, SSSR. (in Russian)Google Scholar
  12. GOST N 26213-91 (1992): Metod opredeleniya organicheskogo veshestva. Izdatelstvo Standartov, Moskwa, Rossiya (in Russian)Google Scholar
  13. Hue N (1995): Sewage Sludge. In: Jack E. Rechcigl (Ed.), Soil Amendments and Environmental Quality. Lewis Publ., Boca Raton, FL, 199–247Google Scholar
  14. Illera V, Walter I, Souza P, Cala V (2000): Short-term effects of biosolids and municipal solid waste application on heavy metals distribution in a degraded soil under semi-arid environment. The Science of the Total Environment 255, 29–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ISO 10812 (1995): Water quality — Pseudomonas putida growth inhibition test (Pseudomonas cell multiplication inhibition test). International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  16. ISO 14240-2 (1997): International standard. Soil quality — Determination of soil microbial biomass — Part 2: Fumigation-extraction method. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  17. Juvonen R, Martikainen E, Schultz E, Joutti A, Ahtianen J, Lehtokari M (2000): A battery of toxicity tests as indicator of decontamination in composting oily waste. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 47, 156–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kapanen A, Itavaara M (2001): Ecotoxicity test for compost application. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 49, 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kordel W, Römbke J (2001): Requirements on physical, chemical and biological testing methods for estimating the quality of soils and soil substrates. J Soil & Sediments 1, 98–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lau S, Fang M, Wong J (2001): Effects of composting process and flu ash amendment on phytotoxicity of sewage sludge. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 40, 184–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McGrath S, Chaudri A, Giller K (1995): Long-term effects of metals in sewage sludge on soils, microorganisms and plants. Journal of Industrial Microbiology 14, 94–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moreno J, Hernandez.T, Garcia C (1999): Effects of cadmium-contaminated sewage sludge compost on dynamics of organic matter and microbial activity in an arid soil. Biol. Fertil. Soil 28, 230–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Miller W, Peterson S, Greene J, Callahan C (1985) Comparative toxicology of laboratory organisms for assessing hazardous waste sites. J Environ Quality 14, 569–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nusch E (1982): Prüfung der biologischen Schadwirkungen von Wasserinhaltsstoffen mit Hilfe von Protozoentests. Decheniana 26, 87–98Google Scholar
  25. Pryadko F, Alekseeva T (1992): Primenenie biotestirovaniay dlya gigienicheskoi ozenki toksichnosti zooshlakov TEZ. Gigiena i Sanitariay 3, 69–70 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  26. Robidoux P, Gastey J, Choucri A, Sunahara G (1998): Procedure to screen illicit discharge of toxic substances in septic sludge received at a wastewater treatment plant. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 39, 31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rönnpagel K, Janssen E, Ahlf W (1998): Asking for the indicator function of bioassays evaluating soil contamination: are bioassay results reasonable surrogates of effects on soil microflora. Chemosphere 36, 1291–1304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rost U, Joergensen R, Chander K (2001): Effects of Zn enriched sewage sludge on microbial activities and biomass in soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 33, 633–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. SanPiN No (1997): Gigienicheskie trebovaniya k ispolzovaniyu stichnich vod i ich osadkov dlya orosheniya i udobreniya M.: Informacionno-izdatelskii centr Minzdrava Rossii, Moskva. 36 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  30. Sazonova V, Zaliznayk L, Saveleva L, Morozova E, Kostyuk O (1997): Ispolzovanie botestov pri razrabotke monitoringa vodnoi ekosistemi. Ecologiay 3, 207–212 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  31. Selivanovskaya S, Latypova V, Kiyamova S, Alimova F (2001): Use of microbial parameters to assess treatment methods of municipal sewage sludge applied to grey forest soil of Tatarstan. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 86, 145–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Selivanovskaya S, Latypova, V (2001): Obosnovanie sistemi eksperimentalnoi ozenki klassa toksichnosti osadkov stochnich vod i vobora sposoba ich utilizachii. Ecologicheskaya Chimiya 10, 124–134 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  33. Selivanovskaya S, Petrov A, Egorova K, Naumova R (1997): Protozoa and Metazoa Communities Treating a Simulated Petrochemical Industry Wastewater in Rotating Disc Biological Reactor World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 18, 511–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wong J, Lai K, Su D, Fang M (2001): Availability of heavy metals for Brassica chinensis grown in an acidic loamy soil amended with a domestic and an industrial sewage sludge. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 139, 339–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zvagincev D (1991): Metody pochvennoy microbiologii i biochimii. Publishing house MGU, Moscow, 304 (in Russian)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ecomed Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Svetlana Yu. Selivanovskaya
    • 1
  • Venera Z. Latypova
    • 1
  1. 1.Applied Ecology DepartmentKazan State UniversityKazanRussia

Personalised recommendations