bs_bs_banner

Water and Environment Journal. Print ISSN 1747-6585

Influence of wastewater treatment on sludge production

and processing
William Pablo Freese Barber
AECOM, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Keywords Abstract
anaerobic digestion; biosolids; nitrification;
The challenge of stricter wastewater standards is resulting in configuration changes
primary sludge; secondary sludge; wastewater
treatment. to wastewater treatment. As facilities upgrade, the type of sludge produced is
changing, with growing quantities of secondary and chemical sludge at the expense
Correspondence of primary sludge. It is already understood that secondary sludge is harder to treat
W. P. F. Barber, AECOM, Level 21, 420, George than its primary equivalent; therefore, increasing the quantity of this type of sludge
Street, Sydney, NSW 2067, Australia. Email: will have detrimental impacts downstream. As legislation tightens further, extended
bill.barber@aecom.com aeration times may be required during processing to remove more nutrients. Work
has shown that extended aeration further exacerbates the treatability of secondary
doi:10.1111/wej.12044
sludge. This paper explains how tightening wastewater legislation fundamentally
alters the nature of the sludge produced, and how these alterations impact further
processing, especially with respect to sludge production and type; sludge energy
content; performance of anaerobic digestion and dewatering, and potential for
thermal energy recovery.

Introduction Wastewater treatment and sludge production

Traditionally, wastewater treatment works have been
designed to meet legislative drivers based on removal of a
number of contaminants prior to discharge back to the
natural environment. Treatment of sewage sludge, an inevi-
table by-product of wastewater treatment, is complex and
can account for between 25 and 50% of the total costs of
wastewater treatment (Murthy et al. 2006). Sludge contains
an inherent amount of energy that can be used directly via
mono or cofiring with other materials (and/or fuels) or, indi-
rectly by producing biogas, a renewable energy, which can be
converted into electricity and heat using cogeneration equip-
ment. The biogas can be further processed for introduction
onto gas grid networks or use as vehicle fuel. In addition to
energy, biosolids contain a quantity of valuable materials that
can be exploited. Biosolids are often used as a fertilizer where
it can displace fossil fuel-dependent fertilizers. However,
unlike fertilizers, biosolids contain a number of other benefi-
cial soil improving attributes such as carbon, organic mate-
rial, moisture and structure to aid with drainage. The use of
biosolids can substantially reduce carbon footprint. A recent
study has shown offsets in excess of 1 tonne CO2e/t dry bio-
solids used dependent on application (ANZBP 2012).
However, in spite of the large costs attributed to process-
ing sludge, little attention is afforded to the impact that
wastewater treatment has on the type and quantity of sludge
(and subsequent biosolids) produced.
Typically, wastewater, industrial effluent and rainwater run-
off enter a sewage works where they are initially screened
prior to going to onto primary treatment. During this stage,
solids and other material settle out, and these form what is
known as primary sludge. The supernatant from this stage
passes to a second stage of treatment where nutrients
are removed from the wastewater. This is achieved via a
number of facultative and aerobic bacteriological reactions
in the presence of air or oxygen and is accomplished in a
large variety of configurations. The solid material leaving
this secondary treatment stage constitutes mainly bacterio-
logical material and is known via a number of names, includ-
ing secondary, bacteriological, waste or surplus activated
sludge.
For levels of treatment that require only the removal of
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), the typical retention
time (sludge age) in the secondary treatment stage is
approximately 6 days. The sludge yield and oxygen require-
ments generated under 6 days retention with oxygen as
electron acceptor and ammonia as the nitrogen source has
been calculated and is shown later in Eq. (1) (calculated
based on the methods presented by McCarty 1966,
1971):
C10H16O3N + 7.57 O2 → 6.01 H2O + 5.06 CO2 + 0.014 HCO3 −
(1)
+ 0.014 NH3 + 0.986 C 5H7O2N

Water and Environment Journal 28 (2014) 1–10 © 2013 CIWEM. 1

Wastewater treatment impacts on sludge
1.4
Biomass yield [kg biomass/kg substrate]
1.2
1 Carbonaceous organisms
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Fig. 1. Modelled biomass yields during waste-
water treatment.
Where: C10H16O3N = empirical formula for wastewater. That
is, the breakdown of 1 kg wastewater BOD requires 1.2 kg
oxygen and produces 1.44 g ammonia with a sludge yield of
0.55 kg/kg BOD oxidised.
If wastewater treatment standards are tightened further,
by implementation of Urban Waste Water Treatment Direc-
tive – 91/271/EEC for example, and nitrification becomes nec-
essary, oxygen requirements increase substantially. This is
shown in Eq. (2) later, determined at a sludge age of 10 days
– typical for this reaction. The equation was determined using
the same methodology as Eq. (1) earlier:
NH3 + 1.84 O2 + 0.09 CO2 + 0.023 HCO3 −
(2)
→ 0.953 H2O + 0.977 NO3 − + 0.023 C 5H7O2N + 1.953 H+
This shows an oxygen demand of 4.2 kg oxygen per kg
ammonia oxidised which produces 4.32 kg nitrate and gen-
erates 0.15 kg sludge/kg ammonia oxidised. As the kinetic
rates of nitrifying bacteria are slower than the heterotrophic
organisms, which conduct the BOD removal (Painter 1986),
sludge ages must increase to accommodate the slower
growing nitrifiers. Eq. (1) was re-evaluated at longer sludge
ages and showed ammonia release increases under tenfold
at 10 days and nearly 23-fold under 20 days. Therefore, as
sludge age increases, BOD levels decrease and ammonia
levels increase, both of which are conducive to enhancing
nitrification kinetics.
The production of sludge is fundamentally influenced by
the sludge age. The impact of sludge age on sludge yield was
determined based on McCarty’s (1966, 1971) methodology,
and the results are summarised graphically in Fig. 1.
Figure 1 shows sludge production decreasing with
extended sludge age. Sludge yield drops from 0.78 kg/kg to
0.66 kg/kg and to 0.51 kg/kg under carbonaceous, nitrifying
2 Water and Environment Journal 28 (2014) 1–10 © 2013 CIWEM.
W. P. F. Barber
Total biomass yield
71% of total
Nitrifying organisms 22% of total
Anammox organisms 7% of total
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Sludge age (day)
and extended aeration conditions. Therefore, as legislation
tightens, secondary sludge production decreases.
If phosphorus removal is required in addition, the waste-
water must then undergo further processing. Phosphorous
can be removed either prior to, during or after secondary
treatment. Removal is based on normal uptake into the
sludge, which is then wasted, use of chemicals or by
enhanced biological uptake. The quantity of phosphorous
removed by normal uptake is a function of sludge age and
quantity of BOD extracted. Typically, 20–30% of the phospho-
rous can be removed in this way. If further removal is
required, chemical precipitation may be employed. This
involves adding various calcium, iron or aluminium salts to
form insoluble phosphates, which are then removed by set-
tling. Chemical requirement varies based on: influent phos-
phorous; location of chemical addition; concentration;
speciation; pH; alkalinity; quantity and nature of suspended
solids; ionic constituents; and effluent phosphorous require-
ments (Rittmann & McCarty 2001). Because of these com-
plexities, chemical addition may often be in excess of
stoichiometric requirements and therefore produces surplus
quantities of sludge.
While the precipitates add sludge volume, they are largely
inert. Therefore, if chemical dosing has been employed to a
works that has existing sludge processing infrastructure, the
performance of the downstream plant may be compromised
as it has to deal with additional sludge which consumes
capacity. The addition of chemicals reduces the volatile frac-
tion of the sludge, and this causes a reduction in the sludge’s
energy content. In order to determine the suitability of
digested sludges for incineration, a study (Barber 2007)
found that ferric addition increased ash content by 10 per-
centage points compared with unconditioned digested
sludge. Elemental analysis showed that chemically treated
W. P. F. Barber
sludge also increased the oxygen content of the volatile frac-
tion by 15% (probably due to precipitation of hydroxide salts)
and reduced carbon content by nearly 10%. Calorific values
for the two sludge types were 12 300 and 8500 kJ/kg dry
solids (DS) for digested and ferric-dosed digested sludge
respectively. Analysis of the data shows that the drop in calo-
rific value due to increased ash content only accounted for
half of the reduction in energy content which implies that
remaining reduction was due to the difference in chemical
composition because of ferric supplementation. Potentially,
this has large impacts for any downstream sludge processing
which is reliant on using the energy from the sludge.
One potential way to avoid such issues and meet phospho-
rous consent is to employ biological phosphorous removal. In
this instance, conditions in the wastewater treatment plant
are manipulated to increase bacteriological phosphorous
uptake in surplus of metabolic requirements. This is com-
monly known as ‘luxury uptake’ and is achieved by phospho-
rous accumulating organisms which usually accumulate two
to three times their metabolic need (Rittmann & McCarty
2001). While this has proved successful at full scale,
enhanced biological removal may result in nutrient limiting
conditions for subsequent process operations which rely on
bacterial activity, such as anaerobic digestion. Speece (2008)
suggests that approximately 10 mg/L phosphorus is required
for optimal biogas production with a minimum concentration
of between 0.8 and 2.5 mg/L required. The impact of biologi-
cal nutrient removal on digestion performance was mani-
Water and Environment Journal 28 (2014) 1–10 © 2013 CIWEM.
Wastewater treatment impacts on sludge
Fig. 2. Typical composition of the organic frac-
tion of raw sludge. Key: (black bars) primary
and (grey bars) secondary sludge.
fested in Poland when, following an upgrade, biogas
production fell by > 30% (Rybicki 2003).
Difference between primary and secondary
sludge
Figure 2, collated from a combination of literature resources
(Vesilind 2003; van Haandel & van der Lubbe 2007; Asaadi
2008; Speece 2008) and sample analysis, shows the typical
composition of the organic fraction of primary and secondary
sludge.
The fundamental differences between primary and sec-
ondary sludge are evident from viewing Fig. 2. Compared
with secondary sludge, primary sludge has a greater quantity
of lipids and fibres but less protein and phosphorous. Using
extensive data analysis, molecular formulae have been deter-
mined for these sludges as follows:
• Primary sludge C23H35O8N (C : H : O : N = 61 : 8 : 28 : 3)
• Secondary sludge C7H11O3N (C : H : O : N = 53 : 7 : 31 : 9)
From the composition data, it is possible to evaluate the
calorific value using a sludge-specific version of the Dulong
equation (technical report, CEN/TR 13767, 2004). The use of
this equation gives calorific values of approximately 25 700
for primary and 21 800 kJ/kg volatile material for secondary
sludge. The greater carbon content (primarily from the lipids)
results in primary sludge having approximately 15% more
energy than sludge formed during aeration. Primary sludge
typically contains approximately 30% inert material compared
3
Wastewater treatment impacts on sludge
with only 20% in secondary sludge in Europe (Kopp 2003).
Based on these figures, the calorific values become 18 000
and 17 400 kJ/kg volatile solids (VS) for primary and second-
ary sludge respectively.
Processing of primary and secondary sludge
It is widely recognised that these sludges react differently to
downstream processing. The improved digestibility of
primary sludge over secondary was reported as early as 1926
(Zack & Edwards cited by Gossett & Belser 1982). Numerous
texts have summarised the difference in VS destruction
during anaerobic digestion with numbers in the range of
55–60% and 30–45% destruction for primary and secondary
sludge respectively (WEF – Water Environment Federation
1987). While researching thermophilic digestion, Skiadas
et al. (2005) discovered that the organisms within primary
sludge had stronger substrate affinities for acetate, propion-
ate and butyrate compared with secondary sludge, but inter-
estingly, hydrogen kinetics were better for secondary sludge.
Using the molecular formulae presented earlier, it is
possible to determine the theoretical biogas yield per kg vola-
tile matter destroyed. Calculated results are 0.983 and
0.788 Nm3 biogas/kg VS destroyed for primary and second-
ary sludges. These figures compare well with literature values
of 900–1000 for primary, and 700–800 L/kg VS for secondary
sludge (Kopp 2003; Winter & Pearce 2010). In normalised
terms, biogas production per kg secondary sludge destroyed
is only 80% of the figure for an equivalent amount of primary
sludge digested. This is often overlooked in process calcula-
tions, and will have an important bearing when reviewing the
power generation potential from sludge.
However, as stated earlier, tightening regulations regard-
ing wastewater treatment result in increasing sludge ages,
and this has a further impact on the digestibility of the
sludges produced. Gossett & Belser (1982) studied the
impacts of varying sludge age on the digestibility of second-
ary sludge at 15 days hydraulic retention time. The research-
ers found that VS destruction fell from 30 to 25% between 5
and 10 days sludge age showing that a shift from carbona-
ceous removal to nitrification would result in lower biogas
generation from the secondary sludge. Performance deterio-
rated with increasing sludge ages with approximately 20%
destruction at 20 days sludge age and < 15% at 30 days, these
sludge ages being typical of extended aeration systems. Such
systems are common in Australia, and many are not pre-
ceded by primary treatment. Batstone and coworkers under-
took a similar study to revisit the results in a modern
Australian context (Batstone et al. 2011). As with the previ-
ous work, this study found a direct correlation between
anaerobic degradability of secondary sludge and sludge age,
and suggested that sludge ages in excess of 15 days would
produce sludge, which would most likely result in failure of a
4 Water and Environment Journal 28 (2014) 1–10 © 2013 CIWEM.
W. P. F. Barber
downstream digestion plant. In their study, digestibility of
secondary sludge approximately halved between 5 and 20
days sludge age and fell by almost an additional third as
aeration time was increased to 30 days.
As for digestion, it has been well published that primary
sludge is far easier to thicken and dewater than sludge pro-
duced during aeration processes (ASCE 2000; Kopp 2003).
This has been attributed to several reasons including: larger
particle size in primary sludge because of the presence of
more inerts and fibres; and, greater concentrations of bound
water, high molecular weight material, extracellular poly-
meric substances and volatile matter (both pre and postdi-
gestion) for secondary sludge. In addition, because of its
bacteriological origin, secondary sludge is very gelatinous
(ASCE 2000), and this fundamentally impacts on the quantity
of bound water (that which cannot be removed by standard
dewatering). In order to measure bound water content in
sludge, Heukelekian and Weisberg (1956 – cited in ASCE
2000) determined a level of bound water of 3 g/g DS for
sludge. In later work, Katsiris & Kouzeli-Katsiri (1987) found
similar results for digested sludge at 2–2.5% DS, but found
levels of 9–12 g/g in biological sludge at 0.4%. As most of the
issues which interfere with dewatering of secondary sludge
are sludge age dependent, as with the digestibility, increas-
ing sludge age will further deteriorate the dewaterability of
secondary sludge (Vesilind 2003). Typical dewaterability data
range from 25 to 35% for raw primary sludge and between 14
and 18% for secondary sludge depending on sludge age and
dewatering device (ASCE 2000). Data for digested sludges
show a small drop in performance from the raw equivalent
sludges. This may be due to the production of extracellular
polymers which interfere with dewatering (Prof Peter Scales,
pers. info.).
The previous section shows that tightening legislation
requires additional aeration and chemicals, which make
sludge harder to process downstream. Issues worsen with
increasing sludge age. In order to quantify the impacts of
tightening legislation, a model was developed to deter-
mine sludge production and impact on downstream unit
operations.
Model development
The model is an amalgamation of several other models which
look at separate parameters. Initial data on sludge yield,
oxygen requirements and ammonia release or consumption
was determined using the methods described by McCarty
(1966, 1971). The data were recalculated under different con-
ditions and sludge ages. Energy required for the aeration
process was determined by modelling various configurations
of secondary treatment based on the activated sludge
process using standard equations and methods and equip-
ment suppliers’ information.
W. P. F. Barber Wastewater treatment impacts on sludge

Table 1 Baseline conditions for the study Table 2 Options modelled in this study
Parameter Units Data Option Description Notes
Input data 1 Baseline (ASP • Effluent standard as Table 1;
Population equivalents (p.e.) 200 000 with FBDA) • Based on conventional activated sludge
Water consumption (m3/p.e./d) 0.150 plant (ASP);
Infiltration (%) 30 • Primary treatment removes 50% TSS and
Trade effluent (m3/d) 0 25% BOD.
Average daily flow (ADF) (m3/d) 48 750 • Sludge age 10 days;
Theoretical loads • Efficiency of fine bubble diffused aeration
BOD (kg/d) 13 000 (FBDA) = 3.5 kg O2/kWhr;
TSS (kg/d) 14 000 • Chemical dosing for phosphorous removal
NH3 (kg/d) 1 800 based on phosphorous remaining after
tP (kg/d) 460 sludge wasting.
F : M (nitrification) (kg BOD/kg MLSS/d) 0.12 2 Enhanced • As option 1 but ferric used to improve
F : M (carbon removal) (kg BOD/kg MLSS/d) 0.30 primary performance of primary treatment such
Discharge consent treatment that it now removes 75% TSS and 50% BOD.
BOD (mg/L) 25 3 Primary • As option 1 but primary treatment
TSS (mg/L) 35 treatment bypassed to provide carbon source for
NH3 (mg/L) 5 bypassed nutrient removal;
tP (mg/L) 2 • Chemical dosing determined based on
polishing residual phosphorous left after
BOD, biochemical oxygen demand; TSS, total suspended solids.
recovery by luxury-uptake;
• Calculated biogas production reduced by
25% based on previous findings showing
Phosphorous removal by natural wastage was calculated reduction in biogas production of over
using the equation provided by Rittmann & McCarty (2001). If 30% because of phosphorous limiting
required, additional phosphorous was removed by adding conditions.
quantities of metal salts based on typical chemical require- 4 Configured for • As option 1 but based on carbon removal,
carbon with sludge age reduced to 6 days.
ments, and sludge production determined from stoichiomet-
removal
ric requirements. 5 As 1 but • As option 1 but based on meeting consent
Calorific value data were determined using the Dulong tighter of BOD : TSS : NH3 : TP of 10 : 15 : 1 : 1.
equation (technical report, CEN/TR 13767, 2004) using data consent
on chemical composition from the literature and summarised 6 As 1 with no P • As option 1, but no chemical dosing for
in Fig. 2. consent phosphorous removal.
Performance of downstream digestion was calculated 7 Configured for • As option 1, but configured for extended
extended aeration with sludge age > 20 days.
using a model that combines correlations obtained from full-
aeration
scale plant data and kinetics. The model would predict per-
formance based on: type of sludge; sludge age; digester BOD, biochemical oxygen demand; TSS, total suspended solids.
operating temperature; digester retention time; and quantity
of dead space (Barber 2005).
Performance of downstream dewatering was based on a
mixture of operational data from numerous sludges and pared with the baseline option with primary treatment
analysis of literature results. removing 50% solids and 25% BOD, enhancing primary treat-
The baseline conditions for the model are given in Table 1. ment increases sludge production by approximately 15%
A variety of options was modelled to determine the impact although it contains a third less secondary sludge. When
of tightening legislation as shown in Table 2. primary treatment is absent all together, sludge production
reduces by 45% compared with the baseline. While options
4–6 contain the same quantity of primary sludge (based on
Results the assumption of 50% removal), the quantity of secondary
and chemical sludge alters. This is explained because of dif-
Impact on raw sludge production, composition
ferences in sludge age. As seen in Fig. 1, as sludge age
and properties
increases, yield decreases. This shows why the sludge pro-
Figure 3 shows the impact of wastewater configuration on duction for the carbonaceous option is higher than the base-
sludge production. line (by 10%), as sludge age is only 6 days compared with 10
Comparing options 1–3, it is clear that enhancing primary days in option 1. The difference between options 1 and 5 are
treatment results in the production of more raw sludge. Com- based on a tighter consent. In option 5, secondary sludge

Water and Environment Journal 28 (2014) 1–10 © 2013 CIWEM. 5

Wastewater treatment impacts on sludge
Fig. 3. Impact of wastewater configuration on type and quantity of raw sludge produced. For description of options refer to Table 2.
production decreases slightly because of tighter ammonia
standards (longer sludge age reducing yield), but the main
difference occurs because of tighter phosphorous standards
of reducing effluent levels from 2 to 1 mg/L. This results in a
20% increase in chemical sludge. If there is no phosphorous
consent and chemical dosing is not required (as option 7),
sludge production falls by 10% compared with the baseline.
As there are no additional inerts in the sludge, the VS content
rises by 10% compared with option 1, with a similar increase
in calorific value. Finally, when extended aeration is installed,
sludge production decreases by approximately half com-
pared with the baseline situation. However, as there is less
phosphorous removal from sludge wastage because of the
long sludge ages, chemical removal requirements increase
slightly to meet the same phosphorous effluent levels.
Calorific value of the raw sludges range from a minimum of
14 900 kJ/kg for extended aeration sludge to 17 500 kg/kg
for the configurations with no primary treatment, or no
phosphorous consent. The baseline has a calorific value of
approximately 15 500 kJ/kg.
Previously, Barber (2007) showed that for sewage sludge,
it was possible to predict the calorific value to within +/- 9% of
that measured by both bomb calorimetry and elemental
composition data with only VS information. In accordance,
the two most important influences on raw sludge calorific
value in this study are the content of both secondary and
chemical sludge. Calorific value grows with increasing sec-
ondary sludge because of it containing more volatile material
than an equivalent amount of primary sludge. However, it
decreases with increased chemical dosing as this reduces VS
content because of the addition of inerts.
When looking at the composition of the sludges, the
extended aeration sludge has the greatest quantity of chemi-
cal sludge (approximately 20%) because of minimal phospho-
6 Water and Environment Journal 28 (2014) 1–10 © 2013 CIWEM.
W. P. F. Barber
rous removal as a result of long sludge age. This reduces the
volatile fraction and hence calorific value as described.
Regarding the highest data results, the option with no
primary sludge has high VS content, but sludge age is suffi-
ciently short to keep chemical dosing requirements down.
Chemical dosing is absent in the option with no phosphorous
consent, which also increases volatile content relative to the
baseline and hence increases calorific value. The other
sludges had calorific values which were similar to the baseline
option.
Energy balance
Figure 4 shows the energy produced by cogeneration fired
on the biogas generated from the anaerobic digestion of the
predicted sludge quantities (shown in Fig. 3) and that con-
sumed during aeration of the wastewater flows (detailed in
Tables 1 and 2), while Fig. 5 shows the net energy balance
(i.e. production – consumption). Figures 4 and 5 show that in
only two scenarios is more energy generated than con-
sumed. These refer to options involving enhanced primary
treatment and when there is no tight ammonia standard (car-
bonaceous option).
Enhancing primary treatment from the baseline results in a
better energy balance. This is due to a combination of
increased biogas energy of nearly 25% (due to a greater pro-
portion of primary sludge) and a reduction in aeration energy
of 22% (due to additional load being removed prior to aera-
tion). However, the opposite is true when considering nutri-
ent removal, which bypasses primary treatment in order to
provide a carbon source to nutrient removing bacteria. This is
shown in option 3 where primary treatment is absent. Here,
energy demand increases by between two and three times.
The increase in energy demand is due to a noticeable drop in
W. P. F. Barber
Fig. 5. Impact of wastewater treatment on net energy balance between anaerobic digestion and aeration.
performance of the anaerobic digestion plant resulting in 60%
less energy generated compared with the baseline. This
reduction is due mainly to the absence of primary sludge.
However, in this model, biogas production has been reduced
further to coincide with a number of previous studies. When
Alphenaar and coworkers starved upflow anaerobic sludge
blanket reactors of aqueous phosphorous, they noticed a
drop in methane production of over 50% when compared
with a control with adequate phosphorous available
(Alphenaar et al. 1993). While the drop in performance was
bacteriostatic, phosphorous levels had to be increased to
above 5 mg/L before methanogenesis returned to previous
Water and Environment Journal 28 (2014) 1–10 © 2013 CIWEM.
Wastewater treatment impacts on sludge
Fig. 4. Impact of wastewater treatment on
energy generated from anaerobic digestion
(grey bars) and energy consumed during aera-
tion (black bars).
levels. Their data coincided with a previous study (Speece
2008), which recommended minimum aqueous phosphate
concentration for methanogenesis of between 0.8 and
2.5 mg/L, with preferred value of 10 mg/L.
In addition, biogas production will fall further as the readily
biodegradable chemical oxygen demand (COD) is consumed
during denitrification resulting in a larger proportion of non-
readily biodegradable COD being fed to the downstream
anaerobic digestion. Winter & Pearce (2010) investigated the
use of sludge storage to produce volatile fatty acids for nutri-
ent removal prior to anaerobic digestion. Under ambient con-
ditions, they found maximum BOD release of up to 50 mg
7
Wastewater treatment impacts on sludge
Fig. 6. Impact of wastewater treatment on downstream cake production (grey bars) and expected total solids destroyed during anaerobic digestion
(black and white squares).
VFA/g DS activated sludge stored, and this peaked after
approximately 2 weeks. Although a breakdown of the volatile
fatty acids was not provided, if one assumes an equimolar
concentration of acetate, propionate and butyrate, then
approximately an additional 5% of the potential biogas is lost.
Combined with this is an additional aeration requirement
of 22% compared with option 1 because of the lack of BOD
removal prior to aeration. The option involving extended
aeration followed similar results, with a slightly higher loss in
anaerobic digestion energy of 72% compared with the
baseline.
If consent only requires BOD removal (option 4), the overall
energy balance is positive. This is due to a large reduction in
aeration of greater than 45% and a concomitant reduction in
activated sludge. The latter factor increases biogas produc-
tion by between 5 and 10% with an overall energy recovery of
nearly 200% compared with the baseline scenario.
Tightening wastewater standards (option 5) requires more
aeration which produces additional activated sludge. The
modelled results show that biogas production is expected to
increase by 5%, but this comes at the expense of a 10%
increase in aeration requirements. These factors combined
result in a 40% increase in energy requirements compared
with the baseline.
By contrast, if consent is relaxed as seen in the option
which does not require phosphorous removal (option 6), a
reduction of overall energy requirements by 25% is noted.
As aeration requirements remain uniform, this is due to
increased biogas production because of the absence of
8 Water and Environment Journal 28 (2014) 1–10 © 2013 CIWEM.
W. P. F. Barber
additional inerts consuming digester capacity enabling the
remaining sludge to have longer retention time and therefore
digest better.
Cake production for downstream processing
The cake production was determined based on a combina-
tion of digester performance (described by total solids
destruction) and predicted dewaterability of the digested bio-
solids. The quantity of cake impacts further downstream
processing and transport. The results are shown in Fig. 6.
The smallest cake productions correspond to the options
based on no primary treatment and extended aeration. This
is in accordance with low initial raw sludge production
because of lower sludge yields (Figs 1 and 3). However,
because of the lack of primary sludge and extended sludge
ages, solids destruction levels and dewaterability were also
the worst, and these result increases in cake production rela-
tive to the baseline option. While the absence of primary
treatment reduces raw sludge production on a dry basis by
45%, cake production is only 20% less. The equivalent reduc-
tions for extended aeration sludges were 50% reduction on
raw dry basis, but only 35% reduction on a cake equivalent. In
terms of the other options, little difference was noted com-
pared with the baseline option.
However, differences in dewaterability resulted in a varia-
tion in water content, which fundamentally impacts on down-
stream processing options involving thermal systems.
Calculations showed that although cake production was 20%
W. P. F. Barber
less than the baseline when primary treatment was absent,
water evaporation requirements (to dry the cake to 90%
solids) were only slightly reduced, and would be similar as
sludge age extended. In terms of water evaporation require-
ment on a normalised basis, the baseline option requires
approximately 2.5 t water evaporation/t raw dry sludge pro-
duced, but becomes 3 t/t for extended aeration sludge and
4 t/t in absence of primary treatment. Enhancing primary
treatment improves digester performance, and this reduces
downstream water evaporation requirements to approxi-
mately 2 t/t.
The reduction in sludge cake in the absence of primary
treatment and in the option involving extended aeration,
coupled with high water content, makes these sludges poor
candidates for downstream energy recovery, with approxi-
mately half the biosolids energy compared with the baseline.
In contrast, enhancing primary treatment, which increases
sludge production, and sludge produced in a carbonaceous
configuration, increase energy content by 10–15%.
Conclusions
(1) Tightening wastewater standards increases the propor-
tion of secondary and chemical sludge relative to primary
sludge. This will make sludge processing increasingly difficult
in future years;
(2) Primary sludge has more lipid and fibre than secondary
sludge while secondary sludge has greater concentration of
protein, nitrogen and phosphorous. These differences result
in primary sludge having – inherently higher energy content,
20% greater biogas yield per kg destroyed and fewer nutri-
ents to remove;
(3) Secondary sludge is less amenable to anaerobic diges-
tion and dewatering than primary sludge, and becomes less
responsive as sludge age increases further;
(4) Removal of primary treatment for nutrient removal has a
number of negative downstream impacts. These include
increased aeration requirements of > 20%, and a reduction in
biogas production of approximately 60% because of a combi-
nation of consumption of readily biodegradable carbon
during nutrient removal, loss of primary sludge and nutrient
starved conditions in the digestion stage;
(5) A positive energy balance is potentially possible for
systems designed for carbon removal or systems employing
enhanced primary treatment;
(6) Enhancing primary treatment reduces downstream aera-
tion requirements by over 20% and increases biogas produc-
tion by 25% compared with standard primary treatment;
(7) Tightening wastewater standards have a number of det-
rimental impacts. These include: increased energy demand
during aeration; decreased biogas generation during diges-
tion; poorer dewaterability; and production of cake with
higher water content.
Water and Environment Journal 28 (2014) 1–10 © 2013 CIWEM.
Wastewater treatment impacts on sludge
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Dr Damien Batstone, associate
professor at the University of Queensland, for information
relating to this manuscript.
To submit a comment on this article please go to
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/wej. For further information please
see the Author Guidelines at wileyonlinelibrary.com
References
Alphenaar, P.A., Sleyster, R., de Reuver, P., Ligthart, G.-T. and Let-
tinga, G. (1993) Phosphorus Requirement in High-Rate Anaero-
bic Wastewater Treatment. Water Res., 27 (5), 749–756.
ANZBP. (2012) Discussion Paper Biosolids, Carbon and Climate
Change, AECOM report for Australia and New Zealand Biosol-
ids Partnership.
Asaadi, M. (2008) Review of the Performance of an Advanced
Digestion Process. 13th European Biosolids & Organic
Resources Conference & Workshop.
ASCE. (2000) ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice
No. 98 – Conveyance of Residuals from Water and Wastewater
Treatment.
Barber, W.P. (2005) Modelling the Influence of Municipal Sludge
Anaerobic Digestion and Co-digestion on Downstream Unit
Operations. Proceedings of the Aqua Enviro/CIWEM 10th Bio-
solids and Organic Residuals Conference, Wakefield, UK.
Barber, W.P.F. (2007) Observing the Effects of Digestion and
Chemical Dosing on the Calorific Value of Sewage Sludge. In
LeBlanc, R., Matthews, P. and Richard, R.P. (eds). Paper IWA
Specialist Conference: Moving forward Wastewater Biosolids
Sustainability: Technical, Managerial, and Public Synergy, pp.
351–358. June 24–27, 2007, Moncton, New Brunswick,
Canada.
Batstone, D.J., Jensen, P.D. and Ge, H. (2011) Biochemical Treat-
ment of Biosolids – Emerging Technologies, Water. AWA Pub-
lishing, Sydney, Australia, pp. 90–93.
Gossett, J. and Belser, R. (1982) Anaerobic Digestion of Waste
Activated Sludge. J. Environ. Eng. ASCE, 108, 1101–1120.
van Haandel, A. and van der Lubbe, J. (2007) Handbook Biologi-
cal Wastewater Treatment – Design and optimisation of acti-
vated sludge systems, published in September 2007.
Katsiris, N. and Kouzeli-Katsiri, A. (1987) Bound Water Content of
Biological Sludges in Relation to Filtration and Dewaering.
Water Res., 21, 1319–1327.
Kopp, J.B. (2003) Lecture Notes on ‘Basics Of Sludge Treatment
And Dewatering’.
McCarty, P.L. (1966) Kinetics of Waste Assimilation in Anaerobic
Treatment, Developments in Industrial Microbial Sciences, 7,
American Institute of Biological Sciences, Washington D.C.
McCarty, P.L. (1971) Energetics and kinetics of anaerobic treat-
ment – Chapter 6, In: R. F. Gould (ed). Anaerobic Biological
Treatment Processes, 159th Meeting of the American Chemi-
cal Society, Houston, Tex., Advances in Chemistry Series No
105, Washington D.C.
Murthy, S., Higgins, M., Chen, Y.C., Peot, C. and Toffey, W. (2006)
High-Solids Centrifuge is A Boon and A Curse for Managing
9
Wastewater treatment impacts on sludge
Anaerobically Digested Biosolids. Water Sci. Technol., 53,
245–253.
Painter, H.A. (1986) Nitrification in the Treatment of Sewage and
Waste-Waters – Chapter 10. In Prosser, J.I. (ed). Nitrification.
Special Publications of the Society for General Microbiology,
Vol. 20, pp. 185–211. IRL Press, Oxford, UK.
Rittmann, B.E. and McCarty, P.L. (2001) Environmental Biotech-
nology: Principles and Applications. McGraw-Hill Publishers,
NY.
Rybicki, S.M. (2003) Modelling of Phosphorus Removal in Pres-
ence of Nitrates and its Influence on an Energy Recovery from
Sludge. In Proc. of a Polish-Swedish Seminar.
Skiadas, I.V., Gavala, H.N., Lu, J. and Ahring, B.K. (2005) Thermal
Pre-Treatment of Primary and Secondary Sludge at 70°C Prior
10
W. P. F. Barber
to Anaerobic Digestion. Water Sci. Technol., 52 (1–2),
161–166.
Speece, R.E. (2008) Anaerobic Biotechnology and Odor/Corrosion
Control for Municipalities and Industries. Archae Press, Nash-
ville, TN.
Vesilind, P.A. (2003) Wastewater Treatment Plant Design, Water
Environment Federation. IWA Publishing, Alexandria, VA. ISBN
1-84339-024-8.
WEF – Water Environment Federation. (1987) Anaerobic Sludge
Digestion (Water Pollution Control Federation//Manual of Prac-
tice) 2 Sub edition. ISBN 10-0943244137.
Winter, P. and Pearce, P. (2010) Parallel Digestion of Secondary
and Primary Sludge. 15th European Biosolids & Biowastes
Conference, Leeds, UK.
Water and Environment Journal 28 (2014) 1–10 © 2013 CIWEM.