Sewage sludge management is torn between a desire for pollution prevention and reuse of a valuable resource. Reconciling these interests in sustainable management is a challenge for researchers. This study focuses on how research on sewage sludge management practices has evolved and scrutinizes how this research is interlinked with concerns and societal issues such as contaminants, economic efficiency, and legislation. Based on published academic papers on sewage sludge management between 1971 and 2019, this study found four trends in research focused on sewage sludge management: a decreasing interest in disposal (landfilling and sea dumping), a dominant interest in land application, a growing interest in sewage sludge as product, and a stable interest in energy recovery. Research on disposal focuses on increasing sludge volumes, legislative changes, and economic challenges with an interest in waste co-treatment. Research on land application concerns nutrient use and contaminants, mainly heavy metals. Research on sewage sludge as a product focuses on the extraction of certain resources and less on use of sewage sludge specifically. Research on energy recovery of sewage sludge focuses on volume reduction rather than contaminants. Two-thirds of the papers are detailed studies aiming to improve single technologies and assessing single risks or benefits. As management of sewage sludge is multifaceted, the narrow focus resulting from detailed studies promotes some concerns while excluding others. Therefore, this study highlights potential gaps such as the combination of nutrient use and disposal and energy recovery and nutrient use. 

This study evaluates the techno-economic feasibility of energy and phosphorus (P) fertilizer (PF) recovery from municipal sewage sludge (MSS) through incineration in new combustion plants. We evaluated the economic impact of five critical process design choices: (1) boiler type, (2) fuel (MSS mono-combustion/co-combustion with wheat straw), (3) production scale (10/100 MW), (4) products (heat, electricity, PF), and (5) ash destination. Aspen Plus modeling provided mass and energy balances of each technology scenario. The economic feasibility was evaluated by calculating the minimum selling price of the products, as well as the MSS gate fees required to reach profitability. The dependency on key boundary conditions (operating time, market prices, policy support) was also evaluated. The results showed a significant dependency on both energy and fertilizer market prices and on financial support in the form of an MSS gate fee. Heat was preferred over combined heat and power (CHP), which was feasible only on the largest scale (100 MW) at maximum annual operating time (8000 h/y). Co-combustion showed lower heat recovery cost (19–30 €/MWh) than mono-combustion (29–66 €/MWh) due to 25–35% lower energy demand and 17–25% higher fuel heating value. Co-combustion also showed promising performance for P recovery, as PF could be recovered without ash post-treatment and sold at a competitive price, and co-combustion could be applicable also in smaller cities. When implementing ash post-treatment, the final cost of ash-based PF was more than four times the price of commercial PF. In conclusion, investment in a new combustion plant for MSS treatment appears conditional to gate fees unless the boundary conditions would change significantly.

Hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) can mitigate the disposal costs of sewage sludge in a wastewater treatment plant. This study analyzes the impact of integrating HTC with anaerobic digestion (AD) and combustion from a combined energy and economic performance perspective. Net energy balance and investment opportunity are investigated for a number of technical scenarios considering i) different combinations of the technologies: AD + HTC, AD + thermal dryer + combustion, and AD + HTC + combustion, ii) different options for HTC process water treatment: wet oxidation (WO) + AD, and direct return to AD, and iii) different products: heat-only, heat and electricity, hydrochar, and phosphorus.

The results show trade-offs between investment cost, self-supplement of heat, and output electricity when WO is used. In AD + HTC, net heat output decreases compared to the reference plant, but avoided disposal costs and hydrochar revenue result in profitable investment when the process water is directly returned to the AD. Although HTC has a lower heat demand than the thermal dryer, replacing the thermal dryer with HTC is only possible when AD, HTC, and combustion are connected, or when WO covers HTC’s heat demand. HTC may impair the electricity production because of the necessity for a high-temperature heat source, whereas the thermal dryer can utilize a low-temperature heat source. In conclusion, energy advantages of HTC in AD + HTC + combustion are insufficient to provide a promising investment opportunity due to high investment costs of HTC. The investment opportunity improves by co-combustion of hydrochar and external sludge.