http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5145-4027
Abstract
The Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) procedure was used to compare waste management options for kraft pulp mill sludge following its anaerobic digestion. Anaerobic digestion of sludge is advantageous because it produces biogas that may be used to generate electricity, heat and biofuels. However, adequate management of the digested sludge is essential. Landfill disposal is a non-sustainable waste management alternative. Kraft pulp mill digested sludge applied to land may pose risks to the environment and public health if the sludge has not been properly treated. This study is aimed to compare several recycling alternatives for anaerobically digested sludge from kraft pulp mills: land application, landfill disposal, composting, incineration, pyrolysis/gasification, and biofuel production by algae. The MCDA procedure considered nine criteria into three domains to compare digested sludge recycling alternatives in a kraft pulp mill: environmental (CO2 emission, exposure to pathogens, risk of pollution, material and energy recovery), economic (overall costs, value of products) and technical (maintenance and operation, feasibility of implementation). The most suitable management options for digested sludge from kraft pulp mills were found to be composting and incineration (when the latter was coupled with recycling ash to the cement industry). Landfill disposal was the worst option, presenting low performance in feasibility of implementation, risk of pollution, material and energy recovery.
Citation: Eikelboom M, Lopes AdCP, Silva CM, Rodrigues FdÁ, Zanuncio AJV, Zanuncio JC (2018) A multi-criteria decision analysis of management alternatives for anaerobically digested kraft pulp mill sludge. PLoS ONE 13(1): e0188732. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188732
Editor: Vijai Gupta, Tallinn University of Technology, ESTONIA
Received: January 12, 2017; Accepted: November 12, 2017; Published: January 3, 2018
Copyright: © 2018 Eikelboom et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The work was supported by the following: Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq); Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES); and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG).
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Brazil holds one of the world’s major shares in the pulp and paper export market with 17.2 million tons of pulp produced annually [1]. Kraft pulping, the most common pulp producing process in Brazil, demands approximately 30 m3 of water per ton of pulp produced. This process generates effluent with high organic content that cannot be discharged without treatment [2; 3]. A typical kraft pulp mill effluent treatment plant produces about 40 kg of primary sludge and 15 kg of secondary sludge per ton of dry pulp. In countries like Brazil, China and USA, both sludges are normally disposed into landfills, but could be used to produce biogas [2,3].
The waste stream that is digested to produce biogas produces a waste stream that is dewatered, resulting in a liquid and a solid fraction (biosolids). The liquid fraction is typically used to product biofuel and fertilizer, while the solid fraction is typically disposed of by land application, incineration or landfilling (S1 Fig) [3–5].
The objective of this study was to investigate, compare and select, the most suitable options for managing anaerobically digested primary and secondary sludges from kraft pulp mills, using the Multi-Criteria Decision Analyzing (MCDA) procedure.
Material and methods
Six alternatives for recycling pulp mill digested sludge were examined, based on the most common management alternatives adopted in the USA, China and Brazil: land application, landfill disposal, composting, incineration, pyrolysis/gasification, and biofuel production by algae [2,6,7,8]. The study data were obtained from published literature, and the recycling alternatives were compared using MCDA, a procedure widely accepted in solid waste management studies [9,10]. The method compares various alternatives and considers the opinion of stakeholders.
To evaluate the recycling alternatives, were considered environmental, economic and technical aspects, in order to find the best alternatives for sludge treatment. The environmental criteria considered possible environmental damage from sludge treatment, including the following decision criteria: CO2 emission; exposure to pathogens; pollution risks; material recovery; and energy recovery. The CO2 emissions were calculated using previously developed equations for landfill disposal, land application, and composting [11]. Exposure to pathogens, risk of pollution, and material and energy recovery were based on the data in published literature and previous research [12–18].
The overall costs criteria (costs for operation, maintenance, transportation, labor, energy demand and, in some cases, quality control or soil testing) and product value were selected based on the economic criteria. The costs for all alternatives except algae production, were selected based on data from Stamatelatou and Tsagarakis [16]. The product value was calculated using the average market value in the USA of the product recovered [13–16].
Technical criteria were selected to ensure the feasibility of each recycling option for the kraft pulp mill industry. The criteria for maintenance and operation, and for the feasibility of implementing an option in kraft pulp mills, were chosen for this purpose. Maintenance and operation refers to the recycling process and to the complexity of the alternatives proposed. Implementation feasibility for kraft pulp mills refers to the viability of adapting available management options to a typical kraft pulp mill.
The criteria were assigned different weight factors (WF1, WF2 or WF3) to denote the perceived importance of the criteria. The feasibility of implementing a digested sludge alternative in kraft pulp mills (WF3) was designated as the most important criterion, because it integrated the feasibility and adaptability of the technology to current industry practices. The overall costs, product values, and maintenance and operation criteria were each assigned a weight factor of two (WF2), according to their economic attractiveness and feasibility importance. The weight factor of one (WF1) was assigned to criteria for CO2 emission, exposure to pathogens, pollution risks, material recovery, and energy recovery.
The options were ranked from one to six, i.e., from the worst (one) to the best (six), based on the literature data and calculations. The calculated sum of each recycling alternative was determined using the weight assigned per criterion. The higher the sum, the better was the recycling alternative.
Delphi questionnaires to MCDA evaluations were prepared [17] and an electronic survey was sent to a number of academic and non-academic experts in the field from the environmental engineering to support the analysis. The participants were asked to rank the alternatives described per criterion in a preference order. From them, eight volunteered to contribute with the survey.
An anaerobic digestion model [18] was used with the software Aspen Plus®, System number: SYS917070, to estimate the digested sludge generation by the anaerobic digestion of kraft pulp mill primary and secondary sludges, and the mixture between them (2.5:1 ratio, in total solids basis). The kraft pulp mill in study is located in the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Water [19], proteins [20], lipids [20] and ash content [19] were characterized in the sludge. The cellulose and hemicellulose contents of primary [21] and secondary [22] sludge were based on data from published literature that examined sludge from kraft pulp mills [8,23,24]. The liquid and solid fractions of the kraft pulp mill digested sludge were measure from the water fraction provided by the model in Aspen Plus®.
Results
The characteristics of primary and secondary kraft pulp sludges, and their mixture, are presented in S1 Table. Both have high concentrations of fibers (cellulose and hemicellulose) that are potential substrates for bacteria in the anaerobic digestion process. Nevertheless, their protein content (i.e., nitrogen concentration) is low. The lack of nitrogen impairs biogas production, because it is an essential element for bacterial growth.
The characteristics of the digested sludge predicted by the model simulation highlights the efficiency of anaerobic digestion of secondary pulp mill sludge in comparison with digestion of primary sludge. More residual solids remained after digestion of the primary sludge compared to secondary sludge, which means that there is unused potential for biogas production from primary sludge due to the lack of nitrogen in this type of sludge. This fact is verified in the production of methane, where secondary sludge presents 72% higher production (S2 Table). The production of methane can be an interesting alternative for energy use [25,26].
Using MCDA to evaluate the combined environmental, economic and technical domains of alternatives, the options were ranked from best to worst as follows: composting (1); incineration (2); land application (3); pyrolysis/gasification (4); algae production (5) and landfill disposal (6) (S3 Table).
Discussion
CO2 emission
For primary sludge, the CO2 emissions from landfill disposal, land application and composting were estimated as 0.23, 0.60, 0.16 kg CO2/kg digested sludge, respectively. Cement production was the worst alternative in terms of CO2 emission [27]. The CO2 emission of crop wastes pyrolysis was lower compared to fossil fuels [28]. For gasification, the digested sludge is converted into CO, H2 and CO2 at a high temperature and the mixture of these gasses can be combusted to reduce the CO2 emission [29]. The CO2 emission reported in literature was 190 kg CO2/MWh from gasification of walnut waste [30]. The CO2 emissions from thermal recycling processes and algae production were not calculated due to lack of data. However, it is expected that algae production would emit less CO2 than would pyrolysis/gasification and incineration, because algae capture CO2.
Exposure to pathogens
For landfill disposal, the risk of exposure to pathogens is low if impermeable linings protected by sand layers are applied to prevent leaching of contaminants to groundwater [31]. Land application, without pre-treatment, showed a significantly high risk of pathogen exposure. Therefore, sludge and digested sludge have to meet quality standards regarding heavy metals, pathogens and vectors [32]. The high temperatures for thermal recycling alternatives should inactivate pathogens [33]. Nevertheless, pathogens inactivation also happens at relatively low temperatures (50°C) in a composting pile [34]. For algae production, the exposure to pathogens could cause occupational health or environmental problems [35].
Risk of pollution
For landfill disposal, harmful contaminants can leach through the soil, polluting groundwater and surface water. In addition, nutrients (N, P, K, Ca and Mg) at high concentrations can leach to groundwater [36,37]. The heavy metal content in digested kraft pulp sludge does not exceed legal limits [38], but potentially toxic elements in the kraft pulp mill digested sludge are a risk in land application [3]. Heavy metals accumulate in agricultural soil and their persistence in topsoil causes problems in the food chain [39]. Composting decreases the organic matter content and dissolved organic carbon, resulting in high heavy metal concentration in the final compost [40]. Cement production from digested sludge oxidizes organic pollutants and immobilizes heavy metals [33]. For pyrolysis/gasification, digested sludge is first dried, pressed to pellets and then combusted. In the combustion, organic pollutants are oxidized, but heavy metals present in the feedstock will remain in the ash [41]. Algae-bacterial systems can remove organic pollutants, nutrients and heavy metals from wastewater streams [42]. However, well-mixed photobioreactors with algal biomass recirculation can protect algae from the toxicity of the liquid fraction.
Material recovery
The disposal of sludge in a landfill is a waste of recyclable material that has both fertilizer and calorific value [43]. The land application and composting options allow the use of digested sludge in agricultural production as a low-cost soil amendment, but it is now becoming restricted due to the risk of pollution [3]. Incineration produces energy and ash from digested sludge [44], and dried sludge can be used to produce cement [45]. The heating value of the sludge is lower than the raw sludge due to decreased organic content after digestion, but incineration is still feasible [5]. Concerning pyrolysis, the kraft pulp mill digested sludge can be converted into bio-oil, pyrolysis gas and biochar. Bio-oil can replace crude oil, while pyrolysis gas can be used to produce energy, and biochar is a good soil conditioner [5]. The gasification process produces gas that can be used to produce electricity [46]. Algae production has potential applications, including biological CO2 sequestration and wastewater treatment [47], but its most interesting application is for biodiesel production [48].
Energy recovery
Landfill disposal, land application and composting of sludge do not enable energy recovery. Raw sludge from wastewater treatment plants can be digested and incinerated. Houdková et al. [49] found the calorific value of digested sludge was only 2.1 MJ/kg. In a study conducted by Cao and Pawlowski [50], primary and secondary sewage sludges were digested and pyrolyzed, producing 0.102 ton bio-oil and 0.207 ton bio-char per ton of primary sludge, and 0.192 ton bio-oil and 0.407 ton bio-char per ton of secondary sludge. Although that study [50] was conducted using sludge from municipal wastewater treatment, it gives an insight in the energy production potential from kraft pulp mill digested sludges. Gasification of sludge was found to produce 8.197 MJ/kg sludge, which was a lower energy value than that of other feedstocks such as coal, vegetable oils, straw, wood and plants [51]. Biofuel production from algae grown using digested kraft pulp mill sludge as a substrate has not been reported.
The high moisture contents of both raw and digested sludges impair energy recovery through incineration and pyrolysis/gasification processes, but not through anaerobic digestion, which is efficient at relatively high moisture content.
Overall costs
Overall costs of each alternative sludge management option were described in US dollars (US$) per ton of dry matter (S4 Table).
Overall costs for large-scale algae production from sludge have been poorly studied; however, these costs were estimated to be high due to maintenance and operation costs. Dewatering the digested sludge might increase the costs associated with incineration and pyrolysis/gasification due to the expected high moisture content of the kraft pulp digested sludge.
Value of products
The revenue from digested sludge used for land application needs to be better studied; in a 1995 study, a revenue value of US$ 34–36 per ton was found [14]. The inflation from 1995 to 2016 changes this value to US$ 53–100 per ton of digested sludge. However, this was determined for treated sludge that was free of pathogens, heavy metals and odor; comparable data are scarce about the value of composted sludge. One ton of sludge dry solids (DS) were converted to 0.81 MWh through incineration [49]. One MWh of biomass or coal was valued in terms of the Brazilian real (R$) at R$ 251 [15]; therefore, the value of one ton of sludge DS is valued at R$ 203.31 (US$ 58.18). The ash value of sludge DS was estimated to be US$ 200 per ton [14]. One ton of digested sludge on a DS basis produced 0.17 ton of ash [49]. Therefore, the value of one ton of DS was set at US$ 34. Incineration of one ton of sludge DS is worth US$ 91.83.
Pyrolysis of one ton of digested primary sludge (DS basis) resulted in 0.102 ton bio-oil and 0.207 ton bio-char. The selling price for bio-oil and bio-char are US$ 0.66/L and US$ 0.4/kg, respectively [52]. The value of one ton digested primary sludge is US$ 80.84 for bio-oil, and US$ 82.80 for bio-char considering the density of the bio-oil to be 1.2 kg/L, resulting in a total value of US$ 163.64 per ton of digested primary sludge. One ton of digested secondary sludge (DS basis) produced revenue of US$ 314.96 [52]. Energy production from gasification was estimated to be 8,197 MJ per ton sludge, i.e., 2.277 MWh per ton sludge (DS) [51]. The Brazilian value of one MWh (R$ 251) [53] yields a revenue of R$ 571.53 (US$ 163.56) per ton dry sludge.
For algae production, 4,558.71 m3 of wastewater is needed for 1 m3 of biodiesel, and 1 m3 of biodiesel results in revenue of US$ 636.65. Therefore, 1 m3 of digested sludge (liquid fraction) is valued at US$ 7.16 [16].
Maintenance and operation
In-situ composting is the preferred alternative regarding the maintenance and operation criterion. Neither land application nor landfill disposal is complicated, but each requires more maintenance in terms of professionals and quality control than does composting. Application of the digested sludge on land requires managers to minimize odor potential, pathogens and other harmful constituents in sludge to acceptable levels and frequently monitor possible environmental impacts using soil and groundwater analyses [54]. The kraft pulp mill digested sludge is too wet and needs to be dewatered [55]. The dewatering method needs to be further studied for kraft pulp mill waste because the anaerobic digestion process changes the capillary structure of the digested sludge, i.e., digestion alters the binding of water inside crevices and interstitial spaces that exist on and between particles and organisms [56].
Thermal treatment alternatives and algae production are more complex to operate than other alternatives. The kraft pulp mill digested sludge needs to be dewatered prior incineration. The dewatering requirement constitutes a major challenge because kraft pulp mill digested sludge has high moisture content. Gaseous emissions require air pollution control equipment. A major advantage of the thermal treatment alternative is to incinerate the kraft pulp mill in a biomass boiler. The bottom ash, a solid residue after incineration, can be used in cement production.
The relative complexity of pyrolysis processing equipment is the major disadvantage of this process. Pyrolysis involves a complex series of chemical reactions to decompose organic materials and produce oils, gases and char [57].
The major challenge of algae production is to implement an integrated system that combines large-scale production and algae harvesting to produce biofuels. Further investigation and development of large-scale production and harvesting methods for biofuels are necessary [58].
Feasibility of implementing kraft pulp mill digested sludge
Landfilling of kraft pulp mill digested sludge is easily implemented; however, this alternative is outdated and has environmental risks, and does not accrue economic profits or facilitate any material or energy recovery. Land application of kraft pulp mill digested sludge is feasible to implement, but the possible pathogen contamination and heavy metal content need to be studied. Heavy metal content of raw kraft pulp sludge is low [38]. Composting allows reactors (i.e., compost piles) to be placed and operated on-site at a kraft pulp mill, if area is available. Incineration (which can take place in the biomass boiler of a kraft pulp mill) combined with ash utilization (in the cement industry) are promising solutions for managing kraft mill sludge. Pyrolysis and gasification of the digested sludge, when compared to incineration, have the disadvantage of being difficult to implement on-site at a kraft pulp mill [59]. In addition, these alternatives require high-cost investments. Thermal treatment is also an alternative of questionable feasibility because of the high moisture content in the kraft pulp mill digested sludge. Algae production seems a promising alternative, but more research is needed to determine its feasibility for managing digested sludge from a kraft pulp mill, since this type of sludge lacks some essential constituents, such as nitrogen. An option for solving this problem would be to apply a thermal pre-treatment [60] or ultrasound treatment [61] to solubilize the sludge.
Conclusions
- Composting is the most suitable alternative for recycling the anaerobically digested sludge from kraft pulp mills.
- Composting is safe and produces low-cost fertilizer for agriculture. There is no energy recovery, but the overall costs are low and the process is feasible to implement.
- The incineration alternative may be easy to implement at a kraft pulp mill biomass boiler, because it includes energy recovery, and the ash generated can be recycled into cement production. Nevertheless, the incineration process is more complex and has higher costs compared to composting.
- The only difference between the opinion survey and the research based on literature and calculations was the score determined for the land application alternative, which was considered by the survey participants to be a better alternative than incineration.
- This study gave an insight into the advantages and disadvantages of various alternatives for managing anaerobically digested kraft pulp mill sludge.
Supporting information
S1 Fig. Processes for treatment and recycling anaerobic digested sludges (adapted).
Source: SHEETS et al., 2015.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188732.s001
(TIF)
S1 Table. Characteristics of the investigated kraft pulp mill sludge.
ADt: air dry ton of pulp. PS: Primary Sludge. SS: Secondary Sludge. Mixed sludge ratio of 2.5:1 dry mass basis.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188732.s002
(PDF)
S2 Table. Primary, secondary and mixed digested sludges production.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188732.s003
(PDF)
S3 Table. Weight factor (W), landfill disposal (Landfill), land application (Land App.), Composting (Comp.), incineration (Inc.), pyrolysis/gasification (P.G.) and algae from ranking the alternatives for each criteria.
Values in parentheses are from the survey study.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188732.s004
(PDF)
S4 Table. Alternative costs for handling the kraft pulp mill digested sludge.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188732.s005
(PDF)
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank students and experts for their time in responding to the opinion survey. To Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES), Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG).
References
- 1. IBÁ, Indústria Brasileira de Árvores. Statistics of the Brazilian Tree Industry. 2016;08:23. Available from: http://iba.org/images/shared/Cenarios/Cenrios_Julho2016.pdf
- 2. Kamali M, Khodaparast Z. Review on recent developments on pulp and paper mill wastewater treatment. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2015; 114: 326–342. pmid:24953005
- 3. Kamali M, Gameiro T, Costa MEV, Capela I. Anaerobic digestion of pulp and paper mill wastes–An overview of the developments and improvement opportunities. Chemical Engineering Journal. 2016;298; 162–182.
- 4. Bayr S, Rintala J. Thermophilic anaerobic digestion of pulp and puper and mill primary sludge and co-digestion of primary and secondary sludge. Water Research. 2012;46: 4713–4720. pmid:22795957
- 5. Sheets J, Yang L, Ge X, Wang Z, Li Y. Beyond land application: Emerging technologies for the treatment and recycling of anaerobically digested agricultural and food waste. Waste Management. 2015;44: 94–115. pmid:26235446
- 6. Kligerman DC, Bouwer EJ. Prospects for biodiesel production from algae-based wastewater treatment in Brazil: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2015; 52: 1834–1846.
- 7. Yang G, Zhang G, Wang H. Current state of sludge production, management, treatment and disposal in China. Water Research. 2015; 78: 60–73. pmid:25912250
- 8. Hubbe MA, Metts JR, Hermosilla D, Blanco MA, Yerushalmi L, Haghighat F, et al. Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation: A Review of Pulp and Paper Industry Practices and Opportunities. Bioresources. 2016; 11: 7953–8091.
- 9. Babalola MA. A Multi-criteria decision analysis of waste treatment options for food and biodegradable waste management in Japan. Environments. 2015;2: 471–488.
- 10. Yap HY, Nixon JDA. A multi-criteria analysis of options for energy recovery from municipal solid waste in India and the UK. Waste Management. 2015;46: 265–277. pmid:26275797
- 11.
EPA, US Environmental Protection Agency. Greenhouse gas emissions estimation methodologies for biogenic emission from selected source categories: solid waste disposal, wastewater treatment, ethanol fermentation. United States: EPA, 2010.
- 12.
Stamatelatou K, Tsagarakis KP. Sewage Treatment Plants: Economic Evaluation of Innovative Technologies for Energy Efficiency. London: IWA Publishing, 2015.
- 13.
EPA, US Environmental Protection Agency. Land application of sewage sludge and domestic septage. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency, 1995.
- 14.
Orbite, Orbite Technologies. 2016;05:12. Available from: http://www.orbitetech.com.
- 15.
Seenews. Brazil sets bidding cap for April 29 auction, lowest is for wind. 2016;05:12. Available from: http://renewables.seenews.com/news/brazil-sets-bidding-cap-forapril-29-auction-lowest-is-for-wind-519097.
- 16. U.S. Department of Energy. Alternative Fuels Data Center. 2016;05:12. Available from: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/prices.html.
- 17. Kamali M, Alesheikh AA, Khodaparast Z, Hosseinniakani SM, Borazjani SAA. Application of Delphi-AHP and Fuzzy-GIS Approaches for Site Selection of Large Extractive Industrial Units in Iran. J. Settlements Spat. Plan. 2016;6: 9–17.
- 18. Rajendran K, Kankanala HR, Lundim M, Taherzadeh MJA. A novel process simulation model (PSM) for anaerobic digestion using Aspen Plus. Bioresource Technology. 2014;168: 7–13. pmid:24524857
- 19.
Apha. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association. Washington, DC, USA; 21st ed, 2012.
- 20.
Detmann E, Souza MA, Valadares Filho SCV, Queiroz AC, Berchielli TT, Saliba EOS, et al. Métodos para Análise de Alimentos. INCT–Ciência Animal. Visconde de Rio Branco, MG: Suprema, 2012.
- 21.
Migneault S. Recylage des residuos papetiers pour la production de panneaux de fibres. 2011.128f. Thesis (Sciences du bois)—Université Laval, Québec, 2011.
- 22. Kyllönen HL, Lappi MK, Thun RT, Mustaranta AH. Treatment and characterization of biological sludges from the pulp and paper industry. Water Science Technology. 1998; 20: 183–192.
- 23. Reckamp JM, Garrido RA, Satrio JA. Selective pyrolysis of paper mill sludge by using pretreatment processes to enhance the quality of bio-oil and biochar products. Biomass and Bioenergy. 71; 2014: 235–244.
- 24. Sebastião D, Gonçalves MS, Marques S, Fonseca C, Gírio F, Oliveira AC, et al. Life cycle assessment of advanced bioethanol production from pulp and paper sludge. Bioresource Technology. 2016; 208: 100–109. pmid:26926202
- 25. Mussoline W, Esposito G, Lens P, Spagnic A, Giordano A. Enhanced methane production from rice straw co-digested with anaerobic sludge from pulp and paper mill treatment process. Bioresource Technology. 2013; 148: 135–143. pmid:24045200
- 26. Hinds GR, Gregory R, Mussoline W, Casimir L, Dick G, Yeh DH, et al. Enhanced methane yields in high-solids anaerobic digestion through inoculation with pulp and paper mill sludge. Environmental Engineering Science. 2016; 33: 907–917.
- 27.
Taylor M, Tam C, Gielen D. Energy Efficiency and CO2 Emissions from the Global Cement Industry. Paris: International Energy Agency, 2006.
- 28.
Gaunt JL, Lehmann J. Energy balance and emissions associated with biochar sequestration and pyrolysis bioenergy production. USA: Environmental Science Technology, 2008.
- 29.
Higman C, Burgt M. Gasification. 2. ed. Elsevier, 2008.
- 30.
Pereira EI, Suddick EC, Six J. Carbon Abatement and Emissions Associated withthe Gasification of Walnut Shells for Bioenergy and Biochar Production. California, USA: Elsevier, 2016.
- 31. Powelson DK, Simpson JR, Gerba CP. Effects of organic matter on virus transport inunsaturated flow. Applied Environmental Microbiology. 1991;57: 2192–2196. pmid:1768089
- 32.
EPA, US Environmental Protection Agency. A guide for land appliers on the requirements of the federal standards for the use or disposal of sewage sludge. Washington, DC: Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, 1994.
- 33. Taruya T, Okuno N, Kanaya K. Recycling of sewage sludge as raw material of Portland cement in Japan. Water Science Technology. 2002;46: 255–258.
- 34. Patterson MF, Kilpatrick DJ. The combined effect of high hydrostatic pressure and mild eat on inactivation of pathogens in milk and poultry. Journal of Food Protection. 1998;61: 432–436. pmid:9709206
- 35.
NAS, Sustainable Development of Algal Biofuels in the United States. United States of America: The National Academies Press, 2012.
- 36. Rhymesa J, Wallacec H, Fennera N, Jonesb L. Evidence for sensitivity of dune wetlands to groundwater nutrients. Science of the Total Environment. 2014; 490: 106–113. pmid:24846404
- 37. Georgiadis P, Taeroe A, Stupak I, Kepfer-Rojas S, Zhang W, Bastos RP, et al. Fertilization effects on biomass production, nutrient leaching and budgets in four stand development stages of short rotation forest poplar. Forest Ecology and Management. 2017; 397: 18–26.
- 38.
Guerra MSAL, Silva CM, Rossoni HAV, Rezende AA, Landim AB, Carvalho ST. Absorption potential of heavy metals and organochlorine compost (PCDD and PCDF) in Brassica juncea using compost and bio-sludge from an Eucalyptus kraft bleached pulp mill. In. LeBlanc Ronald J; Laughton Peter J; Tyagi Rajesh. Moving forward wastewater biosolids sustainability: technical, managerial, and public synergy. New Brunswick, GMSC, 2007; 641–647.
- 39. Alloway BJ, Jackson AP, Morgan H. The accumulation of cadmium by vegetables grown on soils contaminated from a variety of sources. Science of the total Environment. 1990;91: 223–236. pmid:2320998
- 40. Miaomiao H, Wenhong L, Xinqiang L, Donglei W, Guangming T. Effect of composting process on phytotoxicity and speciation of copper, zinc and lead in sewage sludge and swine manure. Waste Management. 2009;29: 590–597. pmid:18778928
- 41. Kratzeisen M, Starcevic N, Martinov M, Maurer C, Müller J. Applicability of biogas digestate as solid fuel. Fuel. 2010;89: 2544–2548.
- 42. Muñoz R, Guieysse B. Algal–bacterial processes for the treatment of hazardous contaminants: a review. Water Research. 2006;40: 2799–2815. pmid:16889814
- 43.
Europeam Commission, Disposal and recycling routes for sewage sludge. Part 2- Regulatory report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2001.
- 44. TAY J.H.; SHOW K.W. Resource recovery of sludge as a building and construction material—A future trend in sludge management. Water Science and Technology Volume 36, Issue 11, 1997, Pages 259–266.
- 45. Abuşoğlu A, Özahi E, Kutlar AI, Al-Jaf H. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of digested sewage sludge incineration for heat and power production. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2017; 142: 1684–1692.
- 46. Judex JW, Gaiffi M, Burgbacher HC. Gasification of dried sewage sludge: Status of the demonstration and the pilot plant. Waste Management. 2012;32: 719–723. pmid:22284442
- 47. Fernandes L, Lucas MS, Maldonado MI, Oller IO, Sampaio A. Treatment of pulp mill wastewater by Cryptococcus podzolicus and solar photo-Fenton: A case study. Chemical Engineering Journal. 2014;245:158–165.
- 48. Mata TM, Martins AA, Caetano NS. Microalgae for biodiesel production and other applications. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2010;14: 217–232.
- 49. Houdková L, Boráň J, Ucekaj V, Elsäßer T, Stehlík P. Thermal processing of sewage sludge–II. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2008;28: 2083–2088.
- 50. Cao Y, Pawlowski A. Sewage sludge-to-energy approaches based on anaerobic digestion and pyrolysis: Brief overview and energy efficiency assessment. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2012;16: 1657–1665.
- 51. Ptasinski KJ, Prins MJ, Pierik A. Exergetic evaluation of biomass gasification. Energy. 2007;32: 568–574.
- 52.
Fang Z, Smith RL, Qi X. Production of ciofuels and chemicals with microwave. China: Springer, 2015.
- 53.
CLIMATESCOPE. Global Climatescope. 2015; 06: 07. Available from: http://globalclimatescope.org/en/country/brazil/#/details.
- 54. Saskatchewan R. Land Application of Municipal Sewage Sludge Guidelines. Water Security Agency, 2015.
- 55. Mata-Alvarez J, Macé S, Llabrés P. Anaerobic digestion of organic solid wastes. An overview of research achievements and perspectives. Bioresource Technology. 2000;74: 3–16.
- 56. García-Bernet D, Buffière P, Latrille E, Steyer J, Escudié R. Water distribution in biowastes and digestates of dry anaerobic digestion technology. Chemical Engineering Journal. 2011;172: 924–928.
- 57. Kim Y, Parker W. A technical and economic evaluation of the pyrolysis of sewage sludge for the production of bio-oil. Bioresource Technology. 2007;99: 1409–1416. pmid:17383872
- 58. Christenson L, Sims R. Production and harvesting of microalgae for wastewater treatment, biofuels, and bioproducts. Biotechnology Advances. 2011;29: 686–702. pmid:21664266
- 59. Huang R, Tang Y. Evolution of phosphorus complexation and mineralogy during (hydro) thermal treatments of activated and anaerobically digested sludge: Insights from sequential fractionation and P K-edge XANES. Water Research. 2016;100: 439–447. pmid:27232988
- 60. Jian Z, Shuangfei W, Shiguang L, Ping X, Tian X. Kinetics of combined thermal pretreatment and anaerobic digestion of waste activated sludge from sugar and pulp industry. Chemical Engineering Journal. 2016;295: 131–138.
- 61. Li X, Zhu T, Zhang K, Lv L, Shen Y, Chai T, et al. Enhanced sludge degradation process using a microbial electrolysis cell in an up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor with ultrasound treatment. Chemical Engineering Journal. 2016; 306: 17–21.