Waste Management 146 (2022) 106–118

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Review of inventory data for the thermal treatment of sewage sludge

Huimin Chang a, Yan Zhao a, *, Silan Zhao a, Anders Damgaard b, Thomas H. Christensen b
a
School of Environment, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
b
Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby 2800, Denmark

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The thermal treatment of sewage sludge has gained much interest in recent years, as exemplified by the 269
Sewage sludge papers found in the scientific literature for the period 2010–2021. We identified 140 datasets in 57 papers
Incineration presenting inventory data related to mass flows, energy and emissions for the incineration, gasification and
Pyrolysis
pyrolysis of sewage sludge. Sewage sludge incineration (excess oxygen, 850–950 ℃) is an established technol­
Gasification
Inventory data
ogy; however, data on flue gas cleaning and air emissions are scarce. The recovery of energy is close to the
amount of energy used for incinerating dried sludge (0.2 kWh/kg TS), while dewatered sludge incineration uses
more energy (1–2 kWh/kg TS) than what can be recovered. Sewage sludge gasification (limited oxygen, 650–950
℃) is an experimental technology with four outputs (kg/kg sludge TS): char 0.43, tar 0.02, fly ash 0.06 and
syngas 0.53. The data vary significantly in this regard, suggesting than many factors affect the performance of the
gasification process. Sewage sludge pyrolysis (no oxygen, 400–800 ℃) is an experimental technology with five
outputs (kg/kg sludge TS): char 0.53, tar 0.21, water < 0.05, fly ash set to zero and syngas 0.21. The values are
somewhat different for digested sludge. Energy consumption for the pyrolysis of sewage sludge cannot be esti­
mated from the literature. The current literature provides useful data on the main flows of thermal technologies,
although large variations are in evidence. However, data are limited on energy consumption and recovery in
general, and they are scarce on direct emissions to the air from incineration.

1. Introduction
Sewage sludge management is a worldwide challenge due to the
large amounts constantly being produced by wastewater treatment
plants. Many studies (e.g., Wei et al., 2018; Ramachandran et al., 2019;
Wu et al., 2020) have focused on the development and optimisation of
different technologies to handle this sludge for environmentally harm­
less treatment or utilization. Thermal treatment of sewage sludge is
gaining increasing interest, in particular in large urban areas with large
amounts of sludge and where other treatment and disposal technologies
may be difficult to implement because of limited space and concerns
about odour problems (Raheem et al., 2018; Shi et al., 2018; Zhang
et al., 2017). Sewage sludge incineration, whereby combustion takes
place at high temperatures with a surplus of oxygen, is a well-established
technology and has proven its use in many cities (Alyaseri and Zhou,
2017; Hao et al., 2020; Kasina et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2017; Zhang et al.,
2021). Thermal technologies, using a deficit of oxygen (gasification) or
no oxygen at all (pyrolysis), and a range of temperatures for treating
sewage sludge are emerging as well, although both technologies are still
in the development stage (Alves et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2021; Luo et al.,
2021; Naqvi et al., 2021; Pecchi and Baratieri, 2019).
The three technologies have unique features. Incineration can
recover energy from combustion in terms of electricity and heat, while
gasification and pyrolysis generate energy-rich outputs such as tar and
syngas that can potentially be refined or used as fuel (Djandja et al.,
2020; Haghighat et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020a; Liu et al., 2020b; Racek
et al., 2020; Yan et al., 2020). Air and gas cleaning systems are large for
incineration but smaller for gasification and pyrolysis, due to the much
lower volumes being treated (Liang et al., 2021; Ronda et al., 2019;
Wang et al., 2022; Watson et al., 2018; Zheng et al., 2020; Ziółkowski
et al., 2021). Pyrolysis also generates char that can potentially be used as
activated carbon (Yin et al., 2014) and, as a more recent development,
for soil amendment, with a large fraction of sequestered biogenic carbon
providing savings with respect to climate change (Djandja et al., 2020;
Haghighat et al., 2020; Raj et al., 2021; Ronda et al., 2019). For
example, Ronda et al. (2019) found that 35% of the carbon was present
in char after sewage sludge pyrolysis at 500 ℃.
The above-mentioned features can only be quantified and their

* Corresponding author at: School of Environment, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China.
E-mail address: yanzhao@bnu.edu.cn (Y. Zhao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2022.05.002
Received 9 March 2022; Received in revised form 22 April 2022; Accepted 4 May 2022
Available online 16 May 2022
0956-053X/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Chang et al. Waste Management 146 (2022) 106–118

environmental issues assessed if inventory data are available for all technology is actually performing, albeit not all data necessarily repre­
technology inputs and outputs, including sludge composition, material sent optimal conditions. We do not have full-scale data for gasification
flows, energy use and recovery, as well as emissions. and pyrolysis – only data from pilot-scale and laboratory-scale experi­
Several papers have within the last decade described the thermal mental set-ups. These data may represent a range of investigated oper­
waste management technologies (e.g., Abuşoğlu et al., 2017; Alvarez ational conditions in order to define the best conditions in a prospective
et al., 2015, 2016;Arena, 2012; Chen et al., 2014; Klinghoffer and Cas­ full-scale operation. However, all of the data we have identified as
taldi, 2013). In all cases, these papers concluded that more had to be consistent are included, although some of the experimental conditions
learned regarding gasification and pyrolysis. However, the reviews did may not be used in a full-scale operation. We have no way of identifying
not specifically consider sewage sludge, which in many ways is a unique the conditions to be chosen for a full-scale operation, and thus we cannot
waste with a low energy content, high water content, high ash content sort the data accordingly.
and a viscous behaviour. Recent reviews have addressed hydrothermal
conversion of sludge, which is focused on recovering an oily fraction
typically at temperatures below 400 ℃ (González-Arias et al., 2022; 2.2. Sewage sludge
Heidari et al., 2019; Sharma et al., 2020). Although results have been
promising also here more information is needed. Since we did not find Sewage sludge is always dewatered, and in many cases also dried,
suitable reviews presenting inventory data for incineration, gasification prior to thermal treatment; in some cases, the sludge is also anaerobi­
and pyrolysis for sewage sludge, we performed a literature review on cally digested prior to dewatering and drying. The total solid content
input and output data describing the performance of these thermal (TS) reported for thermally treated sludge ranged from 20 to 97% TS.
technologies. These inventory data are useful in early assessments Incineration can handle dewatered (typically 20–35% TS) as well as
relating to the introduction of thermal sewage sludge treatment, when dried sludge (typically 60–95% TS), while gasification and pyrolysis
comparing technologies and as a comparative basis for evaluating the treat dried sludge. The characteristics of thermally treated sludge are
performance of a specific thermal sewage treatment plant. Consistent presented in Table 1 for raw and digested sludge, as well as dewatered
inventory data also act as the basis for performing a life cycle assessment and dried.
(LCA). The purpose of this paper is to summarise and analyse inventory VS content, and hence also Ash content, is different for raw and
data in the scientific literature describing thermal sewage sludge digested sludge, since the anaerobic digestion degrades a significant part
treatment. of the VS: on a dry weight basis, raw sludge has a VS content of 64% and
an Ash content of 36%, while digested sludge has a VS content of 52%
2. Materials and methods and an Ash content of 48%. This affects the transfer of mass and com­
pounds during thermal treatment, since Ash contributes to bottom ash
As much of the development on thermal sewage sludge treatment has and char, while VS primarily contributes to flue gas, tar and syngas,
taken place in recent years, we focussed the review on the years depending on the technology.
2010–2021 by searching Web of Science™. We identified 269 papers The lower heating value (LHV) differs among the four sludge types in
dealing with thermal sewage sludge treatment, 87 of which contained
inventory data. We assessed these papers and found consistent and Table 1
documented inventory data in 57 papers: 19 on incineration, 11 on Thermal sewage sludge treatment: Characteristics of sludge treated (min – max,
gasification and 27 on sewage sludge pyrolysis. The 89 reviewed papers mean ± SD, n is the number of datasets). Data on Ash and VS were pooled for
are listed in Supplementary Information A2. dewatered and dried sludge, as no statistically significant differences were
The following paragraphs describe our data assessment, define the observed for the two sludges.
treated sewage sludge, the technologies considered and the parameters Sludge type Characteristics Unit Dewatered Dried
reviewed. Raw sludge TS % of wet 17.7 – 36.0 60.0 – 96.2
weight (24.6 ± 5.6) (85.4 ± 10.8)
2.1. Data assessment (n = 12) (n = 36)
Ash % of TS 15.0 – 58.0 (36.0 ± 11.8)
(n = 44)
All of the collected data were grouped and stored in Excel according VS % of TS 42.0 – 85.0 (64.0 ± 11.8)
to sludge type and thermal technology, as defined in the following (n = 44)
sections. LHV MJ / kg wet 1.4 – 5.1 (2.9 ± 7.3 – 18.4
The data were checked for an adequate description of any techno­ weight 1.2) (11.5 ± 2.7)
(n = 6) (n = 29)
logical features and for plausibility by comparing the values of each MJ / kg TS 6.4 – 15.3 (12.5 8.1 – 19.3
parameter within its group and with other relevant parameters. Mass ± 3.0) (13.0 ± 2.4)
balances were assessed, and datasets with large discrepancies were (n = 6) (n = 29)
excluded. Not all datasets contained all relevant parameters, but as long MJ / kg VS 17.7 – 22.7 17.1 – 29.7
(21.3 ± 1.8) (21.7 ± 2.8)
as the reported data showed internal consistency, they were included in
(n = 6) (n = 29)
the assessment. Digested TS % of wet 20.0 – 37.0 60.0 – 96.2
Intervals, average values, standard deviations and numbers of sludge weight (25.0 ± 6.6) (82.9 ± 13.6)
datasets were specified for all inventory parameters. Technically (n = 7) (n = 18)
meaningful correlations and regressions between data were identified Ash % of TS 29.3 – 73.0 (48.4 ± 13.1)
(n = 20)
and, where statistically significant, regression equations and analyses of VS % of TS 27 – 70.7 (51.6 ± 13.1)
variance were established. The software Origin® was used for the (n = 20)
analysis and presentation. In some histograms with scattered data, we LHV MJ / kg wet 1.5 – 3.7 (2.6 ± 1.9 – 11.1
provide a frequency curve in spite of a lack of statistical significance. weight 1.1) (8.0 ± 2.8)
(n = 2) (n = 16)
Probability density functions and test statistics are described in the
MJ / kg TS 4.1 – 11.2 (7.6 3.1 – 11.8
Supplementary Information A1. ± 3.6) (9.6 ± 2.4)
It is important to mention the difference in the nature of the data (n = 2) (n = 16)
reported and assessed herein. Incineration is a well-stablished technol­ MJ / kg VS 15.0 – 22.8 14.5 – 25.5
ogy for sewage sludge treatment, and in this paper we consider only data (18.9 ± 3.9) (20.3 ± 2.6)
(n = 2) (n = 16)
from actual full-scale operations. Thus, we report how the incineration

107
H. Chang et al.
Table 1, with low VS content and low TS content corresponding to a low
LHV value. The largest difference is between dewatered and dried
sludge, in that the energy content of dewatered sludge is rather limited,
while dried sludge has a substantial energy content.
Where technically relevant in the interpretation, we have distin­
guished, to the extent allowed by the data, between raw sludge and
digested sludge, and between dewatered sludge and dried sludge.
2.3. Technologies
We consider three technology categories for sewage sludge treat­
ment: incineration, gasification and pyrolysis. Hydrothermal conver­
sion, typically applying temperatures below 400 ℃, are not included in
the review. These technologies have been covered by González-Arias
et al. (2022), Heidari et al. (2019) and Sharma et al. (2020). Other –
more exotic – technologies, such as plasma-based thermal treatment, are
not considered.
Sewage sludge incineration is a mature technology, and we collected
data only for full-scale plants. We found 20 datasets. Sewage sludge
incineration takes place at 850 – 950 ℃ in an atmosphere of excessive
oxygen, providing close to complete combustion of volatile solids in the
sludge. We categorise the technologies as:
a) Fluidised bed incineration (FBI) (n = 15): In fluidised bed incinera­
tion, air and sewage sludge enter at the bottom of the incinerator.
The sludge is suspended in an upward-flowing airstream with sand
and ash. A small fraction of the ash may stay in the sand bed, but the
majority will move up to the top of the reactor and afterwards be
removed by multiple cyclone equipment. The retention time for
solids is controlled by the flow of air and the design of the equipment.
According to the literature, three FBI designs are currently in use:
bubbling FBI, rotating FBI and external circulating FBI. Ambient air
input ranges from 4 – 25 m3/kg TS (15.5 ± 9 m3/kg TS, n = 4).
b) Non-FBI (NFBI) (n = 5): These are multiple-hearth incinerators
(MHIs) (n = 2) and step-grate incinerators (SGIs) (n = 3). An MHI has
a vertical cylindrical shell of firebricks with a rotating shaft in the
centre of the shell. Sewage sludge is fed from the top and moves to
the bottom, pushed by the rotating shaft. Air is supplied from the
bottom, and small particles flow with the flue gas and are removed in
the flue gas cleaning system. No information was available about air
input. An SGI has an inclined grate system, which moves the sludge
from the input side to the other side, where the bottom ash is
removed. Primary air is supplied through the grate from below, and
secondary air is supplied through nozzles over the grate, to ensure
complete combustion. Air input ranges from 6.5 – 7.5 m3/kg TS (7.1
± 0.52 m3/kg TS, n = 3).
Sewage sludge gasification is currently in development, and so we
only uncovered pilot-scale and laboratory data in the form of 11 data­
sets. Gasification takes place at 650 – 950 ℃ with limited air access.
Partial oxidation raises the temperature in the reactor, thereby con­
verting volatile solids into syngas, tar and char. Pilot- and laboratory-
scale experimental set-ups may not fully resemble full-scale technolo­
gies, although the principles may be correctly represented. Two tech­
nology categories of are reported in the literature:
a) Fluidised bed gasification (FBG) (n = 8): The equipment is almost the
same as FBI, but at the top out of the reactor, a condenser system
removes liquid tar from syngas. This syngas is most likely combusted
afterwards, but very few of the papers address this part of the tech­
nology. Compared to FBI, air flow is much lower and char is removed
from the lower part of the reactor. Three of the nine studies gasified
dried anaerobically digested sludge. The input gas ranged from 0.7 to
3 Nm3/kg TS with different levels of O2. A few of the laboratory-scale
experiments used steam instead of air. All had an air equivalent ratio
(AER) below 0.5, supplying too little oxygen to sustain full
108
Waste Management 146 (2022) 106–118
combustion of the volatile solids. The AER value is 1 when the ox­
ygen supply matches what is needed to fully combust the VS.
b) Non-FBG (n = 3): This includes two datasets for a fixed bed gasifier
and one dataset for a step grate gasifier. Fixed bed reactors are
operated in batch mode with steam or mixed air, at 3.3 and 1.2 Nm3/
kg TS input, respectively. The step grate is similar to what is used for
incineration, but air input is greatly reduced (no data).
Sewage sludge pyrolysis is a relatively new technology receiving a lot
of attention. We found only pilot-scale and laboratory data: 19 datasets
addressing dried sludge pyrolysis and eight dealing with dried anaero­
bically digested sludge. Pyrolysis takes place in the absence of air at a
typical temperature range of 400 – 900 ℃. The speed at which sewage
sludge is heated, as well as the final temperature, determine, at least in
theory, the types of output from the process: a slow heating rate, and
hence a long retention time, emphasise solid output char, a fast heating
rate (over 60 ℃/min, Haghighat et al., 2020) reaching a moderate
temperature of 400–550 ℃ emphasises liquid phase tar, while a fast
heating rate reaching a high temperature (around 900 ℃) emphasises
syngas. External energy is required to operate the reactor. Several
technologies have been reported in the literature, herein organised in
three categories:
a) Fluidised bed pyrolysis (FBP) (n = 5): The equipment is the same as
for FBI and FBG, but the gas fed into the reactor is inert. This gas is
typically nitrogen (N2), but argon (Ar) and helium (He) have also
been used experimentally. The reactor is externally heated. Gas
leaves from the top of the reactor, and tar is removed from syngas in
a condenser. Char is removed from the bottom of the reactor.
b) Horizontal reactor pyrolysis (HRP) (n = 15): Most of the data found
for this study are from experimental batch reactors. Sewage sludge is
placed in the middle of the reactor, and heating is indirect. The inert
gas agent is supplied from one side and flows to the other side of the
reactor. Syngas is removed and condensed, and char is left in the
reactor and collected after the system has cooled.
c) Other reactor pyrolysis (ORP) (n = 5): This category comprises a
rotary cylindrical steel kiln (n = 2) and a conical bed reactor (n = 2),
which are externally heated, and a screw reactor (n = 1) whereby a
screw forces the sludge through a narrow reactor, creating heat by
friction.
For all three thermal technologies, the main consumables are elec­
tricity, to run the furnace or reactor, and, in some cases, energy to heat
the reactor (primarily for pyrolysis). Electricity as well as heat may be
recovered from the incineration technologies, while some of the syngas
may be used for heating the reactor. Syngas is usually utilised on-site by
combustion. Tar may be used as fuel or for further refining. All tech­
nologies require additional energy input during start-up procedures, but
this is not considered here.
2.4. Inventory data
The inventory data used to characterise thermal sewage sludge
treatment performance are as follows:
a) Mass and element transfer from the input to the various outputs. This
helps determine the importance of the various outputs, thereby
addressing any further management options.
b) Quality of outputs, which together with mass transfers quantitatively
determines output flows and any further management options.
c) Energy inputs and outputs.
In the description of results, we use the following technical terms:
a) Fly ash is made up of particles removed from a gas phase (flue gas or
syngas).
H. Chang et al. Waste Management 146 (2022) 106–118

b) Flue gas is the (oxidised) exhaust gas from incineration; its main
components are N2, CO2, O2 NOx and SO2.
c) Syngas is the (reduced) gas from gasification and pyrolysis; main
components are N2, CO2, CO, H2, CH4 and C2 – C4 hydrocarbons.
d) Char is a solid phase containing a high amount of ash and some
carbon.
e) Tar is an oily phase condensed from syngas and contains alkenes,
alkanes, long-chain fatty acids and esters, as well as a range of other
organic compounds.
f) Water is removed in the syngas condensation step, at which point tar
is also removed. In some datasets, water may be included in the re­
ported tar fraction.
3. Results and discussion
The results of the literature review are presented below for the three
technologies.
3.1. Incineration
Incineration has been studied at full-scale for dewatered sludge (20
datasets) as well as for dried sludge (19 datasets). In a few cases, sewage
sludge is anaerobically digested prior to incineration, but the available
data do not allow for distinguishing between the incineration of raw or
digested sludge. The majority of the datasets concentrate on fluidised-
bed incineration (FBI), whilst non-FBI datasets are dominated by step
grate furnaces but also include data on multiple-hearth furnaces.
3.1.1. Incineration: Outputs
The material outputs from sewage sludge incineration are fly ash and
flue gas from FBI technology, while bottom ash, fly ash and flue gas
derive from non-FBI technologies. As a result of additional flue gas
cleaning, wastewater and air-pollution-control products may also
appear; however, these are rarely addressed in the reviewed literature
and are therefore not included herein.
Table 2 illustrates ash and element distribution in FBI and non-FBI
technology. In FBI technology, all ash in sewage sludge will end up in
fly ash collected from the flue gas. Six papers refer to 100% of ash
recovered as ‘fly ash’ (Cheng et al., 2020; Li et al., 2014; Panepinto et al.,
2016; Salihoglu and Mardani-Aghabaglou, 2021; Smol, 2020; Takaoka
et al., 2012), while two papers report actual measurements of 98–99%
(Smol, 2020; Van de Velden et al., 2008). FBI technology does provide
inlets and outlets for supplementing the sand bed or removing accu­
mulated sand bed residues, respectively, but they are not used contin­
uously and only one dataset was found. Smol (2020) reported a value of
ash removed from the sand bed of the order 0.5% of sludge TS. These
three specific quantifications suggest that <1.5% of the sludge ash in FBI
technology leaves as “bottom ash” from the fluidised sand bed.
In the non-FBI technology, the majority of the ash in sludge ends up
in bottom ash, namely 77 – 99% (n = 5), while the remaining part ends
up in fly ash (1 – 23% TS). Fly ash is quantified as ash removed in flue
gas cleaning systems, many of which vary in terms of configuration and
efficiency (cyclones, bag filters, electrostatic precipitators, alkaline and
acidic scrubbers, activated carbon filters, etc. in various combinations).
Several papers consider the behaviour of heavy metals during inciner­
ation and flue gas cleaning (Fang et al., 2020; Kasina et al., 2019; Li
et al., 2019; Zha et al., 2020; Zha et al., 2018), but only three papers
(Cheng et al., 2020; Van de Velden et al., 2008; Xu et al., 2015) provide
data on the distribution of heavy metals in sewage sludge into both
bottom and fly ash. Metals such as Pb, Zn, Cd and Hg are volatile in a
chloride-containing high-temperature environment, e.g. see Liu and
Ren, (2021); Ronda et al., (2019); Tang et al., (2021); Zhang et al.,
(2018a,b), and are found in flue gas unless advanced air pollution
controls are in place. Mercury is particularly difficult to control and
requires activated carbon filters.
Table 3 shows actual measurements for treated flue gas at five FBI
plants with different air pollution control system configurations. Emis­
sion guidelines are also shown for Europe, USA and China. The data are
rather scattered and are too few in number to establish typical levels of
flue gas emissions. However, legal guidelines should provide maximum
values for pollutants in the cleaned flue gas.
3.1.2. Incineration: Energy
The energy data reviewed for sewage sludge incineration are sum­
marised in Table 4.
Heat is used to dry sludge prior to combustion, and so we distinguish
between the incineration of dewatered sludge (20 – 35% TS) and dried
sludge (60 – 95% TS). We exclude data from full-scale plants experi­
mentally incinerating sludge with other TS contents. Natural gas or
methane gas, as well as light oil, have been used for heating sludge.
Table 4 reports the amount of heating energy used as well as the amount
of electricity used for pumping, blowers, etc. Electricity and heat re­
covery is also reported in Table 4. Only a few consistent energy data are
found, as many papers only report part of the energy data. As expected,
the data show that the incineration of dewatered sludge requires more
heating than when dealing with dried sludge. The data are too few to
identify any difference between FBI technology and non-FBI technology
when incinerating dried sludge.
3.2. Gasification
Sewage sludge gasification has been studied experimentally for raw
dried sludge (15 datasets) as well as for digested dried sludge (six
datasets).
3.2.1. Gasification: Outputs
The material outputs from sewage sludge gasification in terms of
char, tar and syngas are presented in Fig. 1 as a function of the

Table 2
Sewage sludge incineration: Distribution of elements in percentages between bottom ash (BA), fly ash (FA) and flue gas (FG). Distribution to FG is calculated to balance
the data to 100%.
FBI Non-FBI
(Van de Velden et al., 2008) (Cheng et al., 2020) (Cheng et al., 2020) (Xu et al., 2015)
SGI RKI

Output BA FA FG BA FA FG BA FA FG BA FA FG

Mass 1.0 99.0 0 100 99.7 0.3 0 88.6

As 0.3 93.4 6.3 121 97.6 2.4 0 81.3
Ni 1.9 98.1 0 118 97.5 2.5 0 84.1
Pb 0.5 99.5 0 No data 123 No data 94.4 5.6 0 79.1 No data No data
Zn 0.5 93.2 6.4 109 96.4 3.6 0 83.8
Cr 0.5 83.2 16.3 149 97.8 2.2 0 72.8
Cu 0.1 99.9 0 99 98.5 1.5 0 97.5
Cd 0.9 99.1 0 92 96.7 3.3 0 75.3
Hg 10 20 27.4 7 9.6 7.3 0.05 92.6 23.7

109
H. Chang et al. Waste Management 146 (2022) 106–118

Table 3
Sewage sludge incineration: Flue gas composition from five FBI plants and selected emission standards. (ND: no data, OP: old plant, NP: new plant, PM: particulate
matter, TVOC: total volatile organic carbon, ESP: electrostatic precipitator, PAC: particulate activated carbon, Metals: The sum of antimony, arsenic, lead, chromium,
cobalt, copper, manganese, nickel, vanadium and their compounds; Cd + Tl: The sum of cadmium, thallium and their compounds). Actual guideline values may be
converted to the units used in this table.
Reference (Frýba et al., (Li et al., (Panepinto et al., (Loschau, (Farago et al., European Union (EU, USA (EPA, China (MEE,
2013) 2014) 2016) 2018) 2021) 2019) 2016) 2014)

Technology FBI FBI FBI FBI FBI OP NP FBI MHI

Air Pollution ESP Cyclone ESP ESP ESP Independent of APC system
Control (APC) Catalytic filter Lime Acid & Alkali wet Spray dryer Alkali wet
Alkali wet Bag filter scrubber Wet scrubber
scrubber PAC-lime scrubber PAC
Bag filter PAC
PMx mg ND ND <1 1.25 0.04 <2–7 <2–5 18 80 20
Nm3
NOx 44.2 175 43 57.6 45.8 50–150 50–120 282 414 250
TVOC ND ND <1 3.8 ND < 3–10 < 3–10 ND ND ND
SO2 34.17 43.3 <1 7.92 20.2 5–40 5–30 39.3 68 80
CO ND ND 16 10.07 1.5 10–50 10–50 73 4353 80
HF 0.34 ND <1 ND ND <1 <1 ND ND ND
HCl ND 14.4 ND ND ND < 2–8 < 2–6 0.76 1.8 50
NH3 ND ND ND ND 4.3 2–15 2–10 ND ND ND
Hg 0.03 0.01 0.007 0.008 ND 0.001– 0.001– 0.037 0.28 0.05
0.01 0.01
Cd ND 0.0024 ND ND ND ND ND 0.0016 0.095 ND
Cd + Tl ND ND ND ND ND 0.005 – 0.005 – ND ND 0.1
0.02 0.02
Metals 0.26 ND 0.030 ND ND 0.01 – 0.3 0.01 – 0.3 ND ND 1.0
Dioxins ng TEQ 0.42 0.01 ND ND ND 0.06 0.01 0.1 0.32 0.1
Nm3

temperature (Figs. 1 and 2). We found no data on the VS and Ash content
Table 4
of tar, but as tar is a condensate from syngas, it is expected to consist
Sewage sludge incineration: Energy data (average ± SD, n = number of data).
primarily of VS.
Dewatered sludge (20 – Dried sludge (60 – 90% Fly ash: In some studies, fly ash removed from syngas was quantified.
35% TS) TS)
On average, the reported amount of fly ash is 0.06 ± 0.03 kg weight per
FBI Non-FBI FBI Non-FBI
kg TS of input sludge (n = 8). In a few cases, where syngas was recir­
Input culated in a fluidised bed, high amounts of fly ash were measured in the
Heat, kWh/kg TS 2.17 ± 1.40 ± 0.24 ± 1.75
1.62 0.56 0.32 (n = 1)
flue gas (around 0.2 kg as per kg TS input (Thomsen et al., 2017)). These
(n = 7) (n = 5) (n = 7) experimental data were not included in the average figures. For fluidised
Electricity, kWh/kg TS 0.42 ± 0.26 ± 0.36 0.05 ± bed technologies (FBG), it is unlikely that there was no fly ash in syngas,
0.37 0.18 (n = 1) 0.03 even when numbers were not reported. Reporting of fly ash data seems
(n = 4) (n = 4) (n = 2)
somewhat random and for unknown reasons, which ultimately affects
Output
Recovered heat, kWh/kg TS 1.26 ± 1.57 ± 0.68 ± No data mass balances.
0.86 1.05 0.44 Syngas: The typical kg dry weight of syngas per kg TS of input sludge
(n = 8) (n = 4) (n = 10) was 0.53 ± 0.09 (n = 15). Some of the values were calculated from
Recovered electricity, kWh/ 0.22 ± 0.24 ± 0.30 ± No data published information about gas volumes and composition. Measured
kg TS 0.05 0.21 0.11
(n = 2) (n = 4) (n = 10)
syngas volumes varied by 0.6 – 1.32 Nm3/kg TS input, and the average
was 0.67 ± 0.25 Nm3/kg TS input (n = 17). The amount of syngas
showed no strong correlation with the VS content of sludge (Fig. 1), but
characteristics of the input sludge and in Fig. 2 as a function of gasifi­ there was a weak tendency towards higher values at higher tempera­
cation temperature. The columns in Figs. 2 and 3, placed in the same tures (Fig. 2). The composition of syngas varied significantly among the
position along the x-axis, are from the same paper, thereby allowing for experimental data. Average volume-percentage (dry and no N2) figures
cross-checking. The transfers of mass, Ash, VS and C to char, tar and were as follows: 19.2 ± 7.2% CO (n = 16), 30.5 ± 7.6% CO2 (n = 16),
syngas are summarised in Table 5. 34.6 ± 9.3% H2 (n = 16), 9.0 ± 3.1% CH4 (n = 16) and 4.4 ± 2.1% C2 –
Char: The average kg dry weight of char per kg TS of input sludge is Cx (n = 16). Fig. 3 shows syngas composition as a function of gasification
0.43 ± 0.09. Char is nearly dry when discharged (0.4 – 1.4% water temperature; N2 is excluded from the data. The data tend to show that at
content), and where data on water content were missing, we assumed high temperatures, more CO and less CO2 is formed and that more H2 is
that char was completely dry. Checking mass and Ash balances indicated formed when steam is used in the feeding gas. These weak trends are
that some of the datasets had unaccounted flows or accumulations, consistent with the theory, but apparently other factors also play a role,
thereby inhibiting our interpretation of the data. As a first approxima­ since syngas composition varies so much.
tion, we assumed that all ash ends up in char, except in some cases where Outputs relative to VS content are shown in Fig. 2 as a function of
FBG recirculated syngas, including the removal of fly ash from syngas gasification temperature. We assumed here that tar is solely VS. The
prior to its recirculation. Fig. 1 shows an approximate 1:1 correlation figure shows that most VS transfers to the syngas; only 5 – 10% is found
between char output and the Ash content of sewage sludge. Char also has in char and tar. No difference between raw sludge and digested sludge
volatile solids (VS) at 2 – 22% of TS (9.3 ± 6.6% of TS, n = 6). was identified.
Tar: The tar yield is very low, and in some studies it is not even
quantified. On average, the tar amounts to 0.02 ± 0.01 kg dry weight 3.2.2. Gasification: Energy
per kg TS of input sludge (n = 18). The amount of tar does not clearly We found only one dataset on energy consumption, originating from
correlate with the VS content of the sludge or with the gasification

110
H. Chang et al.
Fig. 1. Sewage sludge gasification: Output of char, tar and syngas (without N2)
as a function of sewage sludge characteristics. Data points of the same colour
are from the same paper. Solid data points refer to anaerobically digested
sludge, while open data points refer to raw sludge. Dotted line in the upper
graph for char is the 1:1 line.
a laboratory-scale FBG (Gil-Lalaguna et al., 2014a,b) showing 0.178
kWh/kg TS input.
The LHV of syngas, including its N2 content, was measured in several
cases as ranging from 2.8 to 6.5 MJ/Nm3 with an average value of 4.0 ±
1.3 MJ / Nm3 (n = 10). If excluding N2 from the syngas, the LHV ranged
from 5.8 to 13.1 MJ / Nm3 with an average value of 9.8 ± 2.0 MJ/Nm3
111
Waste Management 146 (2022) 106–118
Fig. 2. Sewage sludge gasification: Outputs as dry and ash-free (daf) weight
(without N2 in syngas) relative to the VS content of sludge as a function of the
gasification temperature. D: Digested sludge (columns in the same position in
Figs. 2 and 3 are from the same paper).
Fig. 3. Sewage sludge gasification: Syngas composition (N2 was excluded from
the data) as a function of the gasification temperature. D: Digested sludge. S:
Steam used in feeding gas (Columns in the same position in Figs. 2 and 3 are
from the same paper).
(n = 14) and 9.2 ± 3.3 MJ / kg. The data are shown in Fig. 4. We esti­
mate, as shown in Fig. 4, that 30 – 93% of the energy (LHV) in sewage
sludge ends up in syngas; the average is 54 ± 21% (n = 11). We could
not detect any relationship between the amount of energy transferred
from the sludge to syngas and the gasification temperature, which
ranged from 650 to 950 ℃ in the reported studies (data not shown).
Syngas, which is typically combusted for energy recovery, amounts
(without N2) on average, as shown in Table 5, to 0.68 Nm3 / kg TS input
and has an average LHV of 9.8 MJ / Nm3 (see above), which corresponds
to an energy content of 1.85 kWh / kg TS of the sludge treated. This
suggests, with reference to the above-mentioned single value of energy
consumed in sewage sludge gasification, that syngas contains energy in
large excesses of what is needed to operate a plant. It should be
H. Chang et al. Waste Management 146 (2022) 106–118

Table 5 (average: 37.4 ± 12.9% of TS, n = 20 for raw sludge and 22.0 ± 4.7% of
Sewage sludge gasification: Summary of the transfer of inputs to outputs. TS, n = 13 for digested sludge). The differences between raw and
Char Tar Syngas (void of digested sludge are a reflection of the higher ash content of the digested
N2) sludge. Fig. 6 shows that a significant amount of VS ends up in char at
Mass transfer 0.43 ± 0.09 (n 0.02 ± 0.01 (n = 0.53 ± 0.09 (n = low temperatures, while at high temperatures nearly all VS is volatilised
(dry kg/ kg TS = 19) 17) 17) and ends up in tar or syngas. Thus, char composition changes according
input) dry kg / kg TS to pyrolysis temperature.
input Tar: The tar yield is high, increasing in line with increasing VS
0.68 ± 0.25 (n =
16)
content in the sludge. The average kg dry weight of tar per kg TS of input
dry Nm3 / kg TS sludge is 0.21 ± 0.08 for raw sludge (n = 57) and 0.18 ± 0.13 for
input digested sludge (n = 23). On average, tar contains around 94% VS (TS
Ash transfer 0.82 ± 0.06 (n No data 0.03 – 0.1 (n = 7) basis), which accounts for 28% of VS in sludge input irrespective of the
(dry kg/ kg Ash = 7)
type of sludge.
input)
VS transfer 0.06 ± 0.05 (n 0.036 ± 0.03 (n = 0.90 ± 0.05 (n = Water: Condensing syngas may generate water, which in six cases
(dry kg/ kg VS = 7) 7) 7) was quantified ranging from 0.02 to 0.13 kg / kg wet weight of sludge
input) Assuming all tar as input. Water was quantified by measuring the water content of the liquid
VS condensate or by chemically separating the water from the liquid
C transfer 0.17 ± 0.11 (n 0.15 0.68 ± 0.11 (n =
(kg C/ kg C input) = 12) Only one dataset 3)
condensate. Water separated from the liquid condensate contains
organic compounds (Tomasi Morgano et al., 2018), but we found no
quantitative data in this regard.
emphasised that only a few data support this consideration. Fly ash: No studies reported on fly ash in syngas.
Syngas: The typical kg dry weight of syngas per kg TS of input sludge
is 0.21 ± 0.10 for raw sludge (n = 40) and 0.14 ± 0.07 for digested
3.3. Pyrolysis sludge (n = 23). Syngas volumes varied from 0.04 to 0.51 Nm3/kg TS
input (n = 11), with the average being 0.31 ± 0.15 Nm3/kg TS input for
Sewage sludge pyrolysis was studied on an experimental scale for raw sludge (n = 3) and 0.15 ± 0.10 Nm3/kg TS input for digested sludge
raw dried sludge (57 datasets) as well as for digested dried sludge (23 (n = 8). The amount of syngas showed no strong correlation with the VS
datasets). content of the sludge (Fig. 5), but there was a tendency towards lower
values for digested sludge. The composition of syngas varied signifi­
3.3.1. Pyrolysis: Outputs cantly among the experimental data. On average in volume-percentage
The material outputs from sewage sludge pyrolysis in terms of char, terms: 21.1 ± 12.1% CO (n = 55), 31.3 ± 20.8% CO2 (n = 55), 23.8 ±
tar and syngas are presented in Fig. 5 as a function of the characteristics 14.4% H2 (n = 55), 12.4 ± 7.0% CH4 (n = 52) and 6.7 ± 5.2% C2 – Cx (n
of the input sludge. The columns in Figs. 5 and 6 placed in same position = 48). Fig. 6 shows that at increasing temperatures, an increasing
along the x-axis are from the same paper, thereby allowing for cross- fraction of the VS ends up in syngas at the expense of the fraction ending
referencing. The transfers of mass, Ash, VS and C to char, tar and syn­ up in char. This applies to the pyrolysis of raw sludge as well as digested
gas are summarised in Table 6 for raw sludge and digested sludge py­ sludge. It is not clear why the data for digested sludge pyrolysis appear
rolysis, respectively. Compared to gasification, pyrolysis generates so uncertain. Fig. 7 presents syngas composition as a function of gasi­
much less syngas and much more tar (condensate from syngas), and fication temperature and clearly shows that H2 increases and CO2 de­
outputs are clearly different for raw and digested sludge pyrolysis. creases as the temperature increases. The large variation in syngas
Char: The average kg dry weight of char per kg TS of input sludge is composition indicates that factors other than temperature play an
0.53 ± 0.12 for raw sludge (n = 57) and 0.59 ± 0.11 for digested sludge important role.
(n = 23); the difference is not statistically significant. Also here, we
assume that char is dry, if no data were provided on water content. Fig. 5 3.3.2. Pyrolysis: Energy
shows char amounts increasing in line with increasing ash content. The All energy used in sewage sludge pyrolysis is sourced externally, as
values are clearly located above the 1:1 line, indicating that char also no internal combustion takes place. Syngas may be combusted, and the
has a high VS content. Char has a content of VS of 11 – 65% of TS

Fig. 4. Sewage sludge gasification: Histogram of an LHV of syngas, with and without N2, and a histogram of the percentage of sludge LHV found in the syngas. (ND:
Normal distribution; LD: Lognormal distribution).

112
H. Chang et al.
Fig. 5. Sewage sludge pyrolysis: Output of char, tar and syngas as a function of
sewage sludge characteristics. Data points of the same colour and the same
shape are from the same paper. Solid data points refer to anaerobically digested
sludge, while open data points refer to raw sludge. Dotted line in the upper
graph for char is the 1:1 line.
energy recovered may be used in the plant, but the data reported herein
do not account for this. Furthermore, the reviewed data did not allow us
to distinguish between dewatered and dried sludge or between raw and
digested sludge. Ten papers from experimental-scale studies reported on
energy consumption: normalised as kWh per kg TS of sewage sludge,
113
Waste Management 146 (2022) 106–118
energy consumption ranged 0.04 – 8.3 kWh / kg TS input with an
average value of 1.9 ± 2.4 kWh / kg TS input (n = 17). Two papers
(Bridle and Pritchard, 2004; Chang et al., 2013) reported pilot-scale
experimental values of 0.3 and 1.8 kWh / kg TS input. Luo et al.,
(2020a,b) reported very high energy consumption of 11.2 – 18.2 kWh /
kg TS, because microwaves were used for heating in the laboratory;
these values were not included in the average figures. No relationship
was found between energy consumption and pyrolysis temperature.
Fig. 8 shows the LHVs of char, tar and syngas in MJ / kg. There is no
significant difference between raw and digested sludge. The LHV of char
and syngas follows a normal distribution, while tar shows a trail of low
values. The average LHV values are 7.8 ± 3.3 MJ / kg char (n = 41), 28.5
± 6.1 MJ / kg tar (n = 42) and 12.9 ± 4.7 MJ / kg syngas (n = 29). The
LHV of syngas based on volume is 16.1 ± 1.6 MJ / Nm3 syngas (n = 9).
According to the mass flows and LHV values, the distribution of
energy in sewage sludge to char, tar and syngas as a function of tem­
perature is shown in Fig. 9. In both raw sludge and of digested sludge
pyrolysis, a significant amount of the energy in the sludge is found in
char at low temperatures (typical energy distribution: char 50%, tar
35%, syngas 15%), while most of the energy is found in syngas at high
temperatures (typical energy distribution: char 15%, tar 35%, syngas
50%).
3.4. Comparison of the thermal technologies
Thermal sewage sludge treatment has been studied and compared for
a range of sludges, categorised as raw-dewatered, raw-dried, digested-
dewatered and digested-dried sludge. These categories have different
energy contents, since they have different amounts of water and ash. The
review found the following LHVs, as well as the average and standard
deviation: 2.9 ± 1.2 MJ/kg for raw-dewatered sludge, 11.5 ± 2.7 MJ/kg
raw-dried sludge, 2.6 ± 1.1 MJ/kg digested-dewatered sludge and 8.0
± 2.8 MJ/kg digested-dried sludge. Although we attempted to consider
these four sludge categories in the interpretation and comparison of the
results, it was not always feasible.
A summary in terms of key inventory characteristics and typical data
is shown in Table 7, in order to illustrate the main differences between
the three thermal technologies employed for treating sewage sludge.
The incineration (excess oxygen, 850 – 950 ℃) of sewage sludge is an
established technology, and we considered only papers dealing with full-
scale facilities. We found 20 datasets on dewatered sludge incineration
and 19 relating to dried sludge in this regard. Very few of the datasets
were on digested sludge. Fluidised-bed technology was the most com­
mon approach (75%), while multiple-hearth and step-grate furnaces
were also described (25%). Solids in terms of ash leave a fluidised-bed
incinerator as fly ash, while the other technologies have bottom ash as
well as fly ash. However, very few datasets provided consistent infor­
mation about the distribution of elements, and data were particularly
scattered in terms of air emissions. Air pollution control technologies are
mandatory but vary a lot in configuration. The reported data do not
provide consistent information on air emissions, which may also relate
to the fact that different countries have different flue gas emission
guidelines, and installed controls often have these values as maximum
targets for emissions into the air. In any case, the data show that mercury
is hard to control due to its high volatility. The data on the input and
output of energy are scarce, but what little are available suggest that
dewatered sludge requires around 1 – 2 kWh heat per kg TS, while dried
sludge requires only 0.2 kWh heat per kg TS. Electricity consumption in
fluidised bed technology is on average around 0.42 kWh/kg TS and 60%
higher than for the other incineration technologies. This higher con­
sumption is likely to be related to the energy used in fluidising the sand
bed. The recovery of electricity and heat for dried sludge is close to the
values of used for electricity and heat, while dewatered sludge incin­
eration uses more energy than what can be recovered.
The gasification (limited oxygen, 650 – 950 ℃) of sewage sludge is
currently an experimental technology, since we found data only on pilot-
H. Chang et al. Waste Management 146 (2022) 106–118

Fig. 6. Sewage sludge pyrolysis: Outputs as dry and ash-free (daf) weight relative to the VS content of sludge as a function of pyrolysis temperature. (Columns in the
same position in Figs. 6 and 7 are from the same paper).

TS), which is removed from generated gas, and syngas (0.53 kg/kg TS).
Table 6 The data vary significantly, suggesting that many factors affect the
Sewage sludge pyrolysis: Summary of transfer of input to outputs.
performance of the gasification process. The data indicate that the
Char Tar Syngas amount of syngas increases slightly in line with the amount of organics
Pyrolysis of dried raw sludge in the sludge. Syngas typically contains, when excluding any N2 from the
Mass transfer 0.53 ± 0.12 0.21 ± 0.08 0.21 ± 0.10 input air, 20% CO, 30% CO2, 35% H2, 10% CH4 and 5% hydrocarbons.
(dry kg/ kg TS input) (n = 57) (n = 57) (n = 40) The data indicate that syngas contains more CO and less CO2 at higher
Ash transfer 0.95 ± 0.13 0.03 ± 0.03 No data
(dry kg/ kg Ash input) (n = 21) (n = 21)
temperatures and that the use of steam increases H2 content. The further
VS transfer 0.28 ± 0.09 0.28 ± 0.10 0.44 ± 0.13 management of syngas is rarely described, while syngas cleaning is not
(dry kg/ kg VS input) (n = 21) (n = 21) (n = 21) * addressed in the reviewed literature. This truncates the inventory, since
C transfer 0.43 ± 0.10 0.36 ± 0.10 0.22 ± 0.11 syngas as such most likely cannot be marketed. Its combustion is
(kg C/ kg C input) (n = 38) (n = 20) (n = 20) *
therefore the most likely option, but data in this regard must be found
Pyrolysis of dried digested sludge
Mass transfer 0.59 ± 0.11 0.18 ± 0.13 0.14 ± 0.07 elsewhere. The energy content of syngas ranged from 3 to 7 MJ/Nm3
(dry kg/ kg TS input) (n = 23) (n = 23) (n = 23) (LHV, including N2) with an average value of 4 MJ/Nm3. The amount of
Ash transfer 0.97 ± 0.07 0.03 ± 0.06 No data energy recovered in syngas was 30 – 90% of the energy in the sewage
(dry kg/ kg Ash input) (n = 13) (n = 13) sludge, averaging 50%. Syngas contains significantly more energy than
VS transfer 0.22 ± 0.06 0.34 ± 0.13 0.44 ± 0.12
(dry kg/ kg VS input) (n = 13) (n = 13) (n = 13) *
needed to run a gasification plant.
C transfer 0.38 ± 0.10 0.39 ± 0.08 0.24 ± 0.10 The pyrolysis (no oxygen, 400 – 800 ℃) of sewage sludge is currently
(kg C/ kg C input) (n = 14) (n = 11) (n = 11) * an experimental technology, since we found data only on pilot-scale and
* Calculated from mass balance.
laboratory-scale studies. We found 57 datasets on the pyrolysis of dried
raw sludge and 23 relating to dried digested sludge. Fixed bed batch
reactors were used in most of the reports (60%), while fluidised beds
scale and laboratory-scale studies. We found 15 datasets relating to raw
were also common (20%) and a range of other technological approaches
sludge and six on digested sludge in this regard. Fluidised-bed tech­
were reported (20%). The frequent reports on studies using batch ex­
nology was the most common approach (75%), while fixed-bed tech­
periments reflect the scale and early development stage of sludge py­
nologies also were described (25%). Gasification yields four outputs:
rolysis. This also calls for care in interpreting any results with a view to
char (0.43 kg/kg TS), which is strongly correlated to the Ash content of
full-scale application. Pyrolysis yields five outputs, which for dried raw
sludge, as it contains only around 10% organics, tar (0.02 kg/kg TS),
sludge are: char (0.53 kg/kg TS), which in addition to Ash contains VS,
which is an organic condensate from generated gas, fly ash (0.06 kg/kg

114
H. Chang et al.
Fig. 7. Sewage sludge pyrolysis: Syngas composition as a function of pyrolysis temperature. N2 was measured at low concentrations in some studies but was excluded
from the data in the figure. (Columns in the same position in Figs. 6 and 7 are from the same paper).
Fig. 8. Sewage sludge pyrolysis: Histogram of the lower heating value (LHV)
for char, tar and syngas. No distinction was made for dewatered and dried
sludge or for raw and anaerobically digested sludge. (ND: Normal distribution).
tar (0.21 kg/kg TS) which is an organic condensate from generated gas,
water condensed from generated gas (estimated to < 0.05 kg/kg TS), fly
ash (set to zero since data is missing) and syngas (0.21 kg/ kg TS). The
values are somewhat different for digested dried sludge. The distribution
between the outputs as well as syngas composition change in line with
115
Waste Management 146 (2022) 106–118
the pyrolysis temperature – as reflected in the energy content of the
outputs: a significant amount of the energy was found in char at low
temperatures (typical energy distribution: char 50%, tar 35%, syngas
15%), while most of the energy was found in syngas at high tempera­
tures (typical energy distribution: char 15%, tar 35%, syngas 50%). Char
can be used as a soil amendment or an activated carbon, while tar can be
further refined or used as fuel oil. Both tar and syngas have high energy
contents: 29 MJ/kg tar and 16 MJ/Nm3 syngas. Energy consumption for
sewage sludge pyrolysis cannot be estimated from the literature, since
very few data were available and most of the data originated from small-
scale experiments.
4. Conclusions
Thermal sewage sludge treatment has gained a good deal of interest
in recent years, as exemplified by the total of 269 papers published in the
scientific literature in the period 2010–2021. We identified 140 datasets
in 57 papers that would be useful in compiling and reviewing inventory
data for incineration, gasification and sewage sludge pyrolysis. In­
ventory data are input and output related data on mass flows, energy
and emissions.
We conclude that published information on thermal sewage sludge
treatment has increased significantly in recent years, but in terms of
establishing well-documented inventory data for incineration, gasifica­
tion and pyrolysis, it is still scarce in relation to several key aspects.
Firstly, current data do provide reliable information on the main flows in
thermal processes, but large variations are observed within and across
the three technologies in sludge characteristics and mass and energy
transfers. This makes it difficult to perform consistent technological
H. Chang et al. Waste Management 146 (2022) 106–118

Fig. 9. Sewage sludge pyrolysis: Energy distribution between char, tar and syngas as a function of temperature.

incineration. Energy budgets of full-scale treatment facilities are in

Table 7
particular needed given the importance of energy in thermal technolo­
Thermal sewage sludge treatment: Typical data illustrating the characteristics of
gies. Thirdly, a full inventory also needs to include the further man­
incineration, gasification and pyrolysis (details provided in the text).
agement of various outputs in terms of char, tar, syngas and ashes, as
Incineration Gasification Pyrolysis
they are very different for the three thermal treatment technologies.
Process characteristic Excess Limited No oxygen These aspects call for future scientific reports on thermal treatment
oxygen oxygen to be much more thorough in reporting data on inputs and outputs,
Input
which in turn will ensure consistency in terms of mass balances, energy
Sludge, kg TS 1 1 1
Air equivalence ratio (AER)* 1.4 0.1 – 0.4 0 budgets and emission accounts. The high variations observed for py­
Air / mixed air, m3 /kg TS 12 3 0 rolysis furthermore call for stringent controls in the experimental con­
Heat, kWh/kg/TS 1.35 Not available Not ditions needed to identify optimal operational conditions, depending on
available
which outputs are in focus. Unfortunately, we can only currently weakly
Electricity, kWh/kg TS 0.29 1.45 1.84
Output
address this aspect and not at a level where technical decisions can be
Char, kg/kg TS 0 0.43 0.55 made.
Tar, kg/kg TS 0 0.02 0.21 In future research, the assessment of these thermal technologies for
Syngas (dry, void of N2), m3/kg 0 0.67 0.15 sewage sludge must be performed in the proper context of sludge
TS
characteristics, mass transfer, energy budget and output management,
Flue gas, m3/kg TS 16 0 0
Ash (bottom/fly), kg/kg TS 0.40 0.06 No data since they all play roles in environmental impacts from sludge
Recovered heat, kWh/kg TS 0.97 0 0 management.
Recovered electricity, kWh/kg 0.29 0 0
TS
Declaration of Competing Interest
* AER expresses the supply of oxygen relative to the theoretical amount of ox­
ygen needed to sustain full combustion. The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
assessment particularly for pyrolysis, where the temperature is so crit­ the work reported in this paper.
ical for outputs. Secondly, data are limited on energy consumption and
recovery, as well as on direct emission into the air from sewage sludge

116
H. Chang et al. Waste Management 146 (2022) 106–118

Acknowledgement Klinghoffer, N.B., Castaldi, M.J., 2013. 9 - Gasification and pyrolysis of municipal solid
waste (MSW). In: Klinghoffer, N.B., Castaldi, M.J. (Eds.), Waste to Energy
Conversion Technology. Woodhead Publishing, pp. 146–176.
This work was supported by the Major Science and Technology Li, R., Teng, W., Li, Y., Yin, J., Zhang, Z., 2019. Transformation of phosphorus and
Program for Pollution Control and Treatment, China stabilization of heavy metals during sewage sludge incineration: the effect of suitable
(2017ZX07205001), and the China Scholar Council (202006040155). additives and temperatures. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26 (29), 29917–29929.
Li, S., Li, Y., Lu, Q., Zhu, J., Yao, Y., Bao, S., 2014. Integrated drying and incineration of
wet sewage sludge in combined bubbling and circulating fluidized bed units. Waste
Appendix A. Supplementary material Manage. 34 (12), 2561–2566.
Liang, Y., Xu, D., Feng, P., Hao, B., Guo, Y., Wang, S., 2021. Municipal sewage sludge
incineration and its air pollution control. J. Cleaner Prod. 295, 126456.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. Liu, D., Ren, X., 2021. Study and analysis of arsenic adsorption during sludge
org/10.1016/j.wasman.2022.05.002. incineration. IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental. Science 687, 012033.
Liu, Y., Ran, C., Siddiqui, A.R., Chtaeva, P., Siyal, A.A., Song, Y., Dai, J., Deng, Z., Fu, J.,
Ao, W., Jiang, Z., Zhang, T., 2020a. Pyrolysis of sewage sludge in a benchtop
References fluidized bed reactor: Characteristics of condensates and non-condensable gases.
Renew. Energy 160, 707–720.
Liu, Y., Wang, F., Zhao, X. 2020b. Thermal performance analysis for a novel heat
Abuşoğlu, A., Özahi, E., İhsan Kutlar, A., Al-jaf, H., 2017. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of
recovery system of sludge drying incineration. J. Eng. Thermal Energy Power 35(5),
digested sewage sludge incineration for heat and power production. J. Cleaner Prod.
245–252.
142, 1684–1692.
Loschau, M., 2018. Effects of combustion temperature on air emissions and support fuel
Alvarez, J., Amutio, M., Lopez, G., Barbarias, I., Bilbao, J., Olazar, M., 2015. Sewage
consumption in full scale fluidized bed sludge incineration: with particular focus on
sludge valorization by flash pyrolysis in a conical spouted bed reactor. Chem. Eng. J.
nitrogen oxides and total organic carbon. Waste Manage. Res. 36 (4), 342–350.
273, 173–183.
Luo, H., Cheng, F., Yu, B., Hu, L., Zhang, J., Qu, X., Yang, H., Luo, Z., 2021. Full-scale
Alvarez, J., Lopez, G., Amutio, M., Artetxe, M., Barbarias, I., Arregi, A., Bilbao, J.,
municipal sludge pyrolysis in China: design fundamentals, environmental and
Olazar, M., 2016. Characterization of the bio-oil obtained by fast pyrolysis of sewage
economic assessments, and future perspectives. Sci. Total Environ. 795, 148832.
sludge in a conical spouted bed reactor. Fuel Process. Technol. 149, 169–175.
Luo, J., Lin, J., Ma, R., Chen, X., Sun, S., Zhang, P., Liu, X., 2020a. Effect of different ash/
Alves, O., Calado, L., Panizio, R.M., Gonçalves, M., Monteiro, E., Brito, P., 2021. Techno-
organics and C/H/O ratios on characteristics and reaction mechanisms of sludge
economic study for a gasification plant processing residues of sewage sludge and
microwave pyrolysis to generate bio-fuels. Waste Manage. 117, 188–197.
solid recovered fuels. Waste Manage. 131, 148–162.
Luo, J., Ma, R., Huang, X., Sun, S., Wang, H., 2020b. Bio-fuels generation and the heat
Alyaseri, I., Zhou, J., 2017. Towards better environmental performance of wastewater
conversion mechanisms in different microwave pyrolysis modes of sludge. Appl.
sludge treatment using endpoint approach in LCA methodology. Heliyon 3 (3),
Energy 266, 114855.
e00268.
MEE, 2014. Ministry of Ecology and Environmental of the People’s Republic of China.
Arena, U., 2012. Process and technological aspects of municipal solid waste gasification.
Standard for pollution control on the municipal solid waste incineration (GB 18485-
A review. Waste Manage. 32 (4), 625–639.
2014).
Bridle, T.R., Pritchard, D., 2004. Energy and nutrient recovery from sewage sludge via
Naqvi, S.R., Tariq, R., Shahbaz, M., Naqvi, M., Aslam, M., Khan, Z., Mackey, H.,
pyrolysis. Water Sci. Technol. 50 (9), 169–175.
McKay, G., Al-Ansari, T., 2021. Recent developments on sewage sludge pyrolysis and
Chang, F., Wang, K., Wang, C., Yu, J., Sheng, S., 2013. Pilot-scale integration study on
its kinetics: resources recovery, thermogravimetric platforms, and innovative
pyrolysis system of municipal sludge and operational effectiveness evaluation (in
prospects. Comput. Chem. Eng. 150, 107325.
Chinese). Chinese J. Environ. Eng. 7 (9), 3583–3588.
Panepinto, D., Fiore, S., Genon, G., Acri, M., 2016. Thermal valorization of sewer sludge:
Chen, D., Yin, L., Wang, H., He, P., 2014. Pyrolysis technologies for municipal solid
perspectives for large wastewater treatment plants. J. Cleaner Prod. 137,
waste: a review. Waste Manage. 34 (12), 2466–2486.
1323–1329.
Chen, R., Sheng, Q., Dai, X., Dong, B., 2021. Upgrading of sewage sludge by low
Pecchi, M., Baratieri, M., 2019. Coupling anaerobic digestion with gasification, pyrolysis
temperature pyrolysis: biochar fuel properties and combustion behavior. Fuel 300,
or hydrothermal carbonization: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 105,
121007.
462–475.
Cheng, Y., Oleszek, S., Shiota, K., Oshita, K., Takaoka, M., 2020. Comparison of sewage
Racek, J., Sevcik, J., Chorazy, T., Kucerik, J., Hlavinek, P., 2020. Biochar – recovery
sludge mono-incinerators: Mass balance and distribution of heavy metals in step
material from pyrolysis of sewage sludge: a review. Waste Biomass Valorization 11
grate and fluidized bed incinerators. Waste Manage. 105, 575–585.
(7), 3677–3709.
Djandja, O.S., Wang, Z.C., Wang, F., Xu, Y.P., Duan, P.G., 2020. Pyrolysis of municipal
Raheem, A., Sikarwar, V.S., He, J., Dastyar, W., Dionysiou, D.D., Wang, W., Zhao, M.,
sewage sludge for biofuel production: a review. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 59 (39),
2018. Opportunities and challenges in sustainable treatment and resource reuse of
16939–16956.
sewage sludge: a review. Chem. Eng. J. 337, 616–641.
EPA 2016. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Plan Requirements for Sewage
Raj, A., Yadav, A., Arya, S., Sirohi, R., Kumar, S., Rawat, A.P., Thakur, R.S., Patel, D.K.,
Sludge Incineration Units. Agency, E.P. (ed). Federal Register 81(83), 26040-26088.
Bahadur, L., Pandey, A., 2021. Preparation, characterization and agri applications of
EU 2019. European Commission. Establishing the best available techniques (BAT)
biochar produced by pyrolysis of sewage sludge at different temperatures. Sci. Total
conclusions for waste incineration, under directive 2010/75/EU of the European
Environ. 795, 148722.
Parliament and of the Council. Union, E. (ed).
Ramachandran, A., Rustum, R., Adeloye, A.J., 2019. Review of anaerobic digestion
Fang, Z.Q., Man, J.Q., Liu, F.F., Li, Y.L., Li, R.D., 2020. Study on the occurrence
modeling and optimization using nature-inspired techniques. Processes 7, 953.
characteristics of heavy metals in fine particulate matter during sludge incineration.
Ronda, A., Gomez-Barea, A., Haro, P., de Almeida, V.F., Salinero, J., 2019. Elements
China Environ. Sci. 40 (7), 3044–3053.
partitioning during thermal conversion of sewage sludge. Fuel Process. Technol. 186,
Farago, M., Damgaard, A., Madsen, J.A., Andersen, J.K., Thornberg, D., Andersen, M.H.,
156–166.
Rygaard, M., 2021. From wastewater treatment to water resource recovery:
Salihoglu, G., Mardani-Aghabaglou, A., 2021. Characterization of sewage sludge
environmental and economic impacts of full-scale implementation. Water Res. 204,
incineration ashes from multi-cyclones and baghouse dust filters as possible cement
117554.
substitutes. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28 (1), 645–663.
Frýba, L., Bébar, L., Touš, M., 2013. Evaluation of sewage sludge co-incineration in the
Sharma, R., Jasrotia, K., Singh, N., Ghosh, P., srivastava, S., Sharma, N.R., Singh, J.,
existing heating plant or power plant from emission production point of view. Chem.
Kanwar, R., Kumar, A., 2020. A comprehensive review on hydrothermal
Eng. Trans. 35, 823–828.
carbonization of biomass and its applications. Chemistry Africa 3 (1), 1–19.
Gil-Lalaguna, N., Sánchez, J.L., Murillo, M.B., Atienza-Martínez, M., Gea, G., 2014a.
Shi, S., Xu, G., Yu, H., Zhang, Z., 2018. Strategies of valorization of sludge from
Energetic assessment of air-steam gasification of sewage sludge and of the
wastewater treatment. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 93 (4), 936–944.
integration of sewage sludge pyrolysis and air-steam gasification of char. Energy 76,
Smol, M., 2020. Inventory of wastes generated in polish sewage sludge incineration
652–662.
plants and their possible circular management directions. Resources 9 (8), 91.
Gil-Lalaguna, N., Sánchez, J.L., Murillo, M.B., Rodríguez, E., Gea, G., 2014b. Air–steam
Takaoka, M., Domoto, S., Oshita, K., Takeda, N., Morisawa, S., 2012. Mercury emission
gasification of sewage sludge in a fluidized bed. Influence of some operating
from sewage sludge incineration in Japan. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manage. 14 (2),
conditions. Chem. Eng. J. 248, 373–382.
113–119.
González-Arias, J., Sánchez, M.E., Cara-Jiménez, J., Baena-Moreno, F.M., Zhang, Z.,
Tang, Y., Lu, C., Shao, Y., Sun, J., Dong, S., 2021. Mechanisms of mercury with typical
2022. Hydrothermal carbonization of biomass and waste: a review. Environ. Chem.
organics in the incineration of sewage sludge: a computational investigation. Inorg.
Lett. 20 (1), 211–221.
Chim. Acta 514, 119996.
Haghighat, M., Majidian, N., Hallajisani, A., samipourgiri, M., 2020. Production of bio-
Thomsen, T.P., Sarossy, Z., Gobel, B., Stoholm, P., Ahrenfeldt, J., Frandsen, F.J.,
oil from sewage sludge: a review on the thermal and catalytic conversion by
Henriksen, U.B., 2017. Low temperature circulating fluidized bed gasification and
pyrolysis. Sustainable Energy Technol. Assess. 42, 100870.
co-gasification of municipal sewage sludge. Part 1: Process performance and gas
Hao, X., Chen, Q., van Loosdrecht, M.C.M., Li, J., Jiang, H., 2020. Sustainable disposal of
product characterization. Waste Manage. 66, 123–133.
excess sludge: Incineration without anaerobic digestion. Water Res. 170, 115298.
Tomasi Morgano, M., Leibold, H., Richter, F., Stapf, D., Seifert, H., 2018. Screw pyrolysis
Heidari, M., Dutta, A., Acharya, B., Mahmud, S., 2019. A review of the current
technology for sewage sludge treatment. Waste Manage. 73, 487–495.
knowledge and challenges of hydrothermal carbonization for biomass conversion.
Van de Velden, M., Dewil, R., Baeyens, J., Josson, L., Lanssens, P., 2008. The distribution
J. Energy Inst. 92 (6), 1779–1799.
of heavy metals during fluidized bed combustion of sludge (FBSC). J. Hazard. Mater.
Kasina, M., Wendorff-Belon, M., Kowalski, P.R., Michalik, M., 2019. Characterization of
151 (1), 96–102.
incineration residues from wastewater treatment plant in Polish city: a future waste
based source of valuable elements? J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manage. 21 (4), 885–896.

117
H. Chang et al.
Wang, M., Pan, X., Xia, Y., Zhu, A., Wu, Y., Fu, C., Zhang, P., Zhao, J., Li, J., Fu, J., 2022.
Effect of dewatering conditioners on pollutants with nitrogen, sulfur, and chlorine
releasing characteristics during sewage sludge pyrolysis. Fuel 307, 121834.
Watson, J., Zhang, Y., Si, B., Chen, W.-T., de Souza, R., 2018. Gasification of biowaste: A
critical review and outlooks. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 83, 1–17.
Wei, J., Hao, X., Loosdrecht, M.C.M., Li, J., 2018. Feasibility analysis of anaerobic
digestion of excess sludge enhanced by iron: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
89, 16–26.
Wu, B., Dai, X., Chai, X., 2020. Critical review on dewatering of sewage sludge:
Influential mechanism, conditioning technologies and implications to sludge re-
utilizations. Water Res. 180, 115912.
Xu, H., Wang, C., Wang, K., 2015. Full-scale plant study of the innovative spray-drying-
based sludge incineration (SDSI) process: Behavior of heavy metals. Energy Fuels 29
(6), 3908–3912.
Xu, X., Sun, W., Lyu, J., Wang, Y., Jiang, L., 2017. Enlightenment and cases study of
typical sludge incineration project in Japan. China Water Wastewater 33 (12),
135–138.
Yan, M., Lin, J., Kanchanatip, E., Zhang, S., Wang, G., Hantoko, D., Wibowo, H., Hu, Y.,
2020. Influence of potassic additives on sludge gasification under model Flue Gas
Atmosphere. Waste Biomass Valorization 11 (7), 3629–3637.
Yin, H., Li, S., Liu, J. and Li, L., 2014. Patented technologies and application on co-
treatment of sludge in cement kiln. Environ. Eng. 32(11), 108-112,140.
Zha, J., Huang, Y., Clough, P.T., Dong, L.u., Xu, L., Liu, L., Zhu, Z., Yu, M., 2020.
Desulfurization using limestone during sludge incineration in a fluidized bed
118
Waste Management 146 (2022) 106–118
furnace: Increased risk of particulate matter and heavy metal emissions. Fuel 273,
117614.
Zha, J., Huang, Y., Xia, W., Xia, Z., Liu, C., Dong, L., Liu, L., 2018. Effect of mineral
reaction between calcium and aluminosilicate on heavy metal behavior during
sludge incineration. Fuel 229, 241–247.
Zhang, Q., Hu, J., Lee, D.J., Chang, Y., Lee, Y.J., 2017. Sludge treatment: Current
research trends. Bioresour. Technol. 243, 1159–1172.
Zhang, S., Wang, F., Mei, Z., Lv, L., Chi, Y., 2021. Status and development of sludge
incineration in China. Waste Biomass Valorization 12 (7), 3541–3574.
Zhang, Y., Zhang, S., Mao, Q., Li, H., Wang, C., Jiang, F., Lyu, J., 2018a. Volatility and
partitioning of Cd and Pb during sewage sludge thermal conversion. Waste Manage.
75, 333–339.
Zhang, Y., Zhang, S., Mao, Q., Wang, C., Li, H., Jiang, F., 2018b. Migration
characteristics of Pb, Cd during municipal sewage sludge incineration process.
J. Eng. Thermal Energy Power 33 (10), 140–146.
Zheng, A., Li, L., Tippayawong, N., Huang, Z., Zhao, K., Wei, G., Zhao, Z., Li, H., 2020.
Reducing emission of NOx and SOx precursors while enhancing char production from
pyrolysis of sewage sludge by torrefaction pretreatment. Energy 192, 116620.
Ziółkowski, P., Badur, J., Pawlak- Kruczek, H., Stasiak, K., Amiri, M., Niedzwiecki, L.,
Krochmalny, K., Mularski, J., Madejski, P., Mikielewicz, D., 2021. Mathematical
modelling of gasification process of sewage sludge in reactor of negative CO2
emission power plant. Energy 244, 122601.