Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 22, Issue 10, pp 7216–7235 | Cite as

Quality assessment of digested sludges produced by advanced stabilization processes

  • C. M. BragugliaEmail author
  • A. Coors
  • A. Gallipoli
  • A. Gianico
  • E. Guillon
  • U. Kunkel
  • G. Mascolo
  • E. Richter
  • T. A. Ternes
  • M. C. Tomei
  • G. Mininni
Effective management of sewage sludge

Abstract

The European Union (EU) Project Routes aimed to discover new routes in sludge stabilization treatments leading to high-quality digested sludge, suitable for land application. In order to investigate the impact of different enhanced sludge stabilization processes such as (a) thermophilic digestion integrated with thermal hydrolysis pretreatment (TT), (b) sonication before mesophilic/thermophilic digestion (UMT), and (c) sequential anaerobic/aerobic digestion (AA) on digested sludge quality, a broad class of conventional and emerging organic micropollutants as well as ecotoxicity was analyzed, extending the assessment beyond the parameters typically considered (i.e., stability index and heavy metals). The stability index was improved by adding aerobic posttreatment or by operating dual-stage process but not by pretreatment integration. Filterability was worsened by thermophilic digestion, either alone (TT) or coupled with mesophilic digestion (UMT). The concentrations of heavy metals, present in ranking order Zn > Cu > Pb > Cr ~ Ni > Cd > Hg, were always below the current legal requirements for use on land and were not removed during the processes. Removals of conventional and emerging organic pollutants were greatly enhanced by performing double-stage digestion (UMT and AA treatment) compared to a single-stage process as TT; the same trend was found as regards toxicity reduction. Overall, all the digested sludges exhibited toxicity to the soil bacterium Arthrobacter globiformis at concentrations about factor 100 higher than the usual application rate of sludge to soil in Europe. For earthworms, a safety margin of factor 30 was generally achieved for all the digested samples.

Keywords

Sewage sludge Agriculture Enhanced stabilization processes Organic pollutants Heavy metals Ecotoxicity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the EU ROUTES project funded from the European Union’s Seventh Programme for research, technological development, and demonstration under grant agreement no. 265156. Giuseppe Bagnuolo, Ruggero Ciannarella and Vito Locaputo (IRSA-CNR, Bari, Italy) are acknowledged for carrying out determinations of conventional organic micropollutants. Björn Jacobs and Lennart Lörke (BfG, Koblenz, Germany) are thanked for their help during the analysis of emerging organic pollutants.

Supplementary material

11356_2014_3090_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (33 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 32 kb)

References

  1. Abad E, Martínez K, Planas C, Palacios O, Caixach J, Rivera J (2005) Priority organic pollutant assessment of sludges for agricultural purposes. Chemosphere 61(9):1358–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aparicio I, Santos JL, Alonso E (2009) Limitation of the concentration of organic pollutants in sewage sludge for agricultural purposes: a case study in South Spain. Waste Manage 29:1747–1753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. APHA Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (1998) 20th edition, American Public Health Association/American Water Works Association/Water Environment Federation, Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. Barret M, Cea-Barcia C, Guillon A, Cerrére H, Patureau D (2010) Influence of feed characteristics on the removal of micropollutants during the anaerobic digestion of contaminated sludge. J Hazard Mater 181:241–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barron J, Tobin J, Paull B (2008) Multi-residue determination of pharmaceuticals in sludge and sludge enriched soils using pressurized liquid extraction, solid phase extraction and liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry. J Environ Monit 10:353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berset JD, Holzer R (1996) Determination of coplanar and ortho substituted PCBs in some sewage sludges of Switzerland using HRGC/ECD and HRGC/MSD. Chemosphere 32(12):2317–2333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bertanza G., Canato M, Laera G, Tomei M C (2014). Method for technical, economic and environmental assessment of advanced sludge processing routes. Environmental Science and Pollution Research (in press)Google Scholar
  8. Blanchard M, Teil MJ, Ollivon D, Legenti L, Chevreuil M (2004) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and polychlorobiphenyls in wastewaters and sewage sludges from the Paris area (France). Environ Res 95(2):184–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carballa M, Omil F, Lema JM, Llompart M, Garcia-Jares C, Rodriguez I, Gomez M, Ternes T (2004) Behavior of pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and hormones in a sewage treatment plant. Water Res 38(12):2918–2926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carballa M, Omil F, Ternes T, Lema JM (2007) Fate of pharmaceutical and personal care products (PPCPs) during anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge. Water Res 41(10):2139–2150. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2007.02.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carballa M, Omil F, Lema J (2009) Influence of different pretreatments on anaerobically digested sludge characteristics: suitability for final disposal. Water, Air, Soil Pollut 199(1–4):311–321. doi: 10.1007/s11270-008-9880-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. CEC (1986) 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. Council of the European Communities (Directive 86/278/EEC).Google Scholar
  13. CEC (2000) Council Directive of 27 April 2000 on Working Document on Sludge—third draft. Brussels: European Commission DG Environment. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/sludge/pdf/sludge_en.pdf
  14. CEN (2005) Characterization of waste—preparation of waste samples for ecotoxicity tests. EN 14735, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  15. Clara M, Scharf S, Scheffknecht C, Gans O (2007) Occurrence of selected surfactants in untreated and treated sewage. Water Res 41(19):4339–4348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clarke BO, Smith SR (2011) Review of ‘emerging’ organic contaminants in biosolids and assessment of international research priorities for the agricultural use of biosolids. Environ Int 37:226–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cogger CG, Forge TA, Neilsen GH (2006) Biosolids recycling: nitrogen management and soil ecology. Can J Soil Sci 86:613–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Díaz-Cruz MS, García-Galán MJ, Guerra P, Jelic A, Postigo C, Eljarrat E, Farré M, Barceló D (2009) Analysis of selected emerging contaminants in sewage sludge. TrAC 28:1263–1275Google Scholar
  19. Dionisi D, Bertin L, Bornoroni L, Capodicasa S, Papini MP, Fava F (2006) Removal of organic xenobiotics in activated sludges under aerobic conditions and anaerobic digestion of the adsorbed species. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 81:1496–1505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. EC-European Commission (2010) Disposal and recycling routes for sewage sludge. Part 2—Regulatory report, European Commission, DG Environment. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  21. El-Hadj BT (2006) Biodegradation of organic micropollutants in thermophilic and mesophilic anerobic digestion of sewage sludge. Dissertation, Universitat de BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  22. El-Hadj BT, Dosta J, Mata-Alvarez J (2006) Biodegradation of PAH and DEHP micro-pollutants in mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic sewage sludge digestion. Water Sci Technol 53(8):99–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. EPA 2006 Biosolids technology fact sheet—multi-stage anaerobic digestion, US Environmental Protection Agency Washington DC, Technical report EPA832/F/06/031Google Scholar
  24. Erhardt W and Prüß A (2001) Organic contaminants in sewage sludge for agricultural use. Report for the European Commission Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability Soil and Waste UnitGoogle Scholar
  25. Eriksen GS, Amundsen CE, Bernhoft A, Eggen T, Grave K, Halling-Sørensen B, et al. (2009) Risk assessment of contaminants in sewage sludge applied on Norwegian soils. Norway: Panel on Contaminants in the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food SafetyGoogle Scholar
  26. Finney DJ (1978) Statistical methods in biological assay, 3rd edn. Charles Griffin & Company Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Gallipoli A, Gianico A, Gagliano MC, Braguglia CM (2014) Potential of high-frequency ultrasounds to improve sludge anaerobic conversion and surfactants removal at different food/inoculum ratio. Biores Technol, in press doi:  10.1016/j.biortech.2014.02.084 .
  28. Gianico A, Braguglia CM, Mascolo G, Mininni G (2013a) Partitioning of nutrients and micropollutants along the sludge treatment line: a case study. Environ Sci Pollut Res 20(9):6256–65. doi: 10.1007/s11356-013-1686-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gianico A, Braguglia CM, Cesarini R, Mininni G (2013b) Reduced temperature hydrolysis at 134 °C before thermophilic anaerobic digestion of waste activated sludge at increasing organic load. Biores Technol 143:96–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gianico A, Braguglia CM, Gallipoli A, Mininni G (2014) Innovative two-stage mesophilic/thermophilic anaerobic degradation of sonicated sludge: performances and energy balance. Environ Sci Pollut Res. doi: 10.1007/s11356-014-3123-1
  31. Hijaz M (2007) The fate of organic chemicals in wastewater and sewage sludge. MSc thesis, http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=SP0547_7266_FRA.pdf
  32. Ismail ZZ, Tezel U, Pavlostathis, SG (2010) Sorption of Quaternary Ammonium Compounds to Municipal Sludge. Water Research 44(7):2303–2313Google Scholar
  33. ISO (2008a) Soil quality—guidance on the assessment of tests applied in the field of ecotoxicological characterization of soils and soil materials. ISO 17616. Geneve, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  34. ISO (2008b) Soil quality—avoidance test for evaluating the quality of soils and the toxicity of chemicals. Test with Earthworms (Eisenia fetida/andrei). ISO 17512-1. Geneve, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  35. ISO (2012) Soil quality—quality of solid samples—solid contact test using the dehydrogenase activity of Arthrobacter globiformis. Draft guideline ISO 18187. Geneve, SwitzerlanGoogle Scholar
  36. Jahnke A, Gandrass J, Ruckb W (2004) Simultaneous determination of alkylphenol ethoxylates and their biotransformation products by liquid chromatography/electrospray ionisation tandem mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1035:115–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jones KC, Northcott GL (2000) Organic contaminants in sewage sludges: a survey of UK samples and a consideration of their significance. Final Report to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Water Quality DivisionGoogle Scholar
  38. Jos A, Repetto G, Rios JC, Hazen MJ, Molero ML, del Peso A, Salguero M, Fernandez-Freire P, Perez-Martin JM, Camean A (2003) Ecotoxicological evaluation of carbamazepine using six different model systems with eighteen endpoints. Toxicol In Vitro 17:525–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kreuzinger N, Fuerhacker M, Scharf S, Uhl M, Gans O, Grillitsch B (2007) Methodological approach towards the environmental significance of uncharacterized substances-quaternary ammonium compounds as an example. Desalination 215(1–3):209–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Langenbach T, Pfeifer W, Freire LR, Sarpa M, Paim S (1994) Heavy metals in sludge from the sewage treatment plant of Rio de Janeiro. Environm Technol 5:997–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Levantesi C, Beimfohr C, Blanch AR, Lucena F, Tomei MC, Gianico A, Mininni G, Carducci A (2014) Sludge hygienization by innovative sludge treatment processes to assure safe land spreading. Environ Sci Pollut Res: submitted to this special issueGoogle Scholar
  42. Lukicheva I, Pagilla K, Rohloff G, Kunetz T(2009) To do Class A or Not? What to do to enhance sludge processing?. Water Environment Federation, WEFTEC: 1256-1273Google Scholar
  43. Madsen T, Kristensen P (1997) Effects of bacterial inoculation and nonionic surfactants on degradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in soil. Environ Toxicol Chem 16:631–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Martinez-Carballo E, Gonzalez-Barreiro C, Sitka A, Kreuzinger N, Scharf S, Gans O (2007) Determination of selected quaternary ammonium compounds by liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry. Part Ii. Application to sediment and sludge samples in Austria. Environ Pollut 146(2):543–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mascolo G, Balest L, Cassano D, Laera G, Lopez A, Pollice A, Salerno C (2010a) Biodegradability of pharmaceutical industrial wastewater and formationof recalcitrant organic compounds during aerobic biological treatment. Biores Technol 101(8):2585–2591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mascolo G, Locaputo V, Mininni G (2010b) New perspective on the determination of flame retardants in sewage sludge by using ultra high pressure liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry with different ion sources. J Chromatogr A 1217(27):4601–4611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Metcalf L, Eddy HP (2003) Wastewater engineering: treatment and reuse, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Moser H, Roembke J (2009) The ecotoxicological characterisation of waste—results and experiences from a European ring test. Springer Ltd., New York, p 308Google Scholar
  49. Novak JT, Sadler MS, Murthy SN (2003) Mechanism of floc destruction during anaerobic and aerobic digestion and the effect on conditioning and dewatering of biosolids. Water Res 37:3136–3144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. NRC-National Research Council (2002) Biosolids applied to land: advancing standards and practices (Prepublication Copy). National Academy Press, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  51. OECD (1984): Test No. 207: earthworm, acute toxicity tests. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  52. ONTARIO REGULATION-OR (2009) 338/09 made under the NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT ACT, 2002, amended 2009 and amending O.Reg. 267/03. The Ontario Gazette:http://www.elaws.gov.on.ca/html/source/regs/english/2009/elaws_src_regs_r09338_e.htm
  53. Parravicini V, Svardal K, Hornek R, Kroiss H (2008) Aeration of anaerobically digested sewage sludge for COD and nitrogen removal: optimization at large-scale. Water Sci Technol 57:257–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Patrauchan MA, Oriel PJ (2003) Degradation of benzyldimethylalkylammonium chloride by Aeromonas hydrophila sp. K J Appl Microbiol 94(2):266–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Patureau D, Trably E (2006) Impact of anaerobic and aerobic processes on polychlorobiphenyl removal in contaminated sewage sludge. Biodegradation 17:9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Patureau D, Delgenes N, Delgenes JP (2008) Impact of sewage sludge treatment processes on the removal of the endocrine disrupters nonylphenol ethoxylates. Chemosphere 72:586–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Paulsrud B, Wien A, Nedland KT (1998) A survey of toxic organics in Norwegian sewage sludge, compost and manure. Paper presented at 8th International Conference of the FAO. Phys Eng Sci 367:4005–4041Google Scholar
  58. Radjenovic J, Jelic A, Petrovic M, Barcelo D (2009) Determination of pharmaceuticals in sewage sludge by pressurized liquid extraction (PLE) coupled to liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Anal Bioanal Chem 393:1685–1695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Riau V, De la Rubia MA, Pérez M (2010) Temperature-phased anaerobic digestion (TPAD) to obtain class A biosolids: a semicontinuous study. Biores Technol 101:2706–2712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Römbke J, Moser TH, Moser H (2009) Ecotoxicological characterization of 12 incineration ashes (MWI) using 6 labor-atory tests. Waste Manage 29:2475–2482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sastre J, Sahuquillo A, Vidal M, Rauret G (2002) Determination of Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn in environmental samples: microwave-assisted total digestion versus aqua regia and nitric acid extraction. Anal Chim Acta 462:59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Smith SR (2009) Organic contaminants in sewage sludge (biosolids) and their significance for agricultural recycling. Philos Trans R Soc A-Math Phys Eng Sci 367:4005–4041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Smith SR and Riddell-Black D (2007) Sources and impacts of past, current and future contamination of soil. Appendix 2: Organic contaminants SP0547. Defra Science Directorate. London, UK: Department for Environment Food and Rural AffairsGoogle Scholar
  64. Spongberg AL, Witter JD (2008) Pharmaceutical compounds in the wastewater process stream in Northwest Ohio. Sci Total Environ 39:148–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Taylor M, Elliott HA (2013) Influence of water treatment residuals on dewaterability of wastewater biosolids. Water Sci and Technol 67(1):180–6. doi: 10.2166/wst.2012.553 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tchobanoglous G, Burton FL (1996) Wastewater engineering treatment disposal and reuse. McGraw-Hill International Edition, Singapore, pp 84–827Google Scholar
  67. Tezel U, Pavlostathis SG (2009) Transformation of benzalkonium chloride under nitrate reducing conditions. Environ Sci Technol 43(5):1342–1348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tezel U, Pierson JA, Pavlostathis SG (2006) Fate and effect of quaternary ammonium compounds on a mixed methanogenic culture. Water Res 40(19):3660–3668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Thornton I, Butler D, Docx P, Hession M, Makropoulos C, McMullen M, Nieuwenhuijsen M, Pitman A, Rautiu R, Sawyer R, Smith S,White D, Wilderer P, Paris S, Marani D, Braguglia C, Palerm J (2001) Pollutants in urban waste water and sewage sludge. Final report prepared for European Commission Directorate- General EnvironmentGoogle Scholar
  70. Tomei MC, Carozza N (2014) Sequential anaerobic/aerobic process for enhanced sludge stabilization: comparison of the digestion performance for mixed and waste activated sludge. Environ Sci Pollut Res: submitted to this special issueGoogle Scholar
  71. Tomei MC, Rita S, Mininni G (2011) Performance of sequential anaerobic/aerobic digestion applied to municipal sewage sludge. J Environ Manage 92:1867–1873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Trably E, Patureau D, Delgene’s JP (2003) Enhancement of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) removal during anaerobic treatment of urban sludge. Wat Sci Technol 48:53–60Google Scholar
  73. USEPA-United States Environmental Protection Agency (1987) Dewatering municipal wastewater sludge. EPA/625/1–87/ 014. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  74. Vesilind PA (1988) Capillary suction time as a fundamental measure of sludge dewaterability. J WPCF 60(2):215–219Google Scholar
  75. Wang LK, Shammas NK, Hung Y-T (2009) Engineering and management of agricultural land application in biosolids engineering and management. Humana Press, Totowa, NJGoogle Scholar
  76. Wick A, Fink G, Ternes TA (2010) Comparison of electrospray ionization and atmospheric pressure chemical ionization for multi-residue analysis of biocides, UV-filters and benzothiazoles in aqueous matrices and activated sludge by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1217(14):2088–2103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wilson CA, Novak JT (2009) Hydrolysis of macromolecular components of primary and secondary wastewater sludge by thermal hydrolytic pretreatment. Water Res 43:4489–4498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Yukseler H, Tosun I, Yetis U (2007) A new approach in assessing slurry filterability. J Memb Sci 303:72–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. M. Braguglia
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. Coors
    • 2
  • A. Gallipoli
    • 1
  • A. Gianico
    • 1
  • E. Guillon
    • 3
  • U. Kunkel
    • 4
  • G. Mascolo
    • 5
  • E. Richter
    • 2
  • T. A. Ternes
    • 4
  • M. C. Tomei
    • 1
  • G. Mininni
    • 1
  1. 1.Istituto di Ricerca sulle Acque-CNRRomeItaly
  2. 2.ECT OekotoxikologieFlörsheim/MainGermany
  3. 3.ICMR UMR CNRS 7312Université de Reims Champagne-ArdenneReimsFrance
  4. 4.Federal Institute of Hydrology (BfG)KoblenzGermany
  5. 5.Istituto di Ricerca sulle Acque-CNRBariItaly

Personalised recommendations