Advertisement

Closing the Loop on Biogas Plants: Recycling Digestate and Sludge on Agriculture and Microbial Risk Assessment

  • Maria Elisa Magri
  • Priscila Carlon
  • Luiza Jofily Miranda Cruz
  • Leonardo Dalri-Cecato
Chapter
Part of the Biofuel and Biorefinery Technologies book series (BBT, volume 9)

Abstract

Management of human and animal wastes is among the major constraints towards the sustainable development of human settlements, where we demand increasing amounts of clean water, food, and energy. The aim of most sanitation solutions is to keep waste away from the generation site, such as households or animal stalls. The misconception that wastes have no useful purpose has resulted in unsustainable systems. However, the recovery of energy and agricultural use of the organics and nutrients contained in excreta and solid waste can improve soil structure and fertility, increasing productivity, reducing the dependency of resource-demanding chemical fertilizers, and thus contributing to food security. Treatment plants for waste anaerobic biodigestion can be applied in that context, moving from “treatment” plants to become “resource recovery” plants. The recovery of biogas in those plants for energy production is highly valuable, and added value can be obtained by the recycling of the biodegradation products—accumulated sludge and digestate. Those fractions should be treated sufficiently to inactivate pathogens to a certain extent. The quantitative microbial risk assessment is an effective approach to estimate risks, which can be applied to any scenarios of recycling liquid fractions from biogas reactors in agriculture.

Keywords

Waste Risk assessment Nutrient recycling Pathogens Biogas Sludge Digestate QMRA 

References

  1. Albihn A, Vinnerås B (2007) Biosecurity and arable use of manure and biowaste—treatment alternatives. Livest Sci 112:232–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amoah ID et al (2018) Concentration of soil-transmitted helminth eggs in sludge from South Africa and Senegal: a probabilistic estimation of infection risks associated with agricultural application. J Environ Manage 206:1020–1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashbolt NJ (2004) Microbial contamination of drinking water and disease outcomes in developing regions. Toxicology 198(1–3):229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baldivieso-Freitas P et al (2018) Crop yield, weed infestation and soil fertility responses to contrasted ploughing intensity and manure additions in a Mediterranean organic crop rotation. Soil Tillage Res 180Google Scholar
  5. Besser TE et al (2001) Escherichia coli O157: H7 infection of calves: infectious dose and direct contact transmission. Epidemiol Infect 127:555; 129(2):427, 2002Google Scholar
  6. Blaser MJ, Newman LS (1982) A review of human salmonellosis: I. Infective dose. Rev Infect Dis 4(6):1096–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bujozek G (2001) Influence of ammonia and other abiotic factors on microbial activity and pathogen inactivation during processing of highsolid residues. Diss. Manitoba: University of Manitoba, 206pGoogle Scholar
  8. Carrington EG, Pike EB, Auty D, Morris R (1991) Destruction of faecal bacteria, enteroviruses and OVA of parasites in wastewater sludge by aerobic thermophilic and anaerobic mesophilic digestion. Water Sci Technol 24(2):377–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Castellanos-Navarrete A, Tittonell P, Rufino MC, Giller KE (2015) Feeding, crop residue and manure management for integrated soil fertility management: a case study from Kenya. Agric Syst 134:24–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chandran A, Pradhan SK, Heinonen-Tanski H (2009) Survival of enteric bacteria and coliphage MS2 in pure human urine. J Appl Microbiol 107(5):1651–1657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarke R et al (2017) A quantitative microbial risk assessment model for total coliforms and E. coli in surface runoff following application of biosolids to grassland. Environ Pollut 224:739–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coia JE (1998) Clinical, microbiological and epidemiological aspects of Escherichia coli O157 infection. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 20(1):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Courault D et al (2017) Assessment and risk modeling of airborne enteric viruses emitted from wastewater reused for irrigation. Sci Total Environ 592:512–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Decrey L, Kazama S, Udert KM, Kohn T (2015) Ammonia as an in situ sanitizer: inactivation kinetics and mechanisms of the ssRNA virus MS2 by NH. Environ Sci Technol 49(2):1060–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Roda Husman AM, Schets FM (2010) Climate change and recreational water-related infectious diseases. RIVM rapport 330400002Google Scholar
  16. Dizon JJ et al (1967) Studies on cholera carriers. Bull World Health Organ 37(5):737Google Scholar
  17. Emmoth E, Ottoson J, Albihn A, Belák S, Vinnerås B (2011) Ammonia disinfection of hatchery waste for elimination of single-stranded RNA viruses. Appl Environ Microbiol 77(12):3960–3966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fatta-Kassinos D, Meric S, Nikolaou A (2011) Pharmaceutical residues in environmental waters and wastewater: current state of knowledge and future research. Anal Bioanal Chem 399:251–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fong T-T, Lipp EK (2005) Enteric viruses of humans and animals in aquatic environments: health risks, detection, and potential water quality assessment tools. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 69(2):357–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fongaro G (2016) Higienização de dejetos suinícolas visando reciclo agrícola sanitariamente seguro, Santa Catarina. Thesis (in portuguese) (Doutorado em Biotecnologia e Biociências), Departamento de Biotecnologia e Biociências, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, 244 fGoogle Scholar
  21. Fongaro G, Viancelli A, Magri ME, Elmahdy EM, Biesus LL, Kich JD, Kunz A, Barardi CRM (2014) Utility of specific biomarkers to assess safety of swine manure for biofertilizing purposes. Sci Total Environ 479–480:277–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Granlund K, Rankinen K, Etheridge R, Seuri P, Lehtorant J (2015) Ecological recycling agriculture can reduce inorganic nitrogen losses – model results from three Finnish catchments. Agric Syst 133:167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Granstedt A, Schneider T, Seuri P, Thomsson O (2008) Ecological recycling agriculture to reduce nutrient pollution to the Baltic Sea. Biol Agric Hortic 26(3):279–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Griffin PM, Tauxe RV (1991) The epidemiology of infections caused by Escherichia coli O157: H7, other enterohemorrhagic E. coli, and the associated hemolytic uremic syndrome. Epidemol Rev 13:60–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haas CN, Rose JB, Gerba CP (1999) Quantitative microbial risk assessment. Wiley, GerbaGoogle Scholar
  26. Haas CN, Rose JB, Gerba CP (2014) Quantitative microbial risk assessment. New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons, 427pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hornick RB et al (1971) The Broad Street pump revisited: response of volunteers to ingested cholera vibrios. Bull N Y Acad Med 47(10):1181Google Scholar
  28. Iocoli GA, Zabaloy MC, Pasdevicelli G, Gómez MA (2019) Use of biogas digestates obtained by anaerobic digestion and co-digestion as fertilizers: characterization, soil biological activity and growth dynamic of Lactuca sativa L. Sci Total Environ 11–19 (In press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Julian TR et al (2018) High time-resolution simulation of E. coli on hands reveals large variation in microbial exposures amongst Vietnamese farmers using human excreta for agriculture. Sci Total Environ 635:120–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kafer SC (2015) Tratamento de lodo anaeróbio em wetlands construídos operados em alta taxa e com a recirculação de líquido percolado, Santa Catarina. Master Thesis (in portuguese) (Mestrado em Engenharia Ambiental), Departamento de Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, 143 fGoogle Scholar
  31. Kasorndorkbua C et al (2004) Routes of transmission of swine hepatitis E virus in pigs. J Clin Microbiol 42(11):5047–5052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kobayashi N et al (2017) Removal of human pathogenic viruses in a down-flow hanging sponge (DHS) reactor treating municipal wastewater and health risks associated with utilization of the effluent for agricultural irrigation. Water Res 110:389–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leclerc H et al (2008) Microbial agents associated with waterborne diseases. Crit Rev Microbiol 7828(4):371–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Levine MM et al (1973) Pathogenesis of Shigella dysenteriae 1 (Shiga) dysentery. J Infect Dis 127(3):261–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Magri ME (2013) Aplicação de processos de estabilização e higienização de fezes e urina humanas em banheiros secos segregadores, Santa Catarina. Thesis (in portuguese) (Doutorado em Engenharia Ambiental), Departamento de Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, 195 fGoogle Scholar
  36. Magri ME, Philippi LS, Vinnerås B (2013) Inactivation of pathogens in feces by desiccation and urea treatment for application in urine-diverting dry toilets. Appl Environ Microbiol 79(7):2156–2163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Maheshwari G, Jannat R, McCormick L, Hsu D (2004) Thermal inactivation of adenovirus type 5. J Virol Methods 118(2):141–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meng X-J et al (1998) Genetic and experimental evidence for cross-species infection by swine hepatitis E virus. J Virol 72(12):9714–9721Google Scholar
  39. Moazeni M et al (2017) Estimation of health risks caused by exposure to enteroviruses from agricultural application of wastewater effluents. Water Res 125:104–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mok H-F, Hamilton AJ (2014) Exposure factors for wastewater-irrigated Asian vegetables and a probabilistic rotavirus disease burden model for their consumption. Risk Anal 34(4):602–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mok H-F, Barker SF, Hamilton AJ (2014) A probabilistic quantitative microbial risk assessment model of norovirus disease burden from wastewater irrigation of vegetables in Shepparton, Australia. Water Res 54:347–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ottosson J (2003) Hygiene aspects of greywater and greywater reuse. Tese de Doutorado. Mark och vattenGoogle Scholar
  43. Pecson BM, Barrios JA, Jiménez BE, Nelson KL (2007) The effects of temperature, pH, and ammonia concentration on the inactivation of Ascaris eggs in sewage sludge. Water Res 41(13):2893–2902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Semenov AV, Ariena HC, Van Bruggen, Leo Van Overbeek, Termorshuizen AJ, Semenov AM (2007) Influence of temperature fluctuations on Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium in cow manure. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 60(3):419–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sidhu J (2001) The role of indigenous microorganisms in suppression of salmonella regrowth in composted biosolids. Water Res 35(4):913–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Smith HI Jr, Freter R, Sweeney FJ Jr (1961) Enumeration of cholera vibrios in fecal samples. J Infect Dis 31–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Topp E et al (2009) Livestock waste treatment systems for reducing environmental exposure to hazardous enteric pathogens: some considerations. Biores Technol 100(22):5395–5398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tsarev SA et al (1992) Characterization of a prototype strain of hepatitis E virus. Proc Natl Acad Sci 89(2):559–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tuttle J et al (1999) Lessons from a large outbreak of Escherichia coli O157 [ratio] H7 infections: insights into the infectious dose and method of widespread contamination of hamburger patties. Epidemiol Infect 122(2):185–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vinnerås B (2002) Possibilities for sustainable nutrient recycling by faecal separation combined with urine diversion. Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Biometry and Engineering, Uppsala, Sweden, 88 pGoogle Scholar
  51. Weir MH et al (2017) Development of a microbial dose response visualization and modelling application for QMRA modelers and educators. Environ Model Softw 88:74–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wigginton KR, Pecson BM, Sigstam T, Bosshard F, Kohn T (2012) Virus inactivation mechanisms: impact of disinfectants on virus function and structural integrity. Environ Sci Technol 46(21):12069–12078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Winker M (2010) Are pharmaceutical residues in urine a constraint for using urine as a fertilizer? Sustain Sanitation Pract 3:7Google Scholar
  54. World Health Organization et al (2016) Quantitative microbial risk assessment: application for water safety managementGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Elisa Magri
    • 1
  • Priscila Carlon
    • 1
  • Luiza Jofily Miranda Cruz
    • 1
  • Leonardo Dalri-Cecato
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering, Resource Recovery on Sanitation Systems Group of Studies—RRESSAFederal University of Santa CatarinaFlorianópolisBrazil

Personalised recommendations