ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Polar Micropollutants and Metals in Centrate from Dewatered Sewage Sludge Intended for Reuse in Soilless Horticulture
My Activity
  • Open Access
Article

Polar Micropollutants and Metals in Centrate from Dewatered Sewage Sludge Intended for Reuse in Soilless Horticulture
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

Open PDFSupporting Information (1)

ACS ES&T Water

Cite this: ACS EST Water 2022, 2, 12, 2548–2557
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.2c00345
Published November 16, 2022

Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 .

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The so-called centrate, the water remaining from digested sludge centrifugation in municipal wastewater treatment, is an untapped resource of both macro- and micronutrients for plant cultivation. However, both organic and inorganic contaminants present in the centrate may affect the quality of the produce if taken up by the plants. Little is known about the micropollutants present in the centrate. The centrate, influent, and effluent of a municipal wastewater treatment plant were analyzed for 27 polar organic micropollutants over a period of 28 days by direct injection liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. The median dissolved concentrations in the centrate exceeded the concentrations in both the influent and effluent for most compounds: highest concentrations were found for benzotriazole (79 μg/L), valsartan (57 μg/L), and ibuprofen (18 μg/L). Micropollutants that are anaerobically degradable were not detected in the centrate. Among the heavy metals analyzed, highest concentrations were detected for Zn (47 μg/L) and Ni (17 μg/L). The increasing turbidity of the centrate led to elevated concentrations of less-polar micropollutants, while higher coagulant dosing increased the concentrations of more polar compounds. This first comprehensive study on polar organic micropollutants and metals in the centrate outlines that nutrient recovery from the centrate has to deal with both organic micropollutants and heavy metals present in the centrate.

This publication is licensed under

CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 .
  • cc licence
  • by licence
  • nc licence
  • nd licence
Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society

Synopsis

Centrate as a potential nutrient resource for soilless plant cultivation contains both organic and inorganic contaminants making further treatment prior to reuse necessary.

1. Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Reuse of wastewater contributes significantly to the provision of irrigation water in agriculture, reaching up to 60% during summer months─especially in Mediterranean countries. (1) While the reuse of wastewater in agriculture reduces fresh water withdrawal for irrigation, it can also help to recycle nutrients that are still present in treated wastewater. The recycling of nutrients from wastewater streams is promoted through the EU circular economy policy and has gained additional importance since phosphorous was classified a critical raw material by the EU in 2014. (2) National governments have started to promote phosphorous recovery through legislative measures, for example, with the amendments to the 2017 German Sewage Sludge Ordinance. (3) Concepts for recovering nutrients often focus on sludge, sludge ash, or effluent as streams exiting the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Internal streams may, however, also be of interest, such as the water remaining from the dewatering of the digested sludge.
Depending on the dewatering process used, the portion of the liquid phase of the digested sludge that is physically removed from the sludge matrix is referred to as centrate, sludge liquor, or process water. It is usually recirculated back into the influent of the treatment plant where it contributes to only 2% of volumetric flow but up to 25% of the total influent nitrogen load. (4) Compared to treated effluent, which is commonly reused as irrigation water for agricultural purposes in Mediterranean Europe, (5) centrate appears attractive because of its higher nutrient content. In addition to high nitrogen concentrations, centrate also contains high concentrations of micronutrients (e.g., Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn, Ni, Mo, and Cl) essential to plant growth, (6) which are solubilized during anaerobic sludge treatment.
The presence of micronutrients in centrate makes it especially attractive for the use in soilless cultivation, where all essential nutrients have to be present in the nutrient solution due to the absence of soil matter as a source for minerals. For this reason, for example, anaerobic digestate from biogas production has been investigated as a sole nutrient source in soilless horticulture. (7)
In spite of its high nutrient concentrations, the reuse of centrate as a nutrient source has not yet been reported in the literature and it poses some challenges. For instance, plant availability, for example, of nitrogen, which is present mostly as ammonia–nitrogen, has to be improved through nitrification. Also, elevated concentrations of some metals and metalloids present in centrate, acting as micronutrients, may negatively affect plant growth if plant-toxic levels are exceeded. (8) Moreover, especially in food production, inorganic and organic pollutants in centrate pose a risk for the produce, as plants may take up micropollutants dissolved in the recycled streams. (9,10) For organic micropollutants, properties such as a high polarity and low molecular weight have been reported to favor plant uptake. (11,12) Concerning inorganic micropollutants, quality standards are defined for heavy metals in the EU legislation on minimum requirements for wastewater reuse. (13) Here, technology targets are defined for minimum treatment based on the intended use of the produce, minimizing the risk posed by, for example, pathogens. Quality standards are defined for pathogens but also for turbidity and the biological oxygen demand. Additionally, a water reuse risk management plan should consider other substances of emerging concern. (13)
Therefore, a concept to reuse nutrients from centrate for plant cultivation will have to consider dissolved organic micropollutants and inorganic contaminants that are potentially plant available or have adverse effects on plant growth and to include means to remove such compounds from water, if necessary. Thus, more comprehensive knowledge on dissolved micropollutants in centrate is needed to develop a safe reuse scheme.
So far, the presence of heavy metals in centrate has been studied alongside their fate in WWTPs. (14) High particulate concentrations are reported for Cu, Pb, Ni, or Zn. (15) Literature shows that for some heavy metals, that is, Cu (16) in centrate can contribute ≥20% to the total load into the influent of WWTPs. However, insights into the time dynamics of heavy metals focusing especially on the aqueous phase of centrate are lacking.
The same is true for organic micropollutants. Studies on full-scale WWTPs are scarce and focus mostly on micropollutants with low to moderate polarity (log Kow > 2). Mailler et al. showed that rather unpolar phthalates (DEHP and DEP) are present in centrate at concentrations of 1–10 μg/L, while the more polar micropollutants tramadol, acetaminophen, and propranolol were found at <1 μg/L. (17) Also, Yoshida et al. have shown that linear alkyl sulfonates and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are found at high concentrations in centrate. (14) So far, the presence of more polar compounds (log Kow < 2) in centrate has not been investigated thoroughly. However, knowledge on these is crucial prior to reuse, as Dettenmaier et al. have shown, plant uptake is more likely for dissolved highly polar compounds of low molecular weight. (11) Consequently, a study focusing on polar micropollutants in centrate is needed to close this knowledge gap. Moreover, with increasing polarity leading to stronger partitioning to the water phase, (18) the compounds most relevant for plant uptake are expected to be found in the dissolved phase.
Therefore, this study focused on the dissolved phase of centrate, influent, and effluent of a full-scale WWTP and on two major questions: (I) which concentration ranges of micropollutants as well as metals and metalloids can be expected in centrate and how do they compare to an influent or an effluent? (II) How variable are concentrations over the course of time? This study is the first published in-depth study of organic hydrophilic micropollutants as well as metals and metalloids in centrate.

2. Experimental Section

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Analytes for LC–MS target analysis were selected using several qualitative criteria: (i) based on their occurrence in studies on micropollutants in WWTPss and (ii) based on physical–chemical properties that may foster their uptake into plants. For this study, a total of 27 compounds were selected as target analytes (Table S1).
Analysis with ICP equipment targeted most metals and metalloids included in the WHO requirements for safe reuse of wastewater (19) as well as those referenced in the EU regulation for wastewater reuse (13) pointing toward the EU water framework directive, (20) the EU regulation for food stuffs, (21) as well as the EU regulation on application of sewage sludge in agriculture. (22) Additionally, some non-regulated metals and metalloids acting as essential micronutrients to plant growth as well as K and P as macronutrients were part of the analysis.

2.1. Wastewater Treatment Plant

The sampling campaign was carried out at the WWTP Leipzig-Rosental (550.000 P.E., daily influx: 110,000 m3/d). A simplified scheme of the relevant treatment stages is supplied in Figure 1. The primary treatment stage separates the primary sludge from the inflowing water stream by the use of grits, fine screens, a sand trap, and a grease separation. After this, the wastewater is treated in an activated sludge process with a biological nitrogen removal and chemical precipitation of phosphorous. The average hydraulic retention time amounts to 10 h, while the average sludge age of the activated sludge is 8–9 d. While the treated wastewater is released into the receiving water, the excess sludge originating from the activated sludge process and the primary sludge undergo post-treatment. First, excess sludge and primary sludge are pre-thickened statically. Then, both are treated anaerobically in a mesophilic digestion process with a theoretical sludge retention time of 24 d. The digested sludge is then dewatered in belt filter presses and after this in centrifuges. The products of the centrifugation process are biosolids which are disposed of and centrate which is recirculated back into the influent of the treatment plant.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Simplified scheme of the WWTP. The three sampling points at the effluent of the primary clarifier (INF), the effluent of the WWTP (EFF), and the effluent of the centrifuge (CEN) are indicated.

2.2. Sampling

The sampling campaign was conducted from Jan 13th to Feb 9th 2020 for 28 consecutive days. For this study, the liquid phase of three different streams were investigated: (I) the centrate (CEN), (II) the effluent of the wastewater treatment plant (EFF), and (III) the effluent of the primary clarifier (INF) (Figure 1).
For both influent and effluent samples, flow-proportional 24 h composite samples were collected using a cooled automatic sampler (MAXX GmbH, Rangendingen, Germany). The centrate samples were collected by grab sampling.
To verify the validity of the grab sampling approach in centrate, pre-experiments were carried out in December 2019. Over a period of 24 h, centrate grab samples (n = 5) were obtained in 4 h intervals. Median centrate concentrations showed a mean relative standard deviation for all quantifiable compounds of RSD = ±6% along the 24 h interval (Table S2). Grab sampling was thus considered to be adequate for representative average concentrations for 24 h.

2.3. Sample Preparation

2.3.1. LC–MS Analysis

Samples of centrate, influent, and effluent were filtered (0.45 μm, regenerated cellulose) and stored refrigerated at 4 °C for a maximum of 19 days. Experiments to determine filter recovery showed acceptable recoveries for most compounds (Table S3). Prior to LC–MS/MS analysis, samples were diluted 1:10 in Milli-Q water and spiked with 10 μL/mL of a labeled internal standard mix (Table S4).

2.3.2. ICP-MS/ICP-OES Analysis

Samples for elemental analysis of dissolved concentrations of centrate, influent, and effluent were filtered (0.45 μm, regenerated cellulose) and after filtration acidified with HNO3 (65%) to pH 2–3 to prevent precipitation. The samples were stored refrigerated at 4 °C until analysis. Moreover, for analysis of total concentrations in all samples, unfiltered samples were homogenized and digested using a microwave-assisted digested approach following DIN EN ISO 11885.

2.4. Instrumental Analysis

2.4.1. LC–MS Analysis

For quantification of the micropollutants, samples were analyzed by LC–ESI–MS/MS using an Agilent 1260 Infinity series HPLC system (Agilent Technologies, Waldbronn, Germany), an Atlantis T3 column, 2.1 × 100 mm (Waters Corp., Milford, USA) with a SecurityGuard C18 guard column (4 × 2.0 mm2; Phenomenex), and a QTRAP 6500 (Sciex, Darmstadt, Germany) mass spectrometer. Parameters for chromatographic separation are based on Kahl et al. and are shown in Table S5. (23) Parameters for mass spectrometry are listed in Table S6. Electrospray ionization in the positive and negative modes was used. The analytes were detected using scheduled multiple reaction monitoring and identified based on two mass transitions as well as the retention time. Quantification of 19 analytes was carried out by external calibration in ultrapure water. Another eight analytes were quantified by their isotopically labeled standards added into each sample (Table S4). The matrix effects in centrate, WWTP influent, and effluent were estimated by matrix-matched calibration (Table S7). For most compounds, the matrix effects during the direct injection were in the range of −10 to +1%, except for the highly polar MET and MEL which eluted close to the dead volume of the LC column (Table S6). The matrix effects in centrate exceeded the matrix effects in the influent and effluent, likely due to its high salt content. However, as matrix effects can vary over time, it was not possible to apply a constant correction factor to concentrations determined by external calibration. Thus, they were not corrected for matrix effects.

2.4.2. ICP-MS/ICP-OES Analysis

Elemental analysis was performed to determine both the dissolved and total concentrations of metals and metalloids. For analysis of the dissolved concentrations, filtered samples were analyzed in an iCAP Qs ICP-MS (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, USA) system. For total concentrations, the homogenized samples were analyzed with an ICP-720-ES system (Varian Inc, Palo Alto, USA).

2.5. Chemicals and Analytical Standards

Ultrapure water was produced using a Merck Milli-Q Integral 5 System (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) and used for dilution of samples as well for the mobile phase A in the LC–MS/MS gradient. As mobile phase B, UPLC grade methanol (Biosolve, Valkenswaard, Netherlands) was used.
For analysis by LC–MS, stock solutions were prepared in methanol or a methanol/water mix and stored at −20 °C until calibration standards were prepared.
JChem for Office (Excel) was used for chemical database access, structure-based property calculation, search, and reporting, JChem for Office 21.1.0.787, 2021, ChemAxon (http://www.chemaxon.com).

2.6. Data Analysis and Calculation

For peak integration, quantification with external calibration, and signal correction using internal standards, the Multiquant software was used. For further processing of concentration data, the software R was used. If analyte’s signals were clearly identifiable (S/N > 3) in Multiquant but still below the respective limit of quantification (as reported in Table S8), the concentrations were automatically adjusted using an in-house R script to their respective LOQ/2.

2.6.1. Cout,aqCin,aq Ratio

To estimate concentration dynamics within the aqueous phase during the sludge treatment process (digestion and centrifugation), dissolved input cin,aq and dissolved output cout,aq of the sludge treatment process are compared for every compound i based on eq 1. As only the output (cCEN) was analyzed, a “theoretical cin,aq” is estimated based on measured concentrations in the influent of the treatment plant cINF and effluent of the treatment plant cEFF considering the relative contributions of primary sludge and excess sludge into the sludge treatment. Due to data availability reasons, the calculation is based on two simplifying assumptions: (I) the ratio of the volumetric flows of the liquid portion of both primary and excess sludge is comparable to the total volumetric flow of primary and excess sludge into the sludge treatment process. (II) Concentrations of micropollutants in the aqueous phase of primary sludge/excess sludge are comparable with INF concentrations/EFF concentrations. This appears reasonable based on the relatively high polarity of the analyzed components, which will cause most of them to partition mainly to the liquid phase. Considering the average hydraulic retention time of 24 d in the digester median, concentrations and volumetric flows were calculated for separate time frames for the input and the output of the digester.
(cout,aqcin,aq)i=(c¯CEN,iQ¯PSQ¯Raw·c¯INF,i+Q¯ESQ¯Raw·c¯EFF,i)
(1)
Q¯PS,Q¯ES,Q¯Raw = median volumetric flows of primary sludge (PS), excess sludge (ES), and mixed raw sludge (Raw) for Jan 13th to Jan 15th. cINF,i; cEFF,i = median concentration of compound i in influent/effluent for Jan 13th to Jan 15th. cCEN,i = median concentration of compound i in centrate for Feb 7th to Feb 9th.

3. Results and Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The centrate of a WWTP as well as its influent and effluent was sampled daily over a period of 28 days, and the dissolved phase was analyzed for 27 polar, potentially plant-available micropollutants (Table S1) as well as 18 elements, mostly metals and metalloids.

3.1. Concentrations in Centrate

3.1.1. Organic Micropollutants

The concentrations span a range of several orders of magnitude, from a median of 0.8 μg/L for the opioid-analgesic lidocaine (LDC) up to a median of 79 μg/L for the corrosion inhibitor benzotriazole (BZTR) (Figure 2).

Figure 2

Figure 2. Concentration of targeted micropollutants in centrate of a municipal WWTP over a period of 3 weeks (n = 21; for IBU and LAMO n = 7) from Jan 20th to Feb 9th. The period from Jan 13th to 19th was excluded from aggregation because disturbance in the centrifuge operation was observed. Ac-SMX, SMX, and ACET were <LOD. BEZA, PROP, BTSA, MET, TRA, BGP, and MEL detected <LOQ. Boxes: 25–75 percentile, whiskers: 95 percentile).

Unlike influent and effluent, in centrate, concentrations of many compounds such as metoprolol (METO), valsartan (VAL), or lamotrigine (LAMO) show only little variability (relative standard deviation RSD < 10%) over 21 days of grab sampling. Still, for some compounds such as acesulfame (ACE), benzothiazole-sulfonic acid (BTSA), or BZTR, a higher variability (RSD > 30%) was found (Figure 2). Interestingly, even structurally similar compounds such as BZTR and 4/5-methylbenzotriazole (4/5-MBZTR) exhibit dissimilar day-to-day variation in their concentration (Figure 3). For BZTR concentration, changes of up to +86% (Jan 25th to Jan 26th) from day to day can be observed in centrate (Figure 3d), while day-to-day concentration changes of 4/5-MBZTR do not exceed ±14% in the period from Jan 20th to Feb 10th. Compared to the WWTP influent and effluent of the WWTP, the variability of concentrations in centrate is low for all compounds investigated. Moreover, distinct weekly patterns (e.g., in influent, see Figure 3b,e) do not translate into centrate samples─likely due to the high hydraulic retention in the digester.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Concentration of 4/5-MBZTR and BZTR (a,d) in centrate, (b,e) in WWTP influent, and (d,f) WWTP effluent between Jan 13th and Feb 9th. Black: phase 1, high concentration of total suspended solids in centrate, gray: phase 2, low concentration of total suspended solids in centrate.

In contrast, absolute centrate concentrations of around one-third of all investigated compounds exceed both effluent and influent concentration while 15 of 27 compounds exceed at least the concentration in one of the two (Figure S1).
At concentration levels found in centrate, uptake, for example, of ACE or diclofenac (DCF) into the roots of plants or carbamazepine (CBZ) into the shoots has to be expected for soilless cultivation, as demonstrated by Kreuzig et al. (24)

3.1.2. Metals and Metalloids

The median dissolved concentration of metals and metalloids in centrate ranged between 0.05 μg/L for Cd and 0.3 μg/L for Sn up to 200 μg/L for B (Figure 4). Among the heavy metals, the highest median concentration was found for Zn with 50 μg/L and Ni with 20 μg/L. The median concentration for As reached 10 μg/L.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Concentrations of metals and metalloids in centrate of a municipal WWTP over a period of 3 weeks (n = 21) from Jan 20th to Feb 9th. The period from Jan 13th to 19th was excluded from aggregation because disturbance in the centrifuge operation was observed. The asterisk indicated the recommended maximum concentration in wastewater used for fertilizing plants as defined by WHO. (19)

The RSD of dissolved concentrations of metals and metalloids varied between 8% for B and 100% for Cu and up to 140% for Cd (Table S9). Similar to organic micropollutants, for B and Mo, the RSD in centrate was 1 order of magnitude below influent and effluent. In contrast, many heavy metals, for example, Cd, Cu, or Fe, showed higher fluctuations in centrate concentrations compared to influent and effluent (Table S9).
As for organic micropollutants, the median concentrations of most metals and metalloids in centrate exceeded the concentrations in the effluent. Influent concentrations were significantly exceeded in centrate only by few heavy metals such as Ni and As and most notably for Co (Figure S2).
As legislation for mineral fertilizers sets limit values in the mg/kg range, centrate concentrations fall well below the limits. (25) Up to this point, no legislation defining heavy metals limit values for liquid fertilizers is in place. However, WHO defines maximum recommended concentrations of metals in wastewater for use in agriculture defined by potential plant toxicity or adverse effects on soil. (19) Median metal concentrations in centrate did not exceed the limit values. However, for Fe concentration levels reach almost the maximum recommended value due to its potential limiting effect on availability of nutrients (e.g., P and Mo) in the soil as well as acidification. (19) Moreover, for Mo, maximum recommended values are in the same order of magnitude as the concentrations in centrate. For others such as Cd, Cr, Pb, and Zn, the median centrate concentrations are at least 1 order of magnitude below the recommended maximum. Furthermore, Lee et al. have shown that during soilless cultivation of lettuce, toxicity associated with heavy metal uptake in plants was insignificant according to the health risk index determined in the edible parts of the plant. (26)

3.2. Concentrations in Sludge Treatment

For a conventional WWTP, primary sludge from the primary treatment and excess sludge from the activated sludge process are the main input streams to the digestion process (Figure 1) and determine the input load of organic micropollutants and metals and metalloids. Especially for the more polar organic micropollutants, the load in the water phase of both primary sludge and excess sludge may be expected to govern the digester input, while the amounts sorbed to the respective particulate phase should be less relevant. Contrastingly, for most metals, it has been shown that the concentrations in primary and excess sludge are much higher in the particulate compared to the dissolved phase. (15)
For the investigated WWTP, the sludge treatment encompassed a digestion process as a biological step, and for sludge dewatering, a filter press and a centrifuge. To better understand the effects of the sludge treatment process on dissolved concentrations, a theoretical input concentration for the dissolved phase (cin,aq) was calculated (eq 1). Considering HRT in the digester, cin,aq was compared to cout,aq (=ccentrate) to derive knowledge on concentration trends during the sludge treatment. It is to be noted that the amount of organic micropollutants introduced with the solid phase of the sludges was not investigated; thus, a closed mass balance could not be achieved.
It has to be noted that during the sampling campaign, a drastic decrease in total suspended solid (TSS) concentration (Figure S3) in centrate was observed, indicating a change in centrifuge operation. This also led to a decrease in dissolved concentrations of a number of organic micropollutants as well as heavy metals, which is discussed below.

3.2.1. Organic Micropollutants

The calculated cout,aq/cin,aq ratios in Figure 5 show that the concentration in the dissolved phase increased during sludge treatment for 10 of the 27 organic micropollutants by a factor of 2.1 (BZTR) to 5.6 (CBZ). For the other half, the concentrations showed no change (e.g., ibuprofen─IBU) or compounds were partially (e.g., BTSA) or completely [e.g., metformin (MET)] removed from the liquid phase of the centrate. MET and sulfamethoxazole (SMX) were removed completely during sludge treatment, according to their reported anaerobic biodegradability. (27,28) BTSA, for which varying removal rates are reported in WWTPs, (29,30) shows a moderate removal during sludge treatment (cout,aq/cin,aq ratio = 0.4). Surprisingly, also ACE was partially removed, although studies have shown its recalcitrance against anaerobic transformation. (31) However, evolving biodegradation under aerobic condition has been observed. (23)

Figure 5

Figure 5. Ratio cout,aq/cin,aq of the median micropollutant concentration in filtrated centrate samples on Feb 7th to 9th and the calculated median input concentration into the digester from Jan 13th to 15th. The inset shows the TSS concentration in centrate. P-values based on the median micropollutant concentrations in centrate compared for phase 1 (black) and phase 2 (gray) (ns = not significant, **** = p < 0.0001, *** = p < 0.001, ** = p < 0.01, and * = p < 0.1).

Stable concentrations throughout the sludge treatment are expected for compounds that are neither transformed under anaerobic conditions nor removed by adsorption to the sludge matrix. With a cout,aq/cin,aq ratio of close to 1, this was found for IBU or Tramadol (TRA), reported to be stable under anaerobic conditions. (32,33) With medium polarity of log D(pH=8) ≈ 1, adsorption to the sludge matrix seemed to be of minor importance for the removal. However, a cout,aq/cin,aq ratio close to 1 may also be found for compounds that show partial removal by adsorption, as they may be (re-)formed by biological processes. Gonzales-Gil et al. found that reversible biotransformation can take place among transformation products and their respective parent compounds in anaerobic systems. (31)
An increase during sludge treatment was observed for a number of compounds. The highest cout,aq/cin,aq ratios were observed for compounds CBZ, DCF, or VAL. All the three are reported as anaerobically stable. (28,33,34) Moreover, CBZ and DCF have shown to partition to the solid phase by >20% (18) and are likely partially sorbed to the particulate sludge input into the digester. With the amount of sludge organic matter being reduced by about 40 (±10)% during this study and know changes in sludge quality (smaller particles, more negative surface charge, and higher amount of excreted extracellular polymeric substance) during anaerobic treatment, (35) the adsorptive capacity of sludge also changes. During digestion more polar, weaker sorbing compounds are replaced first when sorption capacity becomes limited, while less polar, more strongly sorbing compounds exhibit a higher concentration in the particulate phase and are thus more affected by the loss of particulate phase in the digester. Moreover, polarity of compounds with acidic groups increases during digestion, as they will be deprotonated based on their pKa. With pH changes during the digestion process, from pH 5.5 in the influent to pH 8 in the effluent of the sludge treatment (Figure S4), a number of compounds show drastic changes in log D during the digestion process (Figure S5), that is, DCF and VAL. Both become more hydrophilic during digestion, increasing their tendency to partition to the liquid phase. If initially sorbed to the sludge surface, this charge change explains increased dissolved concentrations after sludge treatment.
3.2.1.1. Influence of TSS
As mentioned above, centrifuge operation was disturbed from Jan 13th to Jan 20th, as indicated by a drastic decrease in TSS concentration in centrate (Figure S3). The TSS decrease is also paralleled by a drop in the concentration of a number of centrate micropollutants. Correlation between TSS and concentrations of rather unpolar compounds has been observed by Mailler et al. (17) As a number of compounds remained seemingly unaffected by the TSS in this study, a correlation with log D was attempted. However, it was not significant (Figure S6). Still, as the group of compounds not affected by high TSS also displays much higher RSD throughout the sampling campaign, relevance of a governing influencing factor connected to TSS affinity can be suspected.

3.2.2. Metals and Metalloids

For most metals, a decrease of the dissolved concentrations during sludge treatment was observed. Likely, initially dissolved metals are affected strongly by the anaerobic environment in the digester. With low redox potential and neutral pH, some heavy metals, for example, Zn, will form insoluble sulfides, leaving the dissolved state. (36) Moreover, with an increasingly negative surface charge during digestion, sludge flocs are likely to assert strong electrostatic attraction toward cationic metals and metalloids promoting adsorption to the sludge surface. During centrifugation as the last step of the sludge treatment, both precipitate and flocs are separated from the centrate.
While the centrifugation thereby removes most heavy metals associated with the particulate phase, El-Aassar et al. have demonstrated that Ni concentrations in the centrate correlate with centrifugation intensity. (37) Ni has been shown to associate to some extent with the colloidal fraction of organic matter, (38) making release during centrifugation plausible, when instable flocs disintegrate.
Interestingly, the cout,aq/cin,aq ratios for metals and metalloids show only a few elements with increased concentrations after sludge treatment (Figure 6). Only As (cout,aq/cin,aq ratio = 4.6), Co (cout,aq/cin,aq ratio = 3.9), and Ni (cout,aq/cin,aq ratio = 1.8) showed an increase, while for all other metals, median concentrations decreased by >60%. The highest increase in concentrations in the sludge treatment was observed for As (cout,aq/cin,aq ratio = 4.6), indicating its solubilization from the sludge matrix. As forms carbonates in aerobic treatment, (39) which may be dissolved due to the increasing pH (from pH 5.5–8) during sludge digestion. (40) Interestingly, K and P as macronutrients also increased considerably during sludge treatment by more than a factor of 4. This is favorable for the intended reuse of the nutrients in centrate.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Ratio cout,aq/cin,aq calculated from the median dissolved concentration of metals and metalloids in centrate samples on Feb 7th to 9th and the calculated median input concentration into the digester from Jan 13th to 15th.

3.2.2.1. Influence of TSS
While increased TSS concentrations in the centrate correlated well with the increased dissolved concentrations of a number of organic micropollutants (e.g., Figures 3a and 5), the same was not observed for dissolved concentrations of metals and metalloids (Figure S7). Contrastingly, investigating the homogenized samples showed that concentrations of heavy metals with affinity to the solid phase, for example, Zn or Cr, did increase with higher TSS concentrations in centrate. Moreover, even homogenized concentrations of Ni, which is preferentially found in the aqueous phase, seemed to increase with the TSS to a small degree.

4. Conclusions

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

One focus of this study were rather hydrophilic (log D(pH=8) < 3) and low molecular weight organic (MW < 300 Da) micropollutants. They were found at concentrations of up to 80 μg/L in centrate. Anaerobically (bio-)degradable compounds were below the detection limit in the centrate. Notably, many organic micropollutants in centrate exceed the concentrations found in the influent or effluent. However, unlike influent or effluent, in centrate, organic micropollutant concentrations for many compounds are stable over the course of the sampling period. Some more hydrophilic compounds showed higher variability over time.
For metals and metalloids, highest concentrations were found for Zn with 50 μg/L. The concentrations of most metals and metalloids decreased during sludge treatment. Only As, Ni, and Co showed increasing concentrations.
While the incoming load of organic micropollutants, metals, and metalloids is determined by the input through the amount and ratio of primary and excess sludge, there are a number of processes affecting concentrations in the centrate during sludge treatment. Among those, adsorption and desorption to/from the sludge matrix during anaerobic digestion, speciation changes for metals and metalloids, and the extent of particle removal from centrate during centrifugation appear to have a strong influence on concentrations in centrate. A better understanding of these processes offers the potential to minimize the content of contaminants in centrate. For heavy metals, concentrations in centrate are low compared to the limit values for mineral fertilizers, and plant uptake does not appear to be critical. However, for the yet unregulated organic micropollutants, plant uptake has to be expected for some of them. Therefore, reduction of heavy metals and especially organic micropollutants is recommended before reuse in soilless cultivation of plants for human consumption.

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsestwater.2c00345.

  • Analytical method, comprehensive display of the concentrations of organic micropollutants, as well as metals and metalloids and total removal rates of the WWTP observed during sampling, and scatter plots elucidating the analyte’s properties and corresponding concentrations and coutcin ratio are displayed (PDF)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Author
    • Thorsten Reemtsma - Department of Analytical Chemistry, Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research─UFZ, Permoserstrasse 15, 04318Leipzig, GermanyInstitute for Analytical Chemistry, University of Leipzig, Linnéstrasse 3, 04103Leipzig, GermanyOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-1606-0764 Email: [email protected]
  • Author
  • Author Contributions

    P.G. contributed to conceptualization, investigation, data curation, formal analysis, writing─original draft, visualization, and project administration. T.R. contributed to writing─review and editing, supervision, funding acquisition, and resources. CRediT: Paul Genz conceptualization (lead), data curation (lead), formal analysis (lead), investigation (lead), visualization (lead), writing-original draft (lead); Thorsten Reemtsma funding acquisition (lead), project administration (lead), supervision (lead), writing-review & editing (lead).

  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This study was financed in part by the German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) through the project “Entwicklung eines nachhaltigen Kultivierungssystems für Nahrungsmittel resilienter Metropolregionen─SUSKULT” (FKz: 031B0728M). We are grateful to the head of the WWTP Leipzig-Rosental, Daniel Jentzsch (KWL, Leipzig) for the cooperation and his staff for provision of samples and data.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 40 other publications.

  1. 1
    EEA. Climate Change, Impacts and Vulnerability in Europe 2012: An Indicator Based Report; Publications Office: LU, 2012.
  2. 2
    EU. On the Review of the List of Critical Raw Materials for the EU and the Implementation of the Raw Materials Initiative; European Commission, 2014.
  3. 3
    Ternes, T.; Dierkes, G.; Boulard, L.; Weizel, A. Method Development for Analysis of Pharmaceuticals in Environmental Samples; Umweltbundesamt, 2019; p 141.
  4. 4
    Janus, H. M.; van der Roest, H. F.; Helle, F. Don’t Reject the Idea of Treating Reject Water. Water Sci. Technol. 1997, 35, 2734,  DOI: 10.1016/S0273-1223(97)00220-5
  5. 5
    Jimenez, B.; Asano, T. Water Reuse: An International Survey of Current Practice, Issues and Needs; IWA Publishing, 2008; Vol. 7.
  6. 6
    Broadley, M.; Brown, P.; Cakmak, I.; Rengel, Z.; Zhao, F. Function of Nutrients: Micronutrients. Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants; Elsevier, 2012; pp 191248.
  7. 7
    Weimers, K.; Bergstrand, K.-J.; Hultberg, M.; Asp, H. Liquid Anaerobic Digestate as Sole Nutrient Source in Soilless Horticulture─Or Spiked With Mineral Nutrients for Improved Plant Growth. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 770179,  DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2022.770179
  8. 8
    Keren, R.; Bingham, F. T. Boron in Water, Soils, and Plants. In Advances in Soil Science; Stewart, B. A., Ed.; Springer, New York: New York, NY, 1958; Vol. 1, pp 229276.
  9. 9
    Fu, Q.; Malchi, T.; Carter, L. J.; Li, H.; Gan, J.; Chefetz, B. Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Products: From Wastewater Treatment into Agro-Food Systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 1408314090,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b06206
  10. 10
    Goldstein, M.; Shenker, M.; Chefetz, B. Insights into the Uptake Processes of Wastewater-Borne Pharmaceuticals by Vegetables. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 55935600,  DOI: 10.1021/es5008615
  11. 11
    Dettenmaier, E. M.; Doucette, W. J.; Bugbee, B. Chemical Hydrophobicity and Uptake by Plant Roots. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 324329,  DOI: 10.1021/es801751x
  12. 12
    Riemenschneider, C.; Al-Raggad, M.; Moeder, M.; Seiwert, B.; Salameh, E.; Reemtsma, T. Pharmaceuticals, Their Metabolites, and Other Polar Pollutants in Field-Grown Vegetables Irrigated with Treated Municipal Wastewater. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, 64, 57845792,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.6b01696
  13. 13
    EU Regulation on Minimum Requirements for Water Reuse; Regulation (EU) 2020/741 on minimum requirements for water reuse. 2020, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32020R0741 (accessed Oct 12, 2022).
  14. 14
    Yoshida, H.; Christensen, T. H.; Guildal, T.; Scheutz, C. A Comprehensive Substance Flow Analysis of a Municipal Wastewater and Sludge Treatment Plant. Chemosphere 2015, 138, 874882,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.09.045
  15. 15
    Karvelas, M.; Katsoyiannis, A.; Samara, C. Occurrence and Fate of Heavy Metals in the Wastewater Treatment Process. Chemosphere 2003, 53, 12011210,  DOI: 10.1016/S0045-6535(03)00591-5
  16. 16
    Ziolko, D.; Martin, O. V.; Scrimshaw, M. D.; Lester, J. N. An Evaluation of Metal Removal During Wastewater Treatment: The Potential to Achieve More Stringent Final Effluent Standards. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 41, 733769,  DOI: 10.1080/10643380903140299
  17. 17
    Mailler, R.; Gasperi, J.; Patureau, D.; Vulliet, E.; Delgenes, N.; Danel, A.; Deshayes, S.; Eudes, V.; Guerin, S.; Moilleron, R.; Chebbo, G.; Rocher, V. Fate of Emerging and Priority Micropollutants during the Sewage Sludge Treatment: Case Study of Paris Conurbation. Part 1: Contamination of the Different Types of Sewage Sludge. Waste Manage. 2017, 59, 379393,  DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.11.010
  18. 18
    Narumiya, M.; Nakada, N.; Yamashita, N.; Tanaka, H. Phase Distribution and Removal of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products during Anaerobic Sludge Digestion. J. Hazard. Mater. 2013, 260, 305312,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.05.032
  19. 19
    WHO Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Greywater. 4: Excreta and Greywater Use in Agriculture; World Health Organization: Geneva, 2006.
  20. 20
    Water Framework Directive. EU Directive 2000/60/EC on establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. 2000, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:5c835afb-2ec6-4577-bdf8-756d3d694eeb.0004.02/DOC_1&format=PDF (accessed Oct 12, 2022).
  21. 21
    EU Regulation on Foodstuffs. EU Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 on setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs. 2006, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:364:0005:0024:EN:PDF (accessed Oct 12, 2022).
  22. 22
    EU Directive Sewage Sludge in Agriculture. EU Directive 86/278/EEC on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture. 1986, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31986L0278 (accessed Oct 12, 2022).
  23. 23
    Kahl, S.; Nivala, J.; van Afferden, M.; Müller, R. A.; Reemtsma, T. Effect of Design and Operational Conditions on the Performance of Subsurface Flow Treatment Wetlands: Emerging Organic Contaminants as Indicators. Water Res. 2017, 125, 490500,  DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2017.09.004
  24. 24
    Kreuzig, R.; Haller-Jans, J.; Bischoff, C.; Leppin, J.; Germer, J.; Mohr, M.; Bliedung, A.; Dockhorn, T. Reclaimed Water Driven Lettuce Cultivation in a Hydroponic System: The Need of Micropollutant Removal by Advanced Wastewater Treatment. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 5005250062,  DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-14144-6
  25. 25
    Düngemittelverordnung, V. German Ordinance on Fertilizer. 2012, https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/d_mv_2012/D%C3%BCMV.pdf (accessed Oct 12, 2022).
  26. 26
    Lee, E.; Rout, P. R.; Bae, J. The Applicability of Anaerobically Treated Domestic Wastewater as a Nutrient Medium in Hydroponic Lettuce Cultivation: Nitrogen Toxicity and Health Risk Assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 780, 146482,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146482
  27. 27
    Campbell, A. J. The Behaviour of Pharmaceuticals in Anaerobic Digestor Sludge. Ph.D. Dissertation; University of Portsmouth: Portsmouth, 2013.
  28. 28
    Carballa, M.; Omil, F.; Ternes, T.; Lema, J. M. Fate of Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Products (PPCPs) during Anaerobic Digestion of Sewage Sludge. Water Res. 2007, 41, 21392150,  DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2007.02.012
  29. 29
    De Wever, H.; Verachtert, H. Biodegradation and Toxicity of Benzothiazoles. Water Res. 1997, 31, 26732684,  DOI: 10.1016/S0043-1354(97)00138-3
  30. 30
    Kloepfer, A.; Gnirss, R.; Jekel, M.; Reemtsma, T. Occurrence of Benzothiazoles in Municipal Wastewater and Their Fate in Biological Treatment. Water Sci. Technol. 2004, 50, 203208,  DOI: 10.2166/wst.2004.0329
  31. 31
    Gonzalez-Gil, L.; Krah, D.; Ghattas, A.-K.; Carballa, M.; Wick, A.; Helmholz, L.; Lema, J. M.; Ternes, T. A. Biotransformation of Organic Micropollutants by Anaerobic Sludge Enzymes. Water Res. 2019, 152, 202214,  DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2018.12.064
  32. 32
    Gonzalez-Gil, L.; Papa, M.; Feretti, D.; Ceretti, E.; Mazzoleni, G.; Steimberg, N.; Pedrazzani, R.; Bertanza, G.; Lema, J. M.; Carballa, M. Is Anaerobic Digestion Effective for the Removal of Organic Micropollutants and Biological Activities from Sewage Sludge?. Water Res. 2016, 102, 211220,  DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2016.06.025
  33. 33
    Psoma, A. K.; Attiti, S.; Arvaniti, O.; Stasinakis, A. S.; Thomaidis, N. S. Fate of Selected Emerging Pollutants and Formation of Transformation Products in Activated Sludge Batch Reactors under Aerobic/Anoxic/Anaerobic Conditions. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology; Rhodes, 2015.
  34. 34
    Lahti, M.; Oikari, A. Microbial Transformation of Pharmaceuticals Naproxen, Bisoprolol, and Diclofenac in Aerobic and Anaerobic Environments. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2011, 61, 202210,  DOI: 10.1007/s00244-010-9622-2
  35. 35
    Barret, M.; Carrère, H.; Latrille, E.; Wisniewski, C.; Patureau, D. Micropollutant and Sludge Characterization for Modeling Sorption Equilibria. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 11001106,  DOI: 10.1021/es902575d
  36. 36
    Trace Elements in Anaerobic Biotechnologies; Fermoso, F. G., van Hullebusch, E., Collins, G., Roussel, J., Mucha, A. P., Esposito, G., Eds.; IWA Publishing, 2019.
  37. 37
    El-Aassar, A.; Kitcher, D.; Forster, C. F. The Release of Heavy Metals from Digested Sludge by Centrifugation. Environ. Technol. 1998, 19, 537542,  DOI: 10.1080/09593331908616710
  38. 38
    Hargreaves, A. J.; Vale, P.; Whelan, J.; Constantino, C.; Dotro, G.; Campo, P.; Cartmell, E. Distribution of Trace Metals (Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn) between Particulate, Colloidal and Truly Dissolved Fractions in Wastewater Treatment. Chemosphere 2017, 175, 239246,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.02.034
  39. 39
    Andrianisa, H. A.; Ito, A.; Sasaki, A.; Aizawa, J.; Umita, T. Biotransformation of Arsenic Species by Activated Sludge and Removal of Bio-Oxidised Arsenate from Wastewater by Coagulation with Ferric Chloride. Water Res. 2008, 42, 48094817,  DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2008.08.027
  40. 40
    Yekta, S. S.; Svensson, B. H.; Björn, A.; Skyllberg, U. Thermodynamic Modeling of Iron and Trace Metal Solubility and Speciation under Sulfidic and Ferruginous Conditions in Full Scale Continuous Stirred Tank Biogas Reactors. Appl. Geochem. 2014, 47, 6173,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2014.05.001

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!
Citation Statements
Explore this article's citation statements on scite.ai

This article is cited by 9 publications.

  1. Zhongkang Wang, Yen Nan Liang, Xiao Hu. Investigation of Iron- and Organic-Rich Waterworks Sludge for Fertilizer Application. ACS ES&T Water 2025, 5 (6) , 3230-3240. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.5c00085
  2. Caglar Akay, Nadin Ulrich, Ulisses Rocha, Chang Ding, Lorenz Adrian. Sequential Anaerobic–Aerobic Treatment Enhances Sulfamethoxazole Removal: From Batch Cultures to Observations in a Large-Scale Wastewater Treatment Plant. Environmental Science & Technology 2024, 58 (28) , 12609-12620. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c00368
  3. Paul Genz, Victor Takazi Katayama, Thorsten Reemtsma. Retention of Organic Micropollutants in Nutrient Recovery from Centrate by Electrodialysis─Influence of Feed pH and Current Density. ACS ES&T Water 2023, 3 (12) , 4066-4073. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.3c00456
  4. S. Navajas-Valiente, R. Mompó-Curell, M.J. Luján-Facundo, J.A. Mendoza-Roca, M.A. Bes-Piá. Enrichment of nutrients from anaerobically digested centrate minimizing microplastics content using a combination of membrane processes. Environmental Technology & Innovation 2024, 36 , 103758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2024.103758
  5. Wiktoria Błaszczyk, Anna Siatecka, Pavel Tlustoš, Patryk Oleszczuk. Occurrence and dissipation mechanisms of organic contaminants during sewage sludge anaerobic digestion: A critical review. Science of The Total Environment 2024, 945 , 173517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.173517
  6. Paul Genz, Anna Hendrike Hofmann, Victor Takazi Katayama, Thorsten Reemtsma. Multiple barriers for micropollutants in nutrient recovery from centrate – combining membrane bioreactor and electrodialysis. Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology 2024, 10 (8) , 1908-1919. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4EW00063C
  7. Anna Hendrike Hofmann, Sica Louise Liesegang, Volkmar Keuter, Dejene Eticha, Heidrun Steinmetz, Victor Takazi Katayama. Nutrient recovery from wastewater for hydroponic systems: A comparative analysis of fertilizer demand, recovery products, and supply potential of WWTPs. Journal of Environmental Management 2024, 352 , 119960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119960
  8. Luc Duc Phung, Chiekh Adrame Ba, Putri Aditya Padma Pertiwi, Ayumi Ito, Toru Watanabe. Unlocking fertilization potential of anaerobically digested sewage sludge centrate for protein-rich rice cultivation with composted sludge amendment. Environmental Research 2023, 237 , 116912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2023.116912
  9. Monika Jakubus. Quantitative Distribution and Contamination Risk Assessment of Cu and Zn in Municipal Sewage Sludge. Sustainability 2023, 15 (15) , 12087. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151512087

ACS ES&T Water

Cite this: ACS EST Water 2022, 2, 12, 2548–2557
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.2c00345
Published November 16, 2022

Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under

CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 .

Article Views

1538

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Simplified scheme of the WWTP. The three sampling points at the effluent of the primary clarifier (INF), the effluent of the WWTP (EFF), and the effluent of the centrifuge (CEN) are indicated.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Concentration of targeted micropollutants in centrate of a municipal WWTP over a period of 3 weeks (n = 21; for IBU and LAMO n = 7) from Jan 20th to Feb 9th. The period from Jan 13th to 19th was excluded from aggregation because disturbance in the centrifuge operation was observed. Ac-SMX, SMX, and ACET were <LOD. BEZA, PROP, BTSA, MET, TRA, BGP, and MEL detected <LOQ. Boxes: 25–75 percentile, whiskers: 95 percentile).

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Concentration of 4/5-MBZTR and BZTR (a,d) in centrate, (b,e) in WWTP influent, and (d,f) WWTP effluent between Jan 13th and Feb 9th. Black: phase 1, high concentration of total suspended solids in centrate, gray: phase 2, low concentration of total suspended solids in centrate.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Concentrations of metals and metalloids in centrate of a municipal WWTP over a period of 3 weeks (n = 21) from Jan 20th to Feb 9th. The period from Jan 13th to 19th was excluded from aggregation because disturbance in the centrifuge operation was observed. The asterisk indicated the recommended maximum concentration in wastewater used for fertilizing plants as defined by WHO. (19)

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. Ratio cout,aq/cin,aq of the median micropollutant concentration in filtrated centrate samples on Feb 7th to 9th and the calculated median input concentration into the digester from Jan 13th to 15th. The inset shows the TSS concentration in centrate. P-values based on the median micropollutant concentrations in centrate compared for phase 1 (black) and phase 2 (gray) (ns = not significant, **** = p < 0.0001, *** = p < 0.001, ** = p < 0.01, and * = p < 0.1).

    Figure 6

    Figure 6. Ratio cout,aq/cin,aq calculated from the median dissolved concentration of metals and metalloids in centrate samples on Feb 7th to 9th and the calculated median input concentration into the digester from Jan 13th to 15th.

  • References


    This article references 40 other publications.

    1. 1
      EEA. Climate Change, Impacts and Vulnerability in Europe 2012: An Indicator Based Report; Publications Office: LU, 2012.
    2. 2
      EU. On the Review of the List of Critical Raw Materials for the EU and the Implementation of the Raw Materials Initiative; European Commission, 2014.
    3. 3
      Ternes, T.; Dierkes, G.; Boulard, L.; Weizel, A. Method Development for Analysis of Pharmaceuticals in Environmental Samples; Umweltbundesamt, 2019; p 141.
    4. 4
      Janus, H. M.; van der Roest, H. F.; Helle, F. Don’t Reject the Idea of Treating Reject Water. Water Sci. Technol. 1997, 35, 2734,  DOI: 10.1016/S0273-1223(97)00220-5
    5. 5
      Jimenez, B.; Asano, T. Water Reuse: An International Survey of Current Practice, Issues and Needs; IWA Publishing, 2008; Vol. 7.
    6. 6
      Broadley, M.; Brown, P.; Cakmak, I.; Rengel, Z.; Zhao, F. Function of Nutrients: Micronutrients. Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants; Elsevier, 2012; pp 191248.
    7. 7
      Weimers, K.; Bergstrand, K.-J.; Hultberg, M.; Asp, H. Liquid Anaerobic Digestate as Sole Nutrient Source in Soilless Horticulture─Or Spiked With Mineral Nutrients for Improved Plant Growth. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 770179,  DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2022.770179
    8. 8
      Keren, R.; Bingham, F. T. Boron in Water, Soils, and Plants. In Advances in Soil Science; Stewart, B. A., Ed.; Springer, New York: New York, NY, 1958; Vol. 1, pp 229276.
    9. 9
      Fu, Q.; Malchi, T.; Carter, L. J.; Li, H.; Gan, J.; Chefetz, B. Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Products: From Wastewater Treatment into Agro-Food Systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 1408314090,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b06206
    10. 10
      Goldstein, M.; Shenker, M.; Chefetz, B. Insights into the Uptake Processes of Wastewater-Borne Pharmaceuticals by Vegetables. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 55935600,  DOI: 10.1021/es5008615
    11. 11
      Dettenmaier, E. M.; Doucette, W. J.; Bugbee, B. Chemical Hydrophobicity and Uptake by Plant Roots. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 324329,  DOI: 10.1021/es801751x
    12. 12
      Riemenschneider, C.; Al-Raggad, M.; Moeder, M.; Seiwert, B.; Salameh, E.; Reemtsma, T. Pharmaceuticals, Their Metabolites, and Other Polar Pollutants in Field-Grown Vegetables Irrigated with Treated Municipal Wastewater. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, 64, 57845792,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.6b01696
    13. 13
      EU Regulation on Minimum Requirements for Water Reuse; Regulation (EU) 2020/741 on minimum requirements for water reuse. 2020, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32020R0741 (accessed Oct 12, 2022).
    14. 14
      Yoshida, H.; Christensen, T. H.; Guildal, T.; Scheutz, C. A Comprehensive Substance Flow Analysis of a Municipal Wastewater and Sludge Treatment Plant. Chemosphere 2015, 138, 874882,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.09.045
    15. 15
      Karvelas, M.; Katsoyiannis, A.; Samara, C. Occurrence and Fate of Heavy Metals in the Wastewater Treatment Process. Chemosphere 2003, 53, 12011210,  DOI: 10.1016/S0045-6535(03)00591-5
    16. 16
      Ziolko, D.; Martin, O. V.; Scrimshaw, M. D.; Lester, J. N. An Evaluation of Metal Removal During Wastewater Treatment: The Potential to Achieve More Stringent Final Effluent Standards. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 41, 733769,  DOI: 10.1080/10643380903140299
    17. 17
      Mailler, R.; Gasperi, J.; Patureau, D.; Vulliet, E.; Delgenes, N.; Danel, A.; Deshayes, S.; Eudes, V.; Guerin, S.; Moilleron, R.; Chebbo, G.; Rocher, V. Fate of Emerging and Priority Micropollutants during the Sewage Sludge Treatment: Case Study of Paris Conurbation. Part 1: Contamination of the Different Types of Sewage Sludge. Waste Manage. 2017, 59, 379393,  DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.11.010
    18. 18
      Narumiya, M.; Nakada, N.; Yamashita, N.; Tanaka, H. Phase Distribution and Removal of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products during Anaerobic Sludge Digestion. J. Hazard. Mater. 2013, 260, 305312,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.05.032
    19. 19
      WHO Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Greywater. 4: Excreta and Greywater Use in Agriculture; World Health Organization: Geneva, 2006.
    20. 20
      Water Framework Directive. EU Directive 2000/60/EC on establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. 2000, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:5c835afb-2ec6-4577-bdf8-756d3d694eeb.0004.02/DOC_1&format=PDF (accessed Oct 12, 2022).
    21. 21
      EU Regulation on Foodstuffs. EU Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 on setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs. 2006, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:364:0005:0024:EN:PDF (accessed Oct 12, 2022).
    22. 22
      EU Directive Sewage Sludge in Agriculture. EU Directive 86/278/EEC on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture. 1986, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31986L0278 (accessed Oct 12, 2022).
    23. 23
      Kahl, S.; Nivala, J.; van Afferden, M.; Müller, R. A.; Reemtsma, T. Effect of Design and Operational Conditions on the Performance of Subsurface Flow Treatment Wetlands: Emerging Organic Contaminants as Indicators. Water Res. 2017, 125, 490500,  DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2017.09.004
    24. 24
      Kreuzig, R.; Haller-Jans, J.; Bischoff, C.; Leppin, J.; Germer, J.; Mohr, M.; Bliedung, A.; Dockhorn, T. Reclaimed Water Driven Lettuce Cultivation in a Hydroponic System: The Need of Micropollutant Removal by Advanced Wastewater Treatment. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 5005250062,  DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-14144-6
    25. 25
      Düngemittelverordnung, V. German Ordinance on Fertilizer. 2012, https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/d_mv_2012/D%C3%BCMV.pdf (accessed Oct 12, 2022).
    26. 26
      Lee, E.; Rout, P. R.; Bae, J. The Applicability of Anaerobically Treated Domestic Wastewater as a Nutrient Medium in Hydroponic Lettuce Cultivation: Nitrogen Toxicity and Health Risk Assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 780, 146482,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146482
    27. 27
      Campbell, A. J. The Behaviour of Pharmaceuticals in Anaerobic Digestor Sludge. Ph.D. Dissertation; University of Portsmouth: Portsmouth, 2013.
    28. 28
      Carballa, M.; Omil, F.; Ternes, T.; Lema, J. M. Fate of Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Products (PPCPs) during Anaerobic Digestion of Sewage Sludge. Water Res. 2007, 41, 21392150,  DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2007.02.012
    29. 29
      De Wever, H.; Verachtert, H. Biodegradation and Toxicity of Benzothiazoles. Water Res. 1997, 31, 26732684,  DOI: 10.1016/S0043-1354(97)00138-3
    30. 30
      Kloepfer, A.; Gnirss, R.; Jekel, M.; Reemtsma, T. Occurrence of Benzothiazoles in Municipal Wastewater and Their Fate in Biological Treatment. Water Sci. Technol. 2004, 50, 203208,  DOI: 10.2166/wst.2004.0329
    31. 31
      Gonzalez-Gil, L.; Krah, D.; Ghattas, A.-K.; Carballa, M.; Wick, A.; Helmholz, L.; Lema, J. M.; Ternes, T. A. Biotransformation of Organic Micropollutants by Anaerobic Sludge Enzymes. Water Res. 2019, 152, 202214,  DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2018.12.064
    32. 32
      Gonzalez-Gil, L.; Papa, M.; Feretti, D.; Ceretti, E.; Mazzoleni, G.; Steimberg, N.; Pedrazzani, R.; Bertanza, G.; Lema, J. M.; Carballa, M. Is Anaerobic Digestion Effective for the Removal of Organic Micropollutants and Biological Activities from Sewage Sludge?. Water Res. 2016, 102, 211220,  DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2016.06.025
    33. 33
      Psoma, A. K.; Attiti, S.; Arvaniti, O.; Stasinakis, A. S.; Thomaidis, N. S. Fate of Selected Emerging Pollutants and Formation of Transformation Products in Activated Sludge Batch Reactors under Aerobic/Anoxic/Anaerobic Conditions. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology; Rhodes, 2015.
    34. 34
      Lahti, M.; Oikari, A. Microbial Transformation of Pharmaceuticals Naproxen, Bisoprolol, and Diclofenac in Aerobic and Anaerobic Environments. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2011, 61, 202210,  DOI: 10.1007/s00244-010-9622-2
    35. 35
      Barret, M.; Carrère, H.; Latrille, E.; Wisniewski, C.; Patureau, D. Micropollutant and Sludge Characterization for Modeling Sorption Equilibria. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 11001106,  DOI: 10.1021/es902575d
    36. 36
      Trace Elements in Anaerobic Biotechnologies; Fermoso, F. G., van Hullebusch, E., Collins, G., Roussel, J., Mucha, A. P., Esposito, G., Eds.; IWA Publishing, 2019.
    37. 37
      El-Aassar, A.; Kitcher, D.; Forster, C. F. The Release of Heavy Metals from Digested Sludge by Centrifugation. Environ. Technol. 1998, 19, 537542,  DOI: 10.1080/09593331908616710
    38. 38
      Hargreaves, A. J.; Vale, P.; Whelan, J.; Constantino, C.; Dotro, G.; Campo, P.; Cartmell, E. Distribution of Trace Metals (Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn) between Particulate, Colloidal and Truly Dissolved Fractions in Wastewater Treatment. Chemosphere 2017, 175, 239246,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.02.034
    39. 39
      Andrianisa, H. A.; Ito, A.; Sasaki, A.; Aizawa, J.; Umita, T. Biotransformation of Arsenic Species by Activated Sludge and Removal of Bio-Oxidised Arsenate from Wastewater by Coagulation with Ferric Chloride. Water Res. 2008, 42, 48094817,  DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2008.08.027
    40. 40
      Yekta, S. S.; Svensson, B. H.; Björn, A.; Skyllberg, U. Thermodynamic Modeling of Iron and Trace Metal Solubility and Speciation under Sulfidic and Ferruginous Conditions in Full Scale Continuous Stirred Tank Biogas Reactors. Appl. Geochem. 2014, 47, 6173,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2014.05.001
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information


    The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsestwater.2c00345.

    • Analytical method, comprehensive display of the concentrations of organic micropollutants, as well as metals and metalloids and total removal rates of the WWTP observed during sampling, and scatter plots elucidating the analyte’s properties and corresponding concentrations and coutcin ratio are displayed (PDF)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.