Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80 (2017) 888–913

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Thermochemical processing of sewage sludge to energy and fuel: MARK

Fundamentals, challenges and considerations
⁎
Syed Shatir A. Syed-Hassana,b, Yi Wanga, , Song Hua,c,⁎⁎, Sheng Sua,c, Jun Xianga,c
a
State Key Laboratory of Coal Combustion, School of Energy and Power Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074,
Hubei, PR China
b
Faculty of Chemical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia
c
China-EU Institute for Clean and Renewable Energy at Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, Hubei, PR China

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: Sewage sludge, the inevitable by-product of municipal wastewater treatment plant operation, is a key issue in
Sewage sludge many countries due to its increasing volume and the impacts associated with its disposal. Thermochemical
Thermochemical conversion processing offers a new way of managing sewage sludge, not only by providing effective volume reduction, but
Combustion also enabling transformation of carbon-rich organic fraction into valuable energy and fuel. Owing to some
Pyrolysis
unique properties, sewage sludge differs from other solid fuels such as lignocellulosic biomass and coal, making
Gasification
its thermochemical conversion application somewhat complicated and challenging. This paper reviews the
options of converting sewage sludge to energy and fuel via three main thermochemical conversion processes
namely pyrolysis, gasification and combustion. The fundamental aspects of sewage sludge and its behaviour in
each of thermochemical process are summarised. The challenges in adopting thermochemical conversion
technology in sewage sludge management are addressed, and various alternative approaches deserving further
consideration, such as the incorporation of pre-processing and co-utilisation, are discussed.

1. Introduction
The rapid growing of population and the fast rate of urbanisation
create serious challenges to the sustainable development. On one hand,
the increasing consumption of energy and its related issues have driven
the needs for fuel and energy diversification and clean and renewable
technology application. On the other hand, the rising volume of
municipal wastewater produced by urban communities demands not
only proper policy but also better technology for the treatment/
discharge of sewage and the safe handling/disposal of the residual
sludge. It is estimated that sewage sludge is produced at the rate of
0.1–30.8 kg per population equivalent per year (kg/p.e/year) [1–3].
Through operation of more than 3000 municipal wastewater treatment
plants around the country, China alone produces about 20 million ton
of sewage sludge annually [4–8], and a continued increase in the
volume is almost certain from the recent trends in the economic
development and the growth of population and urbanisation.
Conventional methods of sewage sludge management through
landfilling and agricultural application are no longer viable owing to
the stringent regulations, the shortage of land space and the rising
environmental and health concerns related to the presence of harmful
substances such as pathogens, pharmaceuticals, hormones, heavy
metals, and persistent organic pollutants [9–17]. Thermochemical
conversion of sewage sludge into energy and fuel has been considered
as one of the most attractive technologies to handle a growing amount
of sewage sludge produced at the increasing number of sewage
treatment facilities around the globe [18–22]. Thermochemical process
offers not only massive volume reduction, but also effective pathogens
destruction and potential for valorisation of energy-rich content
[20,23]. In fact, via a proper technological strategy, valuable nutrients
and metals can also be recovered [2,24–26]. The use of thermochemi-
cal process can therefore provide an efficient means of shifting sludge
management practice, as what Peccia and Westerhoff described, “from
the treatment of a liability toward the recovery of embedded energy and
chemical assets” [14].
Thermochemical conversion of solid fuel is not a new technology.
Originally, the process was developed for high-rank coals with high
calorific value, low moisture and low volatile matter content. Similar

⁎
Corresponding author.
⁎⁎
Corresponding author at: State Key Laboratory of Coal Combustion, School of Energy and Power Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074,
Hubei, PR China.
E-mail addresses: shatir@salam.uitm.edu.my, syedshatir@gmail.com (S.S.A. Syed-Hassan), alenwang@hust.edu.cn (Y. Wang), husong_hust@hotmail.com (S. Hu),
susheng_sklcc@hotmail.com (S. Su), xiangjun_sklcc@hotmail.com (J. Xiang).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.262
Received 11 January 2017; Received in revised form 5 March 2017; Accepted 29 May 2017
Available online 02 June 2017
1364-0321/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.S.A. Syed-Hassan et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80 (2017) 888–913

Nomenclature LCA life cycle analysis

MBR membrane biological reactors
AAEM alkali and alkaline earth metals MHF multiple hearth furnace
AD anaerobic digestion min minute
AFT ash fusion temperature MSW municipal solid waste
AIP apatite inorganic phosphorous NAIP nonapatite inorganic phosphorus
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ɳburn-out carbon burn-out rate
B/A base-to-acid ratio ɳcomb combustion efficiency
BAF biological aerated filters O/C oxygen-to-carbon ratio
BNR biological nutrient reactors PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
CAS conventional activated sludge PCDD chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
d.m. dry matters PCDF chlorinated dibenzofurans
DME dimethyl ether S/B steam-to-biomass ratio
EDTA ethylene di-amine tetraacetic acid SSDML simultaneous sewage sludge digestion and metal leaching
ER equivalence ratio ST softening temperature
FC fixed carbon SWOT strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats
FT Fischer–Tropsch TEG triethylene glycol
FT fluid temperature TGA thermogravimetric analyser
GR gasifying agent to biomass ratio UASB upflow anaerobic sludge blanket
HCN hydrogen cyanide USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
HHV higher heating value UWS urban wastewater system
HT hemispherical temperature VM volatile matter
IT initial deformation temperature WTE waste-to-energy
kg/p.e/year kilogram per population equivalent per year WWTP wastewater treatment plant

processes tailored for lower-rank fuels such as biomass and lignite have
also been developed, and many of them have already reached com-
mercialisation or pre-commercialisation stage. Lately, a growing num-
ber of investigations on thermochemical conversion of sewage sludge
have been reported. The knowledge is mainly built based on extensive
experience of coal and biomass thermochemical conversions. However,
sewage sludge, which sometime categorised as semi-biomass [27],
differs from coal and the classical plant-based biomass in many
important aspects. For instance, the presence of much higher moisture,
nitrogen and heavy metal contents, relative to both coal and biomass,
would influence many aspects of reactions and poses some technical
challenges to sewage sludge thermochemical conversion applications. A
successful utilisation of thermochemical conversion technology to
recover energy from sewage sludge must consider all of these issues.
This paper reviews some fundamentals of sewage sludge thermo-
chemical processing based on existing knowledge and recent develop-
ment in the area. The impacts of sewage sludge properties and the
challenges they bring to the technological implementation of thermo-
chemical conversion of sewage sludge are discussed. The incorporation
of additional pre-processing step such as drying, as well as alternative
approach of co-utilisation with other fuels, are also discussed. The
review begins with a brief account of sewage sludge production,
treatment and disposal practices. An overview of the sewage sludge
characteristics is then given with parallel comparisons on certain
properties are made between sewage sludge and other solid fuels
(biomass and coal). This will be followed by the discussion on the
different thermochemical pathways to convert sewage sludge into
energy and fuel. The influences of some unique properties of sewage
sludge in pyrolysis, gasification and combustion are then discussed.
Finally, the paper deliberates on consideration of pre-processing and
co-utilisation in converting sewage sludge to energy and fuel via
thermochemical processing. This paper, however, does not provide
detailed economic evaluation of the technologies discussed.
2. A brief review on the production, treatment and disposal
of sewage sludge
A wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) is a central unit of an urban
wastewater system (UWS). It receives polluted wastewater from the
urban area, originated from several sources (depending on the sewer
design) including domestic, industrial, commercial, hospital, road and
agricultural in the form of water, human excreta, personal care
products, detergents, disinfectants, pharmaceuticals, sediments, and
etc. [28]. Although many variations of WWTP exist, most of the

Fig. 1. The treatment of municipal wastewater and the production of sewage sludge (redrawn from [28] with permission from Springer).

889
S.S.A. Syed-Hassan et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80 (2017) 888–913

facilities usually have the following steps: (i) preliminary treatment, (ii)
primary treatment, and (iii) secondary treatment. A typical layout of a
conventional WWTP is shown in Fig. 1.
In the preliminary treatment, the incoming raw sewage is strained
to remove large objects through the use of bar screens. The grit channel
then allows sand, grit, and stones to settle to the bottom of the channel
for disposal while majority of the suspended organic material remain in
the water column. During the primary treatment/sedimentation stage,
the sewage is allowed to pass slowly through large tanks commonly
called primary clarifiers/settlers. Inside the tanks, due to the gravita-
tional differences, grease and oil rise to the surface and being skimmed
off while sludge (usually in the form of semi solid/slurry) settle at the
bottom of the tank and being transferred by pumps to the sludge
treatment process The primary stage removes 50–70% of the total
suspended solids in the raw wastewater, and the sludge generated at
this stage is called primary sludge [29].
The secondary treatment is a biological process involving utilisation Fig. 2. Comparison of sewage sludge disposal practices in Europe, USA and China. Data
taken from [1–3].
of microbes to stabilise organic constituents and to remove non-
colloidal solids. Aerobic bioreactors (e.g. activated sludge process,
percolating filters, and rotating biological contactors) are usually used Thickening (e.g. using gravity thickening, dissolved air flotation or
together with sedimentation tanks in the secondary treatment. The gravity belt thickeners) and dewatering (e.g. using centrifuges, belt
sludge generated at this point is referred as secondary sludge. filter presses or vacuum filters) selectively capture particulates from
Depending on the requirement, an additional treatment (tertiary sludge and increase the concentration of particulate-bound constitu-
treatment, usually for nutrient removal) can be added to the WWTP ents to 3–6% and 10–30%, respectively [31]. Stabilisation can be
to achieve an extremely high quality effluent. achieved through utilisation of (i) physical (e.g. heat, desiccation,
Sludge produced in WWTP is usually treated following the sequence pressure, irradiation and ultrasound), (ii) biological (e.g. anaerobic
of thickening, stabilisation/conditioning and dewatering [28]. The digestion and composting), or (iii) chemical (e.g. pH adjustment,
main aims of sludge treatment process are: (i) to reduce the total oxidants, biochemical by-products) processes [31]. The final/treated
weight and volume in order to facilitate transportation and additional sludge is referred by different names depending on the treatment
treatment, and (ii) to stabilise the material through destruction of process it has undergone. A detailed classifications of treated and
pathogenic microorganisms, elimination of unpleasant odours, and untreated sludge by Verlicchi and Zambello [16] is shown in Table 1.
reduction of volatile solid content for safer disposal [30,31]. Some With the banning of sea dumping, the main final disposal methods of
stabilisation methods such as anaerobic digestion also offers opportu- sewage sludge now are landfilling, agricultural land application and
nity for energy recovery. incineration. Comparison of sewage sludge disposal practices between
Europe, USA and China is illustrated in Fig. 2. It is expected that these

Table 1
Types of treated and untreated sludge. Taken from reference [16] (with some additions), with permission from Elsevier.

Sludge type Description

Untreated
Raw It contains suspended solids collected by filtering raw sewage or in a grit chamber.
Primary It derives from primary clarifiers which may also be chemically enhanced (e.g. with FeCl3), and contains about 2–8 wt% of total dry solids.
Water content can be easily reduced by thickening or dewatering. It has a larger particle size than secondary sludge.
Secondary It is generated in secondary biological treatments — conventional activated sludge systems (CAS), membrane biological reactors (MBR),
biological nutrient reactors (BNR), or attached biological systems, such as trickling filters, and biological aerated filters (BAF). Sludge
produced in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) has also been included in this type of sludge.
Mixed It is the mixture of primary and secondary sludges.
Lagoon sludge, SF Sludge produced and settled in deep anaerobic stabilisation ponds or in aerobic surface flow basins

Treated sludge
Digested sludge Stabilised sludge produced in aerobic or in anaerobic digesters. The main aim of digestion is to reduce organic content and pathogens and to
eliminate odours. Anaerobic digestion may occur both at low temperature (mesophilic digestion, around 37 °C) and high temperature
(thermophilic digestion, around 55 °C).
Composted sludge Stabilised sludge resulting from the decomposition of organic compounds by microorganisms under aerobic conditions ensuring proper
aeration by regularly turning sludge.
Biosolids This term reflects the fact that the solids (“sludge”) are organic products that can be beneficial after treatment with processes such as
biological stabilisation and/or digestion of primary and secondary sludges and composting. In the USA, a distinction is made between Class
A and B on the basis of the treatment the sludge is subjected to. In a Class A sewage sludge treatment has greatly reduced pathogens below
detectable limits and thus can be distributed as a soil amendment without any restriction. Class B sewage sludge may contain pathogens and
therefore restrictions on crop harvesting, animal grazing and public access are requested after sludge application on land.
Conditioned sludge Sludge from systems aiming to reduce its water content by chemical and physical processes (e.g. by adding FeCl3).
Dried sludge Sludge from systems aiming to reduce its water content by thermal processes (usually contains > 80 wt%, d.m.)
Semi dried sludge Sludge dried to 30–55 wt% d.m.
Thickened and dewatered sludge Sometime referred as mechanically dewatered sludge, is the sludge from systems aiming to reduce its water content by mechanical and
physical processes (20–40 wt% d.m.).
Other types of treated sludges Sludges obtained by disinfection (aiming to reduce the pathogen concentration), pasteurization (aiming to eliminate most pathogens by
heating the sludge at 70 °C for 60 min), thermal hydrolysis (aiming to improve biodegradation of organic content by heating the sludge at
165 °C, at 6 bar for 30 min), advanced oxidation (adopted to treat or stabilise the organic material in the sludge) in particular Fenton's
reaction (by adding sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide to the sludge), and ammonia treatment (by mixing dissolved ammonia or urea to the
digested sludge).

890
S.S.A. Syed-Hassan et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80 (2017) 888–913

practices will change in the very near future due to the increased sludge as those associated with aluminium hydroxide [Al(OH)3] floc and
production, the shortage of landfill, the increasingly restrictive reuse/ slaked lime [Ca(OH)2]. The removal of this water requires changes in
disposal regulations, the escalating cost of transportation and the rising the structure or composition of the material, for example through
health and safety concerns. thermal dehydration of [Ca(OH)2] to CaO. The amount of bound water
in sewage sludge, however, is likely to be very small.
3. Characteristics of sewage sludge Fig. 4 shows a typical drying curve of wet sewage sludge obtained
from drying experiments. Unlike the common drying curves of other
Sludge is made up of diverse solid particles suspended in an impure materials, which consist only one falling rate period, sewage sludge
water continuum [32]. In general, it has a very high ratio of water to drying exhibits two falling rate periods in addition to the initial
solids, is relatively homogeneous and pumpable, and exhibits rheolo- constant drying-rate period [42]. The constant drying-rate period at
gical properties of a ‘‘Bingham plastic”. The solid particles in sewage the beginning of drying corresponds to the evaporation of free water,
sludge are the complex mixtures of organic (proteins, carbohydrates, the first falling-rate period is associated with the removal of interstitial
fats and oil) and inorganic (metals) matters, and a wide variety of living water, while the second falling-rate period is usually associated with
and dead microorganisms [33–35]. As will be discussed further below, the removal of surface water. Accompanying the removal of moisture
dried sewage sludge can be regarded as a solid fuel, largely because of during drying are the physical changes on the sewage sludge. Fig. 5
the sufficiently high calorific value it contains. The properties of sewage indicates the three transitional zones of physical characteristics taking
sludge, however, are highly variable because each sewage sludge has place on a sludge particle during its drying [42]. The first zone is the
specific origin and unique production conditions. For example, a recent wet zone wherein sludge flows freely and spreads easily. In the second
study by this laboratory indicate that, depending on the origin of zone (sticky zone), the sludge is pasty and hardly flows, while in the
sludge, the volatile matter content vary from 21.09% to 48.61% (on an third zone (granular zone), the sludge is crumbly and mixes easily [42].
air-dried basis) [36]. The composition and properties of sewage sludge
are much more variable than those of coal and classical biomass. In
3.2. Energy content
fact, even sludge from the same WWTP can vary from one day to
another. In general, the characteristics of sewage sludge relies on: (i)
Wastewaters have high concentrations of organic carbon. A carbon
wastewater characteristics/pollutant loading entering the treatment
isotope study by Griffith et al. [43] suggested that 14–25% of organic
plant, (ii) the treatment system used in the WWTP, (iii) environmental
carbons in wastewater are of fossil origin, and 75–86% are of plant
legislation, (iv) water reclamation requirements, (v) processing stage
origin. Around 60% of the initial energy content of wastewater is
[37] and (vi) also seasonal variations [38].
concentrated in the sewage sludge after the treatment [44]. Random
Rulkens [21] categorised the composition of sewage sludge into six
comparison of gross heating values of sewage sludge, coal and biomass
groups of components: (i) nontoxic organic carbon compounds (ap-
based on some literature data reported within several recent years
proximately 60% on a dry basis), (ii) nitrogen- and phosphorous-
(Table 2) indicates that dried sewage sludge is an attractive source of
containing components, (iii) toxic inorganic (e.g. Zn, Pb, Cu, Cr, Ni, Cd,
energy, having an energy content comparable to other low-rank fuels
Hg, and As) and organic pollutants (e.g. polychlorinated biphenyls,
including lignite and most of the biomass.
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins, pesticides, linear-alkyl-
sulfonates, and nonyl-phenols),(iv) pathogens and other microbiologi-
cal pollutants, (v) inorganic compounds, such as silicates, aluminates, 3.3. Proximate and ultimate compositions
and calcium- and magnesium containing compounds, and (v) water.
Some of the sewage sludge properties relevant to thermochemical Proximate and ultimate analysis are important, especially in asses-
conversion are briefly discussed below. sing thermochemical conversion behaviours of fuels. Proximate analy-
sis provide an estimation on the relative proportions of volatile matter
3.1. Water content and drying behaviours (VM), fixed carbon (FC) and ash, while ultimate analysis assess the
relative content of individual elements such as C, H, O, N, and S. In
Water content of the wet sludge can be as high as 98% [39], and as Table 3, we compare the proximate and ultimate compositions of
illustrated in Fig. 3, the water fractions can be categorised into (i) free sewage sludge with lignite and biomass based on some recent peer
(or bulk) water, (ii) interstitial, (iii) vicinal (or surface) and (iv) reviewed data including from our own laboratory. As can be seen, the
chemically bound (or hydration) [32,40–42]. Free water, which can composition variations among sewage sludge are larger than among
be removed via drainage, thickening, or mechanical dewatering, is the coals and biomass.
water not associated with and not influenced by the suspended solids On average, sewage sludge has a much higher ash content and a
particles. It is the easiest water to be removed from the wet sludge. much lower FC content than biomass and coal. VM content of sewage
Interstitial water, on the other hand, is trapped between the crevices
and interstitial spaces of the flocs and organisms. Some of this water
can become free water if the flocs and microbial cells are destroyed.
Much of this water can be removed by applying sufficient mechanical
energy to squeeze the trapped water out. Most dewatering processes
are capable of removing both bulk water and interstitial water from
sludge. In general, the dewatered sewage sludge contains about 73–
84% of moisture [39].
Vicinal water is made up of multiple layers of water molecules held
tightly to the particle surface by hydrogen bonding. Sludge which have
a large amount of surface, e.g. activated sludge, will have a high content
of vicinal water. While interstitial water is free to move when the
physical confinement is eliminated, the vicinal water adheres to solid
surfaces and its removal can only be achieved through the application
of heat. It was reported that thermal drying can bring the moisture
content down to about 5.6% [39]. Another class of water, i.e. bound
water, is the water that is chemically bound to the solid particles such Fig. 3. Types of water in the sewage sludge.

891
S.S.A. Syed-Hassan et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80 (2017) 888–913

Table 2
Calorific values of sewage sludge, coal and biomass.

Fuel HHV, dry basis (MJ/ Ref

kg)

Bituminous coal 25.40 – 33.15 (29.39)a [45–55]

Sub-bituminous coal 20.10 – 29.00 (26.07)b [48,53,56–58]
Lignite 11.80 – 21.90 (19.19)c [46,55,59–62]
Sawdust 18.13 – 20.40 (19.14)d [52,54,58]
Olive stone 17.54 [52]
Wood pellet 18.30 – 19.60 (19.07)e [63–65]
Walnut shell 17.18 [66]
Hazelnut shell 18.40 [55]
Hazelnut husk 17.14 [62]
Chinese fir 18.38 [23]
Camphor 18.40 [8]
Switchgrass 19.60 [58,63]
Soybean stalk 17.50 [47]
Wheat straw 16.00 [47]
Sugarcane bagasse 17.05 [67]
Fig. 4. Drying curve of sewage sludge. Cardoon 17.33 [60]
Miscanthus 18.73 [60]
Paulownia 19.58 [60]
Willow 21.20 [60]
Poplar 19.39 [60]
Leucaena leucocepha 12.76 [57]
Rice straw 14.95 – 15.86 (14.80)f [23,57]
Sewage sludge 11.10 – 22.10 (16.05)g [23,39,45,46,59,63–65,68–77]

a
Average based on 16 values reported in 11 literatures.
b
Average based on 7 values reported in 5 literatures.
c
Average based on 8 values reported in 6 literatures.
d
Average based on 3 values reported in 3 literatures.
e
Average based on 3 values reported in 3 literatures.
f
Average based on 2 values reported in 2 literatures.
g
Average based on 32 values reported in 18 literatures.

biomass, sewage sludge also usually contains higher concentration of

Fig. 5. Physical changes during sludge drying.
sludge is much lower than biomass, but slightly higher than lignite.
From the data in Table 3, we found that sewage sludge has the highest
VM/FC ratio (average of 6.4) among the three types of fuel (average
VM/FC of biomass and lignite is 4.7 and 1.4, respectively). However, it
is important to note that due to the high concentration of inorganics in
sludge, some underestimation in the actual values of FC and over-
estimation of ash content may occur as a result of oxidation of
inorganic elements during ash analysis [39].
In terms of elemental compositions, sewage sludge has a substan-
tially higher N content and a slightly higher H content compared to
lignite and biomass. The main sources of N-containing compounds in
sewage sludge are protein and peptides, but N can also come from fatty
acid and sugar [78]. The different sources of N contributes to more
varieties of nitrogen functionalities in sewage sludge as compared to
coals. The S and O contents of sewage sludge are comparable to lignite
but significantly higher than biomass, while the C content of sewage
sludge is in the medium range compared to lignite and biomass.
3.4. Composition of other elements
Beside the elements measured in the ultimate analysis (Table 3),
sewage sludge also contains other elements in the quantity of major ( >
1%), minor (0.1–1%) and trace ( < 0.1%). Table 4 summarises the
composition of elements commonly reported to be present in sewage
sludge, coal and biomass. Overall, sewage sludge is enriched in the
following common ash forming elements more than coal and biomass:
Al, Ca, Fe, Mg, Na, P, Si and Ti. The content of K in sewage sludge is
lower than biomass but higher than coal. Compared to coal and
Cl and the following heavy metals: Ag, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Mn, Ni, Pb and
Zn.
Heavy metals in sewage sludge originate from industrial waste-
water, runoff, and corrosion of sewerage systems [37,85], and also from
food, medicine, textiles, cosmetics and personal care products
[25,85,86]. It is estimated that 50–80% of the heavy metal content
entering the WWTP is fixed into the sewage sludge through numerous
physicochemical and biological mechanisms [87]. Chemical speciation
studies [88–91] indicate that heavy metals may exist in varying forms
(e.g. in organic/sulphide fraction, in hydrated iron and manganese
oxide fraction or in exchangeable-carbonate fraction) depending on the
kind of sludge, the properties of the metal and the technique employed
in sewage treatment [29]. A more detailed discussions on the origin
and the nature of heavy metals in sewage sludge can be found in the
publications by Lester and et al. [87,92–94].
4. Energy recovery from sewage sludge via thermochemical
conversion
Energy recovery is definitely going to be an important part of
modern sewage sludge management considering the limitations of
current disposal methods and the challenges in energy sustainability.
As shown earlier, dried sewage sludge stores an energy content similar
to other low-rank fuels. Anaerobic digestion (AD), one of the methods
most widely used in the sludge treatment, provides an opportunity for
energy recovery from sewage sludge. AD converts organic materials to
biogas (mainly methane and carbon dioxide) which has a calorific value
of around 21.5 MJ/m3 via batch mode biochemical process, usually at
mesophilic temperature, in the absence of oxygen [30]. The captured
biogas can be used to produce heat and electricity similar to the natural
gas. However, a long residence time of 10–30 days is required in order
to convert 30–60% of the organic matter [102]. The resulting digested
sludge is poorly biodegradable, but still very much rich in energy [103].

892
S.S.A. Syed-Hassan et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80 (2017) 888–913

Table 3
Proximate and ultimate compositions of sewage sludge, biomass and lignite.

Fuel Proximate Composition Ultimate Composition Ref

(wt%, dry basis) (wt%, dry ash free basis)

VM FC Ash C H N S O

Sewage Sludge 1 43.05 6.32 50.64 49.94 8.37 9.08 1.33 31.28 [36]
Sewage Sludge 2 51.99 10.01 37.99 32.14 4.43 5.68 1.41 56.34 [36]
Sewage Sludge 3 21.71 1.81 76.48 48.88 8.14 6.30 1.01 35.67 [36]
Sewage Sludge 4 82.30 6.80 10.90 55.10 8.60 6.60 0.60 29.10 [63]
Sewage Sludge 5 60.05 11.21 28.74 50.72 7.70 8.69 1.59 31.30 [70]
Sewage Sludge 6 50.16 5.71 44.13 57.42 7.51 8.09 1.73 25.24 [71]
Sewage Sludge 7 44.30 21.80 33.91 69.29 4.52 2.25 1.68 22.25 [72]
Sewage Sludge 8 38.64 4.13 57.23 49.77 8.45 8.64 1.35 31.79 [79]
Sewage Sludge 9 40.10 3.10 56.80 47.49 7.92 8.22 1.30 35.07 [80]
Sewage Sludge 10 51.80 5.10 43.10 51.00 7.30 7.90 2.05 31.80 [64]
Sewage Sludge (Average) 48.41 7.60 43.99 51.18 7.29 7.15 1.41 32.98
Lignite 1 52.10 16.40 31.50 61.79 5.94 1.82 4.31 26.14 [62]
Lignite 2 48.80 40.92 10.28 61.6 5.70 1.70 0.80 30.20 [81]
Lignite 3 36.82 18.58 44.59 36.80 3.40 1.10 1.80 56.90 [82]
Lignite 4 32.41 45.32 22.28 65.71 4.92 1.26 2.42 25.69 [83]
Lignite 5 42.96 34.53 22.50 70.41 5.77 1.58 0.33 21.91 [84]
Lignite (Average) 42.62 31.15 26.23 59.26 5.15 1.49 1.93 32.17
Wood pellet 1 83.60 15.40 1.10 47.80 6.40 0.30 0.90 44.60 [63]
Wood pellet 2 81.00 18.40 0.70 49.80 5.80 2.0 0.06 42.20 [64]
Switchgrass 76.90 16.80 6.30 47.90 6.20 0.80 0.10 45.00 [63]
Hazelnut husk 74.24 19.75 6.01 43.09 5.81 1.30 0.14 49.66 [62]
Sawdust 82.06 13.91 4.03 53.57 6.30 0.30 0.02 39.81 [84]
Biomass (Average) 79.56 16.85 3.63 48.43 6.10 0.94 0.24 44.25

Incineration, the currently used thermochemical process in sewage
sludge treatment, can also provide energy recovery potential, but it
uses so far are mainly focused on the waste management purposes
(volume reduction and harmful substances destructions) rather than
for energy production/recovery.
Various alternative routes of sewage sludge disposal with and
without energy recovery have been proposed. Comparisons of these
alternatives have been made by several authors using analysis methods
such as LCA [6,104] and SWOT [20,102]. Thermochemical conversion
of sewage sludge appears to be one of the promising methods. The
process, which involve the decomposition of almost all organic parts of
the sludge (regardless whether biodegradable or not) by the application
of controlled heating and/or oxidation, allows the conversion of sewage
sludge to energy and fuel in a matter of seconds, making it more
advantageous than the biochemical processes. Three main conven-
tional paths of thermochemical conversion are pyrolysis, gasification
and combustion. Their main products and potential application routes
are summarised in Fig. 6.
Pyrolysis is the thermal destruction of organic material at moderate
to high temperature (300–700 °C) in the absence of oxygen. The
process results in the production of liquid pyrolytic oil (bio-oil), solid
bio-char and non-condensable gases. Pyrolysis can be classified into
three sub-groups depending on the heating rate and the residence time.
Slow pyrolysis (carbonisation) conducted at slow heating rates and over
long residence times (from hours to days) is usually used to maximise
bio-char production [105]. Fast pyrolysis and flash pyrolysis carried
out at high heating rates and short residence time are used to maximise
the production of liquid bio-oil. The heating rate of fast pyrolysis is in
the range of 10–200 °C/s, while the flash pyrolysis is carried out at
103–104 °C/s [105]. The residence time of fast pyrolysis and flash
pyrolysis is 0.5–10 s (typically < 2 s) and < 0.5 s, respectively [105]. In
the case of lignocellulosic biomass, liquid yield as high as 50–70 wt%
can be achieved with fast pyrolysis, while a higher bio-oil yield of up to
75–80 wt% is obtainable with flash pyrolysis [105]. Bio-oil from the
pyrolysis process can be stored, pumped, and transported in a manner
similar to that of petroleum-derived liquid fuels and can be used as a
combustion fuel in boilers, combustion engines and turbines for heat
and electricity production or it can be upgraded to produce liquid
transportation fuels. Alternatively, bio-oil can be reformed to syngas or
used as a feedstock for chemical production [105].
Gasification is the exothermic thermochemical transformation of
organic material optimised to produce high yield of an energy rich
gaseous mixture (H2, CO, CO2 and light hydrocarbons) through a series
of chemical reactions. The process is carried out at high temperature
(800–900 °C or even higher) in an oxygen deficient environment, in
which, the oxidant amount is lower than that required for the
stoichiometric combustion to occur [106]. Gasification is performed
in the presence of a gasifying media which can be air, oxygen, steam, or
carbon dioxide, or their mixtures [107]. The calorific value of the
product gas is dependent on the gasifying agent. In the case of biomass,
air gasification produces a gaseous mixture with a heating value of
around 4–7 MJ/Nm whereas gasification with pure O2 leads to a
product with the heating value as much as 12–28 MJ/Nm [107]. Gas
produced from the gasifier (also termed as syngas or producer gas,
consisting mostly H2 and CO) can be utilised in a number of different
ways. The gas can be used to generate electricity via combustion in
boiler, engine and gas turbine, or via fuel cell application. Alternatively,
the gas can also be used to synthesis Fisher–Tropsch fuels and other
chemicals such as methanol and dimethyl ether (DME).
Combustion, on the other hand, is a process of burning organic
materials in the presence of excess air. Some similarities exist between
gasification and combustion in terms of reactions taking place during
both processes. However, the combustion is aimed at converting stored
chemical energy directly into heat as a source of thermal energy (e.g.
for electricity generation using steam turbine), while gasification is
aimed at producing an energy-rich light gaseous mixture, not a hot flue
gas.
5. Pyrolysis of sewage sludge
5.1. Pyrolysis mechanism and factors influencing the yield of
products
Organic matters in sludge mainly consisted of proteins (24–42%),

893
S.S.A. Syed-Hassan et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80 (2017) 888–913

Table 4 reactor, the organic materials in the sewage sludge start to transform
Concentration of other elements in sewage sludge, biomass and coal (mg/kg, dry basis). around 200 °C to form volatile products and non-volatile solid residue
called char via various bond breaking and forming reactions. The
Element Coala Biomassa Sludge 1b Sludge 2c Sludge 3d Sludge 4e
process, which is referred as primary pyrolysis, together with the
Ag 0.095 0.2 35 13 n.s 10.7 evaporation of embedded moisture (100–200 °C), represent the im-
Al 15,000 80 18,571 17,400 23,655 n.s portant initiating steps in all thermochemical conversion processes
As 8.3 0.1 7.7 8 n.s 19.3
including combustion, gasification, liquefaction and carbonisation. The
Au 0.0037 0.001 0.6 n.s n.s 0.493
B 52 40 n.s n.s n.s 14 primary pyrolysis behaviours of sewage sludge have been studied by
Ba 150 40 431 297 384.6 365 several researchers using thermogravimetric technique [75,109–116].
Bi 0.97 0.01 n.s n.s n.s 1.5 Fonts et al. [112] concluded that thermal degradation of sewage sludge
Ca 4600 10,000 32,656 22,800 29,579 n.s occurs in three stages: (i) the first minor decomposition between 200
Cd 0.22 0.05 4.2 8 n.s 0.63
and 300 °C corresponds to the easily biodegradable organic matter and
Ce 23 0.5 18.5 n.s n.s 9.73
Cl 180 2000 n.s n.s n.s 12,000 dead organism, (ii) the major decomposition between 300 and 450 °C
Co 5.1 0.2 6.6 21 6.6 4 corresponds to the organic polymers which may originate from natural
Cr 16 1.5 88 435 146 23 polymers in the original sludge or proceeding from their biological
Cs 1 0.2 0.6 n.s n.s 1
stabilisation, and (iii) another minor decomposition above 450 °C that
Cu 16 10 440.5 1401 254.4 103.76
Dy 2.1 0.03 0.9 n.s n.s n.s can be related to thermal degradation of components that are difficult
Er 0.93 0.02 0.5 n.s n.s n.s to biodegrade such as cellulosic materials. A different explanation was
Eu 0.47 0.008 0.3 n.s n.s n.s given by Alvarez et al. [75,117] where the authors related the first
Fe 13,000 150 19,990 20,200 19,346 n.s decomposition observed in their study around 255 °C, after moisture
Ga 5.8 0.1 14.5 n.s n.s 2.87
evaporation and extractive release in the 100–200 °C range, to the
Gd 2.7 0.04 1.4 n.s n.s n.s
Hf 1.2 0.05 0.7 n.s n.s 0.59 carbohydrate pyrolysis. The second decomposition centred at 300 °C
Hg 0.1 0.1 n.s n.s 1.46 1.371 was associated to the decomposition of lipids, whereas the decomposi-
Ho 0.54 0.008 0.2 n.s n.s n.s tion between 360 and 525 °C was related to protein decomposition,
K 1800 19,000 5104 3200 4716.8 n.s
with some contribution of lignin pyrolysis is expected from its
La 11 0.2 10.8 n.s n.s 5.5
Lu 0.2 0.003 0.1 n.s n.s n.s
degradation over a wide temperature range. Other variations to the
Mg 1100 2000 6041.5 4300 4647.4 n.s sewage sludge decomposition stages were also reported [114–
Mn 86 200 9267.5 146 204.2 378 116,118]. The discrepancies are due to the different experimental
Mo 2.2 0.5 12.5 16 n.s 2.24 conditions and the heterogeneity nature of sewage sludge.
Na 800 150 2937 1100 2143 n.s
Nevertheless, at sufficiently high heating rates, the distinction
Nb 3.7 0.05 6.1 n.s n.s 1.84
Nd 12 0.2 6.8 n.s n.s n.s between the decomposition stages becomes less apparent and the
Ni 13 1.5 36 382 55.4 17 different organic fractions in sewage sludge decompose almost simul-
P 230 2000 20,966 13,000 n.s n.s taneously. The volatiles from primary pyrolysis, called primary vola-
Pb 7.8 1 71.5 58 142.6 68.51
tiles, consist of (i) heavy compounds called tar, (ii) light gases, i.e., H2,
Pd 0.0074 0.001 0.3 n.s n.s n.s
Pr 3.5 0.05 1.7 n.s n.s n.s
CO, CO2, H2O, and C1-C4 hydrocarbons, and (iii) different types of
Pt 0.035 0.00005 0.1 n.s n.s n.s short-lived free radicals. In some studies the presence of a notable
Rb 14 50 12 n.s n.s 12.7 amount of acetic acid, methanol, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and
Ru < 0.001 0.0001 0.2 n.s n.s n.s cyano-compounds was also reported [110,115,119]. The tar from the
Sb 0.92 0.1 3.3 11 n.s 2.5
primary pyrolysis (or primary tar) is a major component of the primary
Sc 3.9 0.02 1.7 n.s n.s 1.49
Se 1.3 0.02 n.s n.s n.s 0.9 volatiles. Within a chemically inert atmosphere, the unstable compo-
Si 27,000 1000 n.s 71,100 n.s n.s nents of primary volatiles undergo further thermal decomposition (or
Sm 2 0.04 1.3 n.s n.s n.s secondary pyrolysis) at temperatures around 600 °C, in the extra-
Sn 1.1 0.2 42 94 n.s 17.6 particle gas phase and within the solid char particles, resulting in the
Sr 110 50 270.5 97 n.s 155
Ta 0.28 0.001 n.s n.s n.s 0.2
formation of low molecular weight gases (hydrocarbon and non-
Tb 0.32 0.008 0.1 n.s n.s n.s hydrocarbon) and more stable aromatic compounds (secondary tar)
Te < 0.1 0.05 n.s n.s n.s 0.04 [120]. Some tar components undergo recombination/polymerisation to
Th 3.3 0.005 1.5 n.s n.s 2 form carbonaceous solid called soot or coke. After cooling, the vapour
Ti 800 5 827.5 200 1508.8 n.s
leaving the pyrolysis reactor (pyrolyser) condenses to form a liquid
Tl 0.63 0.05 0.1 n.s n.s 0.05
Tm 0.31 0.004 0.1 n.s n.s n.s product called pyrolytic oil or bio-oil consisting of four main chemical
U 2.4 0.01 2 n.s n.s 2.6 groups: (i) water, (ii) hydrocarbons (aliphatic or aromatic), (iii) O-
V 25 0.5 33.5 33 25 23 containing hydrocarbons (e.g. phenols, ketones, alcohols, sugars and
W 1.1 0.2 1.2 n.s n.s n.s acids) and (iv) N-containing compounds (e.g. amines, pyridine and
Y 8.4 0.2 5.7 n.s n.s 4.2
Yb 1 0.02 0.5 n.s n.s
pyrazine) [121]. The liquid, especially its organic fraction, which has a
Zn 23 50 740 4473 820.6 487 heating value of up to 33 MJ/kg is the target product in the recovery of
Zr 36 0.1 n.s n.s n.s 22.1 energy from sewage sludge by pyrolysis. Although char and non-
condensable gas have notable energy content, they are generally
n.s: not stated.
a
considered as undesired by-products in the liquid bio-fuel production.
Worldwide average element concentrations of coal and biomass as listed in [95].
Original data from [96–98].
Moreover, char from sewage sludge has high ash content, thus recovery
b
Data taken from [25], which are the median values from [99]. of energy by char combustion is unattractive, and the char is more
c
Average values from [39]. suitable for use in adsorption applications.
d
Average values from [100]. Table 5 shows the yield of products from several reported studies.
e
Data taken from [101].
The maximum yield of liquid products is in the range of 25–52%;
significantly lower than typical liquid yield in the fast pyrolysis of
carbohydrates (7–18%), and lipids (1–14%) [108]. The main func-
biomass. Given that pyrolysis is a complex process, involving compli-
tional groups of these organic compounds include carboxylic acid,
cated reaction chemistry, phase transition and transport phenomena,
carbonyl, amide, amine, methyl and aromatics. When heated inside a
many factors may influence the behaviour of sewage sludge pyrolysis

894
S.S.A. Syed-Hassan et al.
Fig. 6. Potential applications of thermochemical conversion of sewage sludge.
and thus the proportion and the properties of pyrolysis products.
Numerous experimental studies have been carried out to determine
these factors. As summarised by Fonts et al. [122] and Manara and
Zabaniotou [34], the important factors influencing the yield and
properties of sewage sludge pyrolysis products include: (i) temperature,
(ii) residence time, (iii) pressure, (iv) turbulence, (v) sludge composi-
tion, (vi) sludge particle size, (vii) solid feed rate, and (viii) presence of
catalyst. Of these factors, the effect of temperature is the most widely
studied and understood. The maximum liquid yield is usually obtained
around 450–550 °C [75,76,80,121,123–126]. At a too low tempera-
ture, some chemical bonds are not energetically enough to break down.
Certain organic components do not decompose as can be understood
from the TGA analysis of sewage sludge. Above the optimum tempera-
ture, the secondary pyrolysis of volatiles is enhanced, thus tar is
cracked into light gases to give an increase in the gas yield and a
reduction in the liquid yield. The decrease in liquid yield at high
temperatures is usually accompanied with the increase in the genera-
tion of polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), a product of reactions
involving low molecular mass tar compounds and light hydrocarbons
at high temperature [127,128].
In order to minimise the occurrence of secondary pyrolysis, an
extremely short vapour residence time or a rapid quenching of volatiles
is required. Shen and Zhang [125] and Park et al. [130] showed that at
a constant pyrolysis temperature, maximum oil yield was obtained at
the shortest residence time due to the decrease in the degree of
secondary reactions. However, it is important to note that short
residence time cannot be achieved simply by increasing the flow of
fludising/sweeping gas as a continuous increase in the gas flow rate
Table 5
Product yields from the pyrolysis of municipal sewage sludge.
Reference Reactor
Alvarez et al. [121] Conical spouted bed reactor
Pedroza et al. [76] Rotating cylinder reactor
Pokorna et al. [129] Sand bed reactor
Fonts et al. [124] Fluidised bed reactor
Park et al. [123] Fluidised bed reactor
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80 (2017) 888–913
after a certain point will only dilute the concentration of tar in the
vapour and makes condensation more difficult, resulting in the lower
yield of liquid as observed in the study by Fonts et al. [124]. In addition
to temperature and residence time, the rates of intraparticle mass and
heat transfer across the sludge particles also play important roles in
determining the yield of pyrolysis products. Inguanzo et al. [131]
showed that high heating rate improves bio-oil yield at lower tempera-
ture when primary pyrolysis is dominating but its effect is negligible at
high temperature (above 650 °C) when the degree of secondary
reactions becomes significant. Park et al. [123,130] demonstrated that
an increase in liquid yield can be obtained by reducing the size of
sludge particles fed into the fluidised bed reactor. The effects of particle
size can be explained by considering the differences in the rates of
intraparticle mass and heat transfer. Small particles are heated up
rapidly and almost instantly upon entering the reactor. Larger parti-
cles, on the contrary, heat up more slowly, and the heating rates across
large particles are less uniform, causing incomplete fast pyrolysis and
hence less volatilisation of particles [130]. The increased mass transfer
resistance for the volatiles to diffuse out of the particles may also be a
possible cause of the decreases in liquid yield when particle size is
increased, as longer diffusional pathway of volatiles means increased
chances for interparticle secondary reactions to take place.
As discussed earlier, the presence of high concentrations of
inorganic matters (much higher than coal and biomass) is an important
feature of sewage sludge. The presence of high concentrations of
inorganics in mineral and non-mineral forms affects the yield of
sewage sludge pyrolysis liquid in three ways. Firstly, and obviously, it
decreases the amount of volatiles from the pyrolysed solid particles to
Temperature (°C) Yield on feed basis (wt%)
Liquid Char Gas
450–600 44.8–48.5 43.2–52.2 3–11.4
450–600 20.4–24.5 52.7–61.9 16–23.3
500 26.7–43.1 35.6–56 17.3–28.9
450–650 23.4–40.7 46.1–63 7.35–27.9
450–470 43.5–52.1 39.7–48.7 6.5–10.3
895
S.S.A. Syed-Hassan et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80 (2017) 888–913

cause an inferior liquid yield on feed basis in comparison with biomass
pyrolysis. Secondly, as shown by Shao et al. [132], some metal oxides
(i.e., CaO, Fe2O3, and ZnO) have tendency to inhibit the decomposition
of organic matters to cause higher generation of solid residues. By
removing inorganic matters through acid pre-treatment prior to the
pyrolysis, Liu et al. [133] observed reduced formation of solid residue
and enhanced release of volatiles in their study. Chen et al. [134] also
reported that the bio-leached sewage sludge is much easier to decom-
pose. Thirdly, the presence of high concentration of transition metals,
especially Fe, and alkali and alkaline earth metallic (AAEM) species,
particularly Na, K, Mg and Ca, may also promote secondary reactions
of volatiles. It has been well recognised that these species have good
catalytic activity in converting hydrocarbons to lower molecular weight
compounds [135–137]. During pyrolysis, significant portions of these
species remain in char and may catalyse the cracking/charring of tar
when there is an interaction between volatiles and char. Piskorz et al.
[138] observed that when char was used in place of sand as a fluidised
bed materials, the yield of condensable liquid dropped significantly.
Rapid removal of char should be an important consideration in the
design of pyrolyser for optimising the yield of liquid product.
Most of the pyrolysis studies referred above were carried out using
dried sewage sludge. However, the actual sewage sludge produced at
WWTP contains significantly high moisture content even after mechan-
ical dewatering (73–84%). When wet sewage sludge is pyrolysed
directly, the high moisture content generates a steam-rich atmosphere
inside the reactor. The first consequence is that, water condensation
will lead to higher water content in the liquid product, encouraging
phase separation and complicating product purification. Secondly, the
higher partial pressure of H2O in the reactor than the one in dry sludge
pyrolysis condition leads to an in-situ steam reforming of the volatile
compounds and partial gasification of the solid char, resulting in the
increased production of non-condensable gases [139,140]. The pyr-
olysis of wet sludge, therefore, may not be suitable for obtaining liquid
fuel.
5.2. Properties of sewage sludge pyrolytic oil and impacts on its
utilisation
Owing to the heterogeneity of the sewage sludge as well as the
variation in the types of pyrolyser and reaction conditions employed in
different studies, the liquid compositions of sewage sludge pyrolysis oil
reported in the literature vary between studies. Overall, the sewage
sludge pyrolysis oil contains mainly alkanes, alkenes, aromatics,
carboxylic acids, fatty acids, aldehydes, ketones, steroids, fatty nitriles
and amides [122]. The liquid product formed from the pyrolysis of
pumping problems, blockages, and irregular combustion. According to
Lehto et al. [144], the high water content lowers the energy density, the
adiabatic flame temperature, the local combustion temperatures as well
as the combustion reaction rates. It also causes difficulties in ignition
and increases the ignition delay time by reducing the vapourisation rate
of the droplet in compression ignition engine [144]. The ASTM D7544
standard for pyrolysis liquid biofuel limits the water content to the
maximum of 30% for commercial/industrial burner application [145].
Gil-Lalaguna et al. [146] proposed an innovative approach to reduce
water content in pyrolysis oil by using a selective online condensation
system. When triethylene glycol (TEG) at 80 °C was used as a washing
liquid in scrubber, the water content was reduced from 48% (using
conventional liquid recovery system) to 13%. Despite this significant
reduction, the pyrolysis liquid were still separated into three phases
[146].
In regards to the presence of heavy metals in the pyrolysis oil,
studies indicated that majority of the heavy metal species in sewage
sludge are immobile under pyrolysis condition (T < 700 °C), and
would be retained in the bio-char after pyrolysis, unless metal-contain-
ing particles are elutriated out of the reactor [126,147]. However, some
low boiling point heavy metals like As, Cd and Hg, may be released
within normal pyrolysis operating temperature. Kistler et al. [147]
reported that Hg completely evaporated at the temperature as low as
350 °C while Cd started to volatilise at 625 °C. Stammbach et al. [126]
reported that the evaporation of Cd took place readily at 560 °C in a
fluidisation condition. Our group recently reported that As can escape
from sewage sludge at low temperature, but the presence of CaO and
Fe2O3 (which usually found in sewage sludge) can minimise their
emission by the formation of stable As compounds [36]. In general, the
presence of heavy metals in pyrolysis oil is very minimal.
The viscosity of sewage sludge derived bio-oil is moderately high,
and its density is slightly less than that of bio-oil derived from biomass.
In terms of appearance, bio-oil obtained from sewage sludge pyrolysis
looks very similar to those obtained from lignocellulosic biomass –
dark brown liquid with smoky odour. However, as shown in Table 6,
one major distinction between sewage sludge and biomass derived bio-
oil is that the former has a basic character with pH values around
neutrality (5.1–8.5), while that the latter are acidic with typical pH of
Table 6
Physicochemical characteristics of sewage sludge pyrolysis oil relevant to fuel application
and their comparisons with heavy fuel oil and pyrolysis oil from biomass.
Property Sewage sludge pyrolysis Biomass Heavy fuel
oila pyrolysis oilb oilb

sewage sludge also appears differently from one study to another. Fonts Whole Organic
et al. [141] showed that the liquid can appear in a single phase, in top bio-oil fraction
and bottom phases, or in top, middle and bottom phases depending on
the operating temperature and the sample of sewage sludge. According Moisture content 23.0–69.7 15–30 0.1
pH 7.9–8.5 5.09–6.81 2.5 n.s
to Oasmaa et al.[142], there are two general reasons for phase Density (kg/m3) 901–1100 1050–1090 1200 940
separation: (i) a high water content of bio-oil, and (ii) a high amount
of high molecular weight compounds. In some studies, the liquid Elemental
pyrolysis product is divided into an aqueous fraction which contains composition (wt%,
db)
water and certain hydrosoluble organic compounds, and an organic
C 42.3–45 42.1–62.6 54–58 85
fraction containing other substances [131]. Table 6 compares the H 8.6–9 9.8–11.5 5.5–7 11
physicochemical properties of the whole liquid product and organic N 5.8–7.6 5.1–7.2 0–0.2 0.3
fraction of the liquid with the typical values of lignocellulosic biomass O 38.2–41 20.4–40 35–40 1
pyrolysis oil and that of heavy fuel oil. S 0.4–0.7 0.43–0.6 n.s n.s
Ash 0.03–0.8 0–0.2 0.1
Liquid product of sewage sludge pyrolysis contains higher amount HHV, MJ/kg 9.74–32.1 16.91–33.4 16–19 40
of water ( > 23%) than those typically obtained from classical biomass. Viscosity (cSt) 2.5–137.7 40–100 180
The water originates from: (i) the initial moisture in the fed sewage Solid, wt% 0.071– 0.84–0.94 0.2–1 1
sludge, (ii) the dehydration reactions at temperatures < 600 °C, and 0.124
(iii) the decomposition of O-containing heavy organic compounds
n.s: not stated.
(sugars and acids) at elevated temperatures [75,143]. The high water a
Data from various studies on the pyrolysis of municipal sewage sludge
content affects bio-oil homogeneity, leading to the development of two [73,76,121,123,131,141,149–151].
b
or more liquid phases [121]. The phase-separated bio-oil can cause Data taken from [152].

896
S.S.A. Syed-Hassan et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80 (2017) 888–913

around 2.5. The basicity of sewage sludge bio-oil is the result of the
presence of phenol, ammonia and nitrogen containing compounds (e.g.
nitriles, amines, amides, pyrroles and pyridines) [76,121]. Another
striking difference of sewage sludge bio-oil with other liquid fuels is
that N-containing compounds, which can be easily converted to NOx
and N2O during combustion, present in significantly higher quantities,
making the application of sewage sludge bio-oil as fuel more proble-
matic. These products are formed by the devolatilisation of the proteic
compounds (nucleic acids and proteins) from the dead microorganisms
[75,121,148]. The N-containing compounds can be classified into: (i)
aliphatics (amines and nitriles), (iii) heteroaromatics (pyridines and
pyrazines), and (iii) binary heteroatomic compounds (amides and
oxygen-containing pyrroles) [75].
Sewage sludge bio-oil has a HHV that is slightly higher than that
produced from biomass. This can be attributed to the existence of
significant quantity of lipids and extractives in the raw sludge
[73,121,122]. Compared to the heavy fuel oil, the HHV value of bio-
oil derived from municipal sewage sludge is still very much lower due
to the presence of high moisture and the high content of O-containing
compounds that make up about one-third of the bio-oil composition. A
higher volumetric firing rate of bio-oil is still needed in order to
maintain a particular thermal output if sewage sludge pyrolysis oil is to
be used to replace commercial fuel oil in the combustion application
[144]. The presence of high O-containing compounds also gives rise to
the inherent instability of the bio-oils and promotes polymerisation
reactions that can lead to increased viscosity and decreased fuel
qualities [121].
6. Gasification of sewage sludge
6.1. Gasification reactions and reactors
Earlier, we explained that when sewage sludge is heated it firstly
undergoes drying and pyrolysis (devolatilisation), releasing volatiles
and leaving solid residue as char. In a gasifier, further gas-gas and gas-
solid reactions involving gasifying agent and the products of drying,
pyrolysis and cracking are allowed to take place in order to achieve a
high yield of combustible light gases. Gasification therefore is an
extension to the pyrolysis process. Gasification of sewage sludge is
usually conducted using air as a gasifying agent [153–159]. However,
the use of steam [72,128,160–163], air-steam [77,164,165], steam-
of volatiles (R8 – R13) also takes place, affecting the composition of the
product gas.
The overall rate-limiting step for the gasification of sewage sludge is
often the gasification of char: the devolatilisation step is a fast process,
while the reforming of volatiles is much quicker than the gasification of
char. The kinetics of char gasification, which depends on the type of the
gasification agent, the operating conditions, and the reactivity char, is
one of the main aspects needs to be considered when designing a
gasifier since uncompleted conversion of char reduces the overall
efficiency of a gasification process [170]. The reactivity of char is
influenced by several factors such as temperature and heating rate at
which the pyrolysis step takes place [171,172], gasification medium
[166,171,173], pore structure [174], catalytic activity of the associated
ash [173,174], and activity of the char's carbon [174]. As in the case of
biomass gasification, not all tars produced in the devolatilisation step
are completely converted due to the physical or geometrical limitations
of the gasifier and the kinetic and thermodynamic limitations of the
reactions involved [175]. As will be discussed later, the presence of tar
in the producer gas may cause a drawback in the application of
gasification technology. The minimisation of tar is another key criterion
in the design and operation of a gasifier.
Gasification of sewage sludge has been studied by several authors
using different types of gasification reactors including fixed-bed down-
draft gasifier [153,169,176], fixed-bed updraft gasifier [65,177,178],
and fluidised-bed gasifier [77,154,156,164]. Detailed descriptions/
comparisons of these reactors can be found elsewhere [107,179–
182]. Briefly, the differences lie chiefly on how sewage sludge and its
derivatives make contact with the gasifying agent and how the four
operating stages take place inside the reactors. In an updraft (counter-
current) gasifier, sewage sludge is fed from the top while the pre-heated
gasifying agent enters from the bottom through a grate. Upon entering
the gasifier, the gasifying agent makes contact with the residual char
Table 7
Basic reactions in sewage sludge gasification.
No. Reactions Type ΔH (kJ/mol)
Drying and devolatilisation
R1 Sewage sludge → char + volatiles Endothermic
(water + light gases + primary
tar)

CO2 [166], steam-O2 [167], and CO2 [168] as sewage sludge gasifica- Tar cracking
tion medium had also been reported. Table 7 summarises the R2 Primary tar → light gases + Endothermic
important reactions taking place during the gasification of sewage secondary tar
sludge. The extent of these reactions relies on the type of gasifier, the
Gas-gas reactions
kind of gasification atmosphere, the reaction conditions, the composi-
R3 Secondary tar → C, H2, light Decomposition Endothermic
tion of inorganic matters and the addition of catalytic materials. hydrocarbons
Generally, a gasification system consists of four operating zones/ R4 CnHm + (n/2)O2 → nCO + (m/2) Partial oxidation Exothermic
stages namely (i) drying, (ii) pyrolysis/devolatilisation, (iii) oxidation, H2
and (iv) reduction/gasification. In the drying zone (70–200 °C), sewage R5 H2 + 0.5O2 → H2O Hydrogen oxidation –242
R6 CO + 0.5O2 → CO2 CO oxidation –283
sludge is stripped off of its moisture content through evaporation. The R7 CH4 + 0.5O2 → CO + 2H2 Methane oxidation –110
rate of drying depends upon the surface area of the feed materials, the R8 CnHm + nCO2 → 2nCO + (m/2) Dry reforming Endothermic
recirculation velocity, the relative humidity of the drying gas, the H2
internal diffusivity of moisture within the sewage sludge, and the R9 CH4 + CO2 → 2CO + 2H2 Dry methane reforming +247
R10 CnHm + nH2O → nCO + (n + m/ Steam reforming Endothermic
temperature differences between the feed and hot gases [153,169].
2)H2
Sewage sludge with moisture content of less than 15% dries completely R11 CH4 + H2O → CO + 3H2 Steam methane +206
in this zone [153,169]. In the pyrolysis zone (350–600 °C), thermal reforming
decomposition of dried sewage sludge takes place. The volatiles and the R12 CO + H2O → CO2 + H2 Water-gas shift –41
residual char from the pyrolysis of sewage sludge are oxidised inside reaction
R13 CO + 3H2 → CH4 + H2O Methanation –206
the oxidation zone, rising temperature rapidly up to about 1100 °C
[153,169]. The heat generated from the exothermic reactions drives the Gas-solid reactions
drying and pyrolysis of sewage sludge and the gasification of char. In R14 C + O2 → CO2 Carbon oxidation –394
the reduction zone (gasification zone), the char is converted to gaseous R15 C + 0.5O2 → CO Partial oxidation –111
R16 C + CO2 → 2CO Boudouard reaction +160
mixture of mainly CO and H2 (so-called syngas) predominantly by
R17 C + H2O → CO + H2 Steam gasification +131
partial oxidation (R15), Boudouard reaction (R16), steam gasification R18 C + 2H2 → CH4 Hydrogasification –75
(R17) and hydrogasification (R18). Homogenous gas-phase reforming

897
S.S.A. Syed-Hassan et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80 (2017) 888–913

dropping from the top, resulting in the oxidation of char. Ash from the
char oxidation falls to the bottom of the reactor, while the released hot
gases move upwards, transferring heat to volatiles, char and sludge
while passing through reduction, pyrolysis and drying zones before
exiting the reactor from the top together with light gases and
unconverted tar. Although the overall energy efficiency of the process
is high, the producer gas from the updraft gasifiers contains a too high
concentration of tar.
In a downdraft (co-current) gasifier, sewage sludge is fed from the
top and descends downwards, while gasifying medium is fed from the
side, making contact with the pyrolysis products and moves down-
wards with solids to the bottom of the reactor. The oxidation reactions
of the volatiles, which are very rapid, take place in the oxidation zone,
consuming oxygen before it can diffuse to the surface of char. The
resulting hot gas then moves down through the char bed, participating
(through reaction) and facilitating (by transferring heat) in the
gasification of char before leaving the gasifier at high temperature,
giving a low overall energy efficiency of the downdraft gasifier. The tar
content of the product gas is lower than the updraft gasifier, but the
particulates content of the gas is high.
In a fluidised-bed gasifier, sewage sludge is fed into a hot fluidising
bed from the top. The gasifying agent is supplied in the form of a
fluidising gas from the bottom via a distribution grid and exits the
reactor from the top. The perfect mixing of sludge particles and
gasifying agent takes place, leading to the uniform temperature
distribution throughout the bed. Once contacting the hot bed of solids,
the sewage sludge is rapidly heated up to the bed temperature, causing
drying, pyrolysis, combustion, and gasification to occur almost instan-
taneously and simultaneously within the bed. In some fluidised-bed
reactors, the gas-phase reactions are allowed to take place in the
freeboard, i.e., the upper part of the reactor that is unreachable by the
fluidised bed. In some studies [157,167], the use of a two-stage gasifier
combining fluidised-bed and fixed-bed operations was reported. This
reactor separates the conventional fluidised-bed gasification in the
lower part of reactor with further volatiles cracking/reforming reac-
tions taking place in the upper part of the reactor, usually in the
presence of catalytic materials in the fixed bed.
6.2. Parametric influences
Table 8 provides an overview of yield, composition, calorific value
and tar content of the producer gas obtained from the gasification of
sewage sludge. As can be seen, the quality of product gas varies
significantly between studies. Many parameters play an important role
in determining the properties of sewage sludge gasification product.
They include (i) equivalence ratio, (ii) steam-to-biomass ratio, (iii) gas
residence time, (iv) temperature, and (v) addition of catalytic materials.
6.2.1. Equivalence ratio (ER)
Equivalence ratio (ER) is defined as the ratio between the flow rate
of the air fed into the gasifier and the stoichiometric flow rate of the air
needed for a complete combustion of sludge [164]. A low ER ( < 0.2)
usually results in high tar and char formation due to the incomplete
gasification. On the contrary, a very high ER results in the excessive
production of complete combustion products (CO2 and H2O). de
Andrés et al. [164], Mun et al. [157], and Arjharn et al. [176] observed
an increase in the gas yield with the increase in ER. However, the
production of CO, H2, CH4 and other light hydrocarbons decreased
when ER was increased within the range of 0.2–0.4. The higher oxygen
content at high ER was said to favour oxidation reactions to produce
CO2, resulting in the lower production of CO, H2 and light HCs and
thus lowering the heating value of the producer gas. The increase in ER
also leads to a small reduction of tar as part of tar is combusted with
the supply of air and the other part is thermally cracked in the high
temperature zone [176].
6.2.2. Steam-to-biomass ratio (S/B)
Steam gasification enhances H2 production up to three times more
than the air gasification and leads to a higher gas heating value since
the dilution effect of nitrogen is eliminated [72]. However, the steam
gasification reactions are very endothermic, requiring an allothermal
operation. Thus, gasification of sewage sludge using a mixture of air
and steam is usually carried out to improve the quality of product gas
while maintaining the autothermal condition of a gasifier through a
continuous supply of energy from within the gasifier via partial
combustion of sludge [77]. In the air-steam gasification, the ratio
between the amount of steam injected and that of biomass (sewage
sludge) fed into the gasifier (S/B) affects the input energy require-
ments, the outlet gas properties and the product yields [107]. A high S/
B increases H2 and CO production, lowers the amount of tar and char,
and gives rise to the gas heating value [164]. de Andrés et al. [164]
reported that the addition of steam led to a mean improvement of 14%
in the cold gas efficiency and 12% in the carbon conversion in their
study, in which the optimum values was found at 850 °C at S/B = 1. It
has been found before that sewage sludge char has high reactivity
towards reaction with steam (R17), which is approximately three times
higher than with CO2 [170]. The addition of steam also increases the
rates of water-gas shift reaction (R12) and steam reforming (R10, R11)
in the gasifier. Fuentes-Cano [128] reported that steam promotes the
decomposition of the non-aromatic fractions of tar, but its effect is
negligible for the aromatic tar compounds.
6.2.3. Gas residence time
The effect of gas residence time on the air gasification of sewage
sludge inside a bubbling fluidised-bed gasifier has been studied by

Table 8
A summary of results from the gasification of sewage sludge in the absence of catalyst.

Reference [154] [164] [164] [77] [65] [169]

Gasifying agent Air Air Air-steam Air-steam Air Air

Type of gasifier Fluidised-bed Fluidised-bed Fluidised-bed Fluidised-bed Updraft fixed-bed Downdraft fixed-bed
Gas yield (Nm3/kg sludge, daf) 2.0 – 2.8 1.9 – 3.1 2.4 – 2.8 0.9 – 1.2 1.1 – 1.7 n.s

Gas Composition (% vol dry basis)

H2 3.1 – 6.06 3.2 – 16.4 9.9 – 16.1 11.0 – 25.1 3.8 – 4.4 9.0 – 11.4
N2 63.9 – 70.1 47.7 – 74.9 53.1 – 60.8 44.5 – 53.2 66.2 – 69.7 64.4 – 65.7
CO 6.7 – 8.6 4.3 – 12.6 7.7 – 10.4 5.7 – 14.1 9.6 – 11.2 6.5 – 11.0
CH4 1.6 – 2.7 1.0 – 5.7 2.7 – 3.2 2.6 – 4.1 0.84 – 1.1 1.3 – 2.1
CO2 15.7 – 16.8 13.0 – 14.2 14.1 – 15.6 12.6 – 23.8 11.8 – 13.4 11.5 – 13.5
C2Hx 0.6 – 2.4 0.9 – 3.4 1.5 −2.0 1.3 – 2.2 2.1 – 2.6 0.15 – 0.28
LHV (MJ/Nm3) 2.5 – 4.2 1.3 – 5.6 3.2 – 4.2 4.1 – 6.2 3.3 – 4.0 n.s
HHV (MJ/Nm3) n.s 1.4 – 6.1 3.4 – 4.6 n.s n.s 3.52 – 4.01
Tar content (g/Nm3) n.s 9.1 – 32.3 3.9 – 11.2 12.1 – 45.3 n.s 5.47 – 8.38

n.s: not stated.

898
S.S.A. Syed-Hassan et al.
Manyà et al. [155]. The authors noticed an improvement in the
efficiency of sewage sludge gasification with the increase of the bed
height. They explained that the reason behind this is due to the fact that
reactivity of the consuming char particles decreases significantly at
later stage of their conversion because the remaining carbon becomes
diluted in the ashes and the internal diffusion of gaseous reactant is
hindered by the high ash content. A longer gas residence time would
allow a more complete conversion of char particles to take place in the
bed. On the other hand, the increase of gas heating value with the bed
height was attributed to steam reforming and cracking of volatiles as
the volatiles spent more time in the gasifier.
6.2.4. Temperature
The influence of three operating factors namely bed temperature,
gasifying agent to biomass ratio (GR) and composition of gasification
medium on the performance of air-steam gasification of sewage sludge
in a bubbling fluidised-bed gasifier has been studied by Gil-Lalaguna
et al. [77] using a 2k factorial experimental design. Based on several
response variables including product distribution, gas composition, gas
heating value, cold gasification efficiency, and etc., the analysis of
variance in their study led to a conclusion that temperature was the
most influential factor in the gasification of sewage sludge under their
experimental conditions. In another study, Aznar et al. [156] compared
the influence of freeboard temperature, fluidisation velocity and sludge
particle size during the air gasification of sewage sludge. Their
statistical analysis indicated that only the freeboard temperature had
a significant influence on tar production and composition within the
range of their variable values.
Higher temperature was reported to reduce the content of tar and
increase the gas yield, the gas heating value and the production of H2,
CO and CH4 [77,154,157,164] due to the greater volatilisation of
sludge, the increased rates of cracking and steam reforming of tars and
the enhanced endothermic reactions of char gasification. However, it is
important to note that tar composition is also as important as its
production amount. As Aznar et al. [156] pointed out, the reduction of
tar by high temperature application may eventually lead to the
formation of tar which requires a more complicated treatment for
complete tar removal. Therefore, the selection of bed or freeboard
temperature must consider not only the targeted conversion, gas yield,
and gas composition, but also the amount and composition of tar
generated. Other factors such as the risk of clinker formation (dis-
cussed later) may also restrict the selection of operating temperature
[169].
6.2.5. Addition of catalytic materials
The addition of catalytic materials, either in the same fluidisation
bed (as additive or replacement to the silica sand) or in the secondary
bed following the fluidisation, has been shown to positively influence
the gasification of sewage sludge [154,158,164,165,183]. Some com-
mon catalysts used in the sewage sludge gasification are alumina,
olivine and dolomite. In comparing the performance of these catalysts
as bed additive for the air-steam gasification of sewage sludge, de
Andrés et al. [183] found that dolomite has the highest activity in tar
elimination, followed by alumina and olivine. In a study on the air
gasification of sewage sludge in a two-stage gasifier, Mun et al. [158]
utilised natural occurring materials, including natural zeolite, olivine
and dolomite, as well as biomass and coal derived activated carbons as
bed materials in the upper reactor, while sand and calcined dolomite
were used as the fluidised bed material in the lower reactor. Based on
their results, the combination of calcined dolomite in the lower reactor
and coal-based activated carbon in the upper reactor produced the best
result in terms of H2 production and tar reduction. Meanwhile, Cao
et al. [184] indicated that lignite char-loaded nickel catalyst is quite
active not only for tar reduction but also for the elimination of NOx
precursors. However, the Ni-based catalysts can be easily deactivated at
high temperature by coke deposition [184,185].
899
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80 (2017) 888–913
6.3. Some challenges in the gasification of sewage sludge
6.3.1. Tar in the outlet gas
The residual tar in the gasifier outlet brings significant problems for
further application of the producer gas in heat and power generation or
chemical production. Tar, which include all hydrocarbon volatiles with
molecular weight larger than benzene, may condense to cause pro-
blems such as clogging, fouling, corrosion, and loss of efficiency in the
downstream processes whenever the gas temperature falls below the
tar dew point. The maximum permissible limit of tar in the producer
gas varies depending on its intended application. For example, FT
synthesis demands tar concentration of < 0.1–1 mg/Nm3, methanol
production limits tar contamination in the syngas to < 1 mg/Nm3, fuel
cell application requires tar concentration to be less than 1 mg/Nm3,
gas turbines can tolerate tar content between 0.05 and 5 mg/Nm3,
internal combustion engines allow a tar concentration of up to 100 mg/
Nm3, compressors can endure a maximum tar concentration of
500 mg/Nm3, while direct combustion (e.g. in a boiler) has no limit
on tar concentration as long as the gasifier outlet and burner inlet do
not let the gas to drop below the dew point of tar [107]. To be useful for
advanced application, tar must be removed from the syngas through
primary method (treatment inside gasifier), secondary method (gas
treatment after the gasifier) or their combinations. Several excellent
reviews on the various tar removal strategies related to biomass
gasification, which are also applicable to sewage sludge gasification,
have been written previously by other authors [186–189]. The in-
corporation of those strategies will definitely incur additional costs in
the construction and operation of a gasification plant.
6.3.2. High moisture content
The high moisture content of sewage sludge can greatly affect both
the gasifier operation and the properties of the producer gas. Although
the presence of water/steam may promote tar conversion, an excessive
moisture content will give rise to a high energy consumption [19].
Furthermore, the pasty nature of sludge resulting from its high
moisture content can also cause problem in the feeding of sludge into
the gasifier, and complicate the mass and heat transfers during the
gasification [19]. It was reported that the limit of moisture content are
dependent on the type of gasifier used [65]. The maximum moisture
content of fuel for a downdraft gasifier is usually limited to 30% wet
basis [169], while the maximum limit of moisture for an updraft
reactor can be as high as 50% wet basis [65]. Nevertheless, regardless
of the reactor type, it is generally beneficial to always keep the water
content to below 30% in order to minimise energy losses due to the
heating and vapourisation of water [65]. Due to the very high amount
of ash in certain sewage sludge (can be up to > 50%, as shown in
Table 3), it is appropriate that the moisture limit in the case of sewage
sludge gasification to be evaluated by considering the ash free basis of
the feed [65].
6.3.3. High N and S content
The amounts of nitrogen and sulphur in sewage sludge, which are
significantly higher than in the classical biomass (Table 3), bring
considerable challenges to sewage sludge gasification due to the higher
potential of secondary environmental pollution. During thermochemi-
cal conversion, significant amount of sludge-bound nitrogen and
sulphur are volatilised together with the volatiles during the pyrolysis
step. In a reducing environment such as gasification, this leads to the
formation of products such as ammonia (NH3), hydrogen cyanide
(HCN) and hydrogen sulphide (H2S), all of which are toxic and/or
pollutants. When producer gas is combusted, NH3, HCN and H2S are
converted to their respective oxides (i.e. NOx, N2O or SOx) which are
contributors to environmental problems such as photochemical smog,
acid rain, and ozone layer depletion. In addition, H2S is also corrosive
to process equipment and poisonous to tar cracking catalysts.
Literature indicated that S-functionalities in sewage sludge are similar
S.S.A. Syed-Hassan et al.
to those found in coals [35,190–194]. Liu et al. [194] discovered that
sewage sludge contains ∼18% sulphate, ~25% sulphonic acid, ~9%
sulphoxide, ~18% aromatic sulphur, ~22% aliphatic sulphur and ~8%
inorganic sulphide, indicating that the primary sources of sulphur in
sewage sludge are organic rather than inorganic types. Their study also
suggested that aliphatic and aromatic sulphur compounds are the two
main sources of sulphur-containing gases released during the devola-
tilisation of sludge. The transformation of aliphatic sulphurs into H2S
begins at a relatively low temperature of 250 °C, while aromatic
sulphur transforms into H2S between 350 and 450 °C [194]. The
release of S-containing gases was said to occur via two stages: the first
stage is the generation of S/HS radicals from aliphatic/aromatic
sulphurs, and the second stage is the combination of S/HS radicals
and hydrogen atoms to form H2S [194].
The transformation of sludge-bound nitrogen under pyrolysis
condition has been studied by Tian et al. [195] and Cao et al. [70].
The authors reported that HCN was generated from the pyrolysis
mainly at temperatures beyond 500 °C, evolving primarily through
thermal cracking of volatiles [70,195]. NH3, on the other hand, was
observed to release from sludge itself via different mechanisms: (i) a
small yield of NH3 at low temperature ( < 200 °C) was due to the
dissociation of ammonium salts in the sludge, (ii) a significant yield
between 300 and 500 °C was due to the thermal decomposition of the
amino structures related to the high protein content in sludge, and (iii)
an additional formation of NH3 at temperatures higher than 600 °C
was due to the reactions involving H radicals (existing as adspecies on
the N sites on the char surface or resulting from the thermal cracking of
volatile) in the pyrolysing solid [195]. Under gasification conditions,
HCN may react with H2 to form NH3 (R19), while NH3 equilibrates in
the gas phase to form N2 and H2 (R20) [196]. Some metals in sludge
also have capability to catalyse the conversion of NH3 to N2 [197]. The
formation of both HCN and NH3 is enhanced with the presence of
steam, but the enhancement mechanism remains unclear [196]. Some
other factors influencing the production and distribution of N-contain-
ing species during sewage sludge gasification are temperature
[70,196,197], application of additive [198], depth of the char bed
[196], heating rate [199], and reactor's material [195].
HCN + H2 ↔ NH3 + C
2NH3 ↔ N2+ 3H2
Fig. 7. Combustion of sewage sludge. Adopted with modification from [204], with permission from the American Chemical Society.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80 (2017) 888–913
6.3.4. High content of inorganics
Although some inorganic species have positive catalytic effects
[173,174,197], their presence in significant amounts in sewage sludge
(Tables 3, 4) produces more adverse effects to the gasification process.
A pilot-scale study on the gasification of various types of waste by
Campoy et al. [64] indicated that the high amount of ash and heavy
metals in sewage sludge caused the greatest challenges in the operation
of fluidised-bed gasifier. Significant difficulties were encountered in
achieving smooth and stable operation since the ashes have strong
tendency for sintering and agglomeration, and thus requiring high
frequency of removal from the gasifier [64]. In another pilot-scale
study, Dogru et al. [169] pointed that even when the ash was removed
quite frequently and continuously from their downdraft gasifier, some
clinker formation resulting from the high temperature ( > 1100 °C) in
the oxidation zone was observed. The clinker was found to occasionally
formed on the grate during the gasification process by bridging and
blocking the fuel flow in the reduction zone, causing a decrease in the
quality of the produced gas [169]. Similar situation in a pilot-scale
updraft gasifier was observed by Seggiani and et al. [65,177] in their
study on the co-gasification of sewage sludge with wood pellets. The
authors reported that the gasification process was unstable when
sewage sludge content increased to ≥70 wt% due to slagging and an
excessive clinker formation in the oxidation zone resulting from the
high ash content and low ash fusion temperature of the sewage sludge.
They also mentioned that the formation of an ash layer on the grate
caused problems in the operation of the gasifier, for example by
interrupting air distribution and making subsequent reactor cleaning
difficult, and hindering continuous flow of solid through the gasifier
[65,177].
Gil-Lalaguna et al. [77] reported that some inorganic ash com-
pounds could be released to the gas phase during the gasification
process even at temperatures within 770–850 °C, increasing the risk of
ash deposition on the surface of equipment downstream of the gasifier.
Of all the major ash forming compounds, phosphorous is of the main
concern and mostly studied due to its extremely high amount in sewage
sludge as compared to biomass and coal (Table 4). Zhang et al. [200]
reported that phosphorous in sewage sludge is made up of 9 wt%
organic phosphorus, 73 wt% nonapatite inorganic phosphorus (NAIP,
(R19)
not Ca-bound phosphorus) and 18 wt% apatite phosphorous (AIP, Ca-
bound phosphorus). The volatilisation of phosphorus during fuel
gasification mainly takes place during the pyrolysis process involving
(R20) the organic phosphorous. Conversely, inorganic phosphorus (mainly in
900
S.S.A. Syed-Hassan et al.
the form of aluminium phosphate and calcium iron phosphate) are
nonvolatile at low temperatures, and will vapourise only when the
gasification temperature reaches around 1200 °C.
Meanwhile, many processes in the gasifier bed may allow the
release of trace heavy metal elements from the feed. These include
attrition, entrainment, and volatilisation, and the relative importance
of these processes is governed by both the mode of occurrence and the
chemical speciation of heavy metals [100]. Conditions employed in the
gasification process, i.e. being higher in temperature than pyrolysis,
increases the chance of mobilisation of some of the heavy metal species.
The potential emission of heavy metals from sewage sludge gasification
has been described in a number of studies [100,201,202]. Reed et al.
[100] indicated that almost 100% of mercury were released from
sewage sludge under their gasification conditions, agreeing with the
result of Kistler et al. [147] discussed earlier, while chromium and
nickel were completely retained in char. The authors also reported that
a substantial fraction of lead, and some of the zinc were also mobilised
in the gasifier while barium was mobilised from only specific type of
sludge. In another study, Elled et al. [203] observed that reducing
conditions promotes the volatility of As, Cd, Pb, Sb, Se, Tl and Zn more
than the oxidation (combustion) condition, while the volatility of Cu
and Ni is reduced. Further discussions on ash and heavy metal
problems are presented in the later section on sewage sludge combus-
tion.
7. Combustion of sewage sludge
7.1. Brief descriptions of the process
Combustion is a thermochemical process that takes place at high
temperature in the presence of surplus oxygen, resulting in the
transformation of carbonaceous materials into CO2 and H2O while at
the same time releasing substantial amount of heat and other trace
gases. The combustion process, depending whether the input material
is considered as a fuel or a waste, can be divided into two: conventional
combustion and incineration. The main aim of the conventional non-
incineration combustion is to obtain energy (heat) for various utilisa-
tion such as to heat up boilers for steam generation for use in electricity
production via steam turbine, while the chief objective of incineration
is to apply combustion process to reduce the volume of the input
material (usually harmful to the environment) either with or without
heat recovery such as applied in the management of clinical and
municipal solid wastes.
The fundamental mechanisms of sewage sludge transformation in a
combustor are depicted in Fig. 7. Cui et al. [204] described that sewage
sludge combustion occurs through six stages: (i) drying, (ii) devolati-
lisation + auto-gasification, (iii) volatiles combustion, (iv) ash melting,
(v) char combustion and (vi) ash agglomeration. Depending on the
configuration of a combustor, the reaction conditions and the char-
acteristics of sewage sludge, devolatilisation take places either parallel
or sequential to the drying phase during sewage sludge combustion,
and the process can start at a very low particle temperature (as low as
150 °C) as compared to bituminous coal (around 300–400 °C) [205–
207]. As the water vapours and CO2 (part of volatiles) are released from
inside of the sludge matrix, they may react with the dehydrated/
devolatilised outside layers of the sludge (char layers) before O2 in the
gas phase diffuses to the same hot surface layers. This process, which is
referred to as auto-gasification, usually occurs with wet sewage sludge
combustion, and its significance increases for a large particle and at a
higher temperature [69,204]. Due to its high volatile matter and very
low fixed carbon contents, production of heat in sludge combustion is
dominated by volatiles combustion in the gas phase; unlike coal where
its combustion is dominated by the slow oxidation of the residual char.
With increasing temperature and heating rate, the proportion of
gaseous substances increases, and the proportions of char and con-
densable liquid decrease, resulting in the increased role of volatiles
901
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80 (2017) 888–913
combustion. Ogada and Werther [205] reported that when the volatile
matter content of a fuel increases, the combustion properties become
more similar to those of gaseous fuels.
In the presence of excess O2, the gases formed from the pyrolysis of
sludge are rapidly ignited to form CO, CO2, H2O, NO, NO2, SO2, SO3,
etc. in the combustion chamber. The combustion of volatiles can be
characterised by the rapid consumption of oxygen. The burning of
volatiles and light gases around the sludge surface increases the surface
temperature rapidly [208], and when the temperature is high enough it
causes melting of the ash layers. Some small molten droplets are
formed (around 900–1300 °C) and cover the particle surface [204].
The remaining sludge char then proceeds with reactions with oxygen of
the air until it burns out. Unlike coal, where burn-out time is relatively
longer than the devolatilisation time and hence its combustion is
dominated by char combustion phase, the situation varies in the case of
sewage sludge. Because of the lower fixed carbon content of sewage
sludge and extremely high reactivity of its char, arising mainly due to
the catalytic effects of inorganic matters and high surface area [209],
the char burn-out time in sewage sludge combustion is lesser than or
comparable with the time span for the release and combustion of
volatiles, especially in the case of wet sewage sludge [205,206].
Therefore, the contribution of the char combustion phase in sewage
sludge combustion is minimal [206].
It was reported that char particles combust at a temperature higher
than its combustor's bed [209]. This is due to the heat generated from
exothermic reactions within and surrounding the particles [209]. The
heat produced from the combustion of char then facilitates ash droplet
agglomeration [204]. Once the surface temperature reaches its max-
imum, temperature gradually declines, indicating a movement of the
combustion front inside the fuel and cooling of the surface by means of
ash layer surrounding the core of the carbon material [208,210]. A
rapid decrease in temperature of the agglomerate then denotes the
completion of the combustion process [208,210]. Cui et al. [204]
suggested that mass diffusion of water and volatiles out of the sludge
particle to be the rate-limiting steps in the total combustion process,
while shrinkage associated with water and volatiles releases and ash
melting and agglomeration to be the main stages for reduction in
sludge volume. On the other hand, the locations of drying, and the
release and combustion of volatiles are important in determining the
temperature distribution inside a sludge combustion reactor which is
an important information necessary for improving combustion effi-
ciency and minimising emission problems [206].
The two most common combustors used for sewage sludge incin-
eration are multiple hearth and fluidised-bed furnaces, but rotary kiln,
cyclone and various kinds of smelting furnace are also used [206]. A
multiple hearth furnace (MHF) consist of a vertical cylindrical shell
containing 4–14 firebrick hearths and a rotating shaft at the center of
the shell. This type of furnace combusts wet sewage sludge (mechani-
cally dewatered) and consist of three operating zones: drying zone,
burning zone and cooling zone. The sludge is fed from the top, where it
first being dried, and moves downwards from hearth to hearth by the
action of scrappers which are attached to the shaft, and thereafter
undergoes pyrolysis, combustion and ash cooling [206]. The chief
advantage of MHF is related to the good internal energy usage in which
the furnace allows hot combustion gas to come into contact with the
sludge directly, while its major drawback is associated with its reliance
on the auxiliary fuel in sustaining the combustion process [206].
A fluidised-bed furnace, which combusts both wet and pre-dried
sludges and becoming more popular nowadays, is an inherently simple
combustor, usually vertical and has a cylindrical shape. Air at high
pressure is fed from the bottom through air distributor into a bed of
sand. The sand particles become suspended in the rising gas and show
a hydraulic behaviour of a turbulent liquid (bubbling and flowing),
resulting in adequate supply of air, good mixing, uniform heating and
excellent contact between the combusted sludge and oxidant [208]. The
sludge particles introduced to the bed rapidly dry and then burn,
S.S.A. Syed-Hassan et al.
releasing most of their fuel value in the bed. The residence time of
sludge particles within the hot bed is long enough to assure adequate
sludge burn-out. A disengaging space known as the freeboard above the
fluid bed, in addition to its function to suppress entrainment, provides
additional time for complete burn-out of the combustible material
[206]. The process performance are strongly affected by several factors
including the fluid bed temperature, the freeboard temperature, O2
concentration in the gas phase, the sludge feeding rate and the
residence time [211,212]. The absence of rotating parts inside the
reactor results in inexpensive maintenance cost and thus becomes one
of the advantages of fluidised-bed for combustion process [206].
A flow diagram of a typical sewage sludge incineration process is
shown in Fig. 8. The gas from sewage sludge combustion exits the
furnace at high temperature (around 850–1300 °C), and the heat
generated from the combustion can be recovered through heat
exchange, to pre-heat the combustion air or to pre-dry the sludge, or
it can also be used in a boiler. Bottom ash, representing incombustible
by-products which are too large to be carried away by the flue gas are
collected from the bottom of the furnace, while the remaining inorganic
materials are carried out of the furnace as a gaseous phase or as fine
particulates (fly ash) with the exhaust gases. An incineration plant is
usually equipped with the flue gas cleaning system which can include
cyclone, wet scrubber, electrostatic precipitators, bag filer, and etc. to
minimise the emissions of fine dust and hazardous gas in order to
comply with the emission standards. The combustion efficiency, ɳcomb,
can be measured based on the composition of the flue gas using the
following equation [212]:
%CO2 − %CO
ηcomb =
%CO2
Alternatively, the system combustion efficiency can be determined
from the carbon burn-out rate, which is a calculation based on the
residual carbon from the ash analysis as shown in Eq. (E2) below [212].
• •
(∑ mCin − ∑ mCout )
ηburn − out = • × 100%
∑ mCiin
• 7.2.2. Behaviour of inorganic constituents
In the above equation, m is the feeding rate of sludge, Cin is the
carbon content of the fed sludge, and Cout is the carbon content in
bottom and fly ashes.
7.2. Unique characteristics and challenges in sewage sludge
combustion
7.2.1. Influence of moisture
The origins of problems in sewage sludge combustion are basically
Fig. 8. Flow diagram of a typical sewage sludge combustion process.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80 (2017) 888–913
the same as that of gasification (i.e. due to the high moisture content,
high ash content, etc.). The high content of moisture has significant
influences on the combustion characteristics of the sludge as well as the
combustor's design requirements. The feeding of sludge as a paste may
lead to the formation of large particles in the combustor, hence
complicating transport phenomena as well as chemical reactions in
the combustion process. The high latent heat of evaporation of water in
the interior increases the time required for complete drying and
combustion and increases energy requirement of a combustion system.
High moisture content also increases the bulk density and lowers the
energy content of the feed. With a net heating value of around 4 MJ/kg,
the mechanically dewatered sludge (containing about 80% moisture)
does not result in high enough net energy release to sustain an auto-
thermal combustion, thus requiring a supply of auxiliary fuels (such as
natural gas or crude oil) to the system. Han et al. [213] found that
sewage sludge with a moisture content of no more than 30–40% is
needed for running stable combustion in a fluidised-bed without any
supplementation of other fuel.
For a fluidised-bed furnace, the ignition heat of newly fed sludge
into dense phase region of the combustor increases with the increasing
moisture content, resulting in a higher heat consumption in the bed
and significant temperature drop of the dense phase [213]. Also with
the increase of moisture content, the resistance of oxygen diffusion to
the surface of sludge particle increases, causing more combustible
matters to be brought to the upper region of the furnace with hot gases,
and finally resulting in the increase of incomplete combustion heat loss
[213]. For keeping combustible matters burning completely, the
amount of air into the furnace should be increased with increasing
feed rate of wet sewage sludge [213]. A high moisture content also
(E1)
increases the chances for SO2 to react with H2O to form H2SO3, which
is erosive for metal tube of heaters [213]. Apart from that, the
evaporated moisture increases the flue gas volume, leading to the need
for larger capacity of the flue gas cleaning equipment and fan power
[206,214].
(E2)
Data in Table 3 indicate that more than a third of the solid content
in sewage sludge consists of inorganic matters. Inorganic elements in
sewage sludge, according to their respective mass composition, can be
categorised into three groups which are (i) major ash forming
elements, (ii) minor ash elements, and (iii) trace elements [39]. The
main elements in the sewage sludge ash are silicon, phosphorus,
potassium, calcium, sulphur, chlorine and sodium, while the main
compounds of the ash are P2O5, CaO, SiO2, Fe2O3, Al2O3, MgO, K2O,
and Na2O [215]. During combustion, several chemical and physical
902
S.S.A. Syed-Hassan et al.
changes of the inorganic compounds and elements occur at high
temperature, causing some challenges to the combustion process.
Major problems related to the inorganics constituents during and post
combustion of sewage sludge are due to (i) alkali-induced slagging, (ii)
silicate-melt induced slagging (ash fusion), (iii) agglomeration and
accumulation of ash in the furnace, (iv) agglomeration of fluidised-bed
particles leading to defluidisation, (v) corrosion, (vi) handling/disposal
of the ash, and (vii) emission of heavy metals. To understand further
how these problems originate, it is worth to first look at the behaviours
of inorganic constituents during the combustion of sewage sludge.
Fig. 9 illustrates the formation and transformation of ash during
combustion. Firstly, the volatile organo-metallic compounds in sewage
sludge (e.g. containing Cr, V, etc.) are released during the devolatilisa-
tion stage. This is followed by the release of alkali and alkaline earth
metals (AAEMs), such as K, Na, P, and Ca, and volatile heavy metals
(e.g. Hg, As, Pb, Cd) from char/partially devolatilised sludge to the gas
phase. Volatility of a particular element depends on the form in which
it occurs, its sludge properties, and conditions of combustion process.
Metals evaporate at temperatures near the boiling point of the element
or compound, which suggests a higher combustion temperature
increases the rate at which metals release to the gas phase. The
presence of Cl enhances the volatility of metal (by producing various
volatile chlorinated metal compounds) while the presence of S, Fe, Si,
Al, P and Ca sometime exhibits an opposite (retention) effect on certain
types of metal via the formation of stable solid products [101,216–
220]. Oxygen content and its concentration profile inside the combus-
tor also determine the behaviour of different inorganic species since
some metallic species are more volatile under reducing conditions
while others are more volatile in oxidation environment [203].
As the gas flows to a lower temperature region, some of the
vaporised metals nucleate and condense, forming submicron particles
which then condense on the heating surfaces and form a sticky initial
slagging layer via thermophoresis and turbulent diffusion [221]. Some
other alkali metal aerosols condense on residual fly ash and either form
a sticky layer or form low-melting substances by reaction with SiO2 and
Fe2O3 in the fly ash [221]. Non-volatile ash compounds remaining in
the still-combusting particles melt and coalesce on or in the surface of
the particle, depending on the temperature and chemical composition
of both the particle and the surrounding gases, resulting in the
formation of ash particles that have a wide range of compositions,
sizes and characteristics. Depending on the density and size of these
particles, as well as combustor design and combustion conditions, a
fraction of these ashes can be entrained by the gases [222]. Some of
these fly ashes then stick to the sticky slagging layer induced by the
alkali metals on the heating surface, while some others react with the
alkali metal aerosols in the gas (as described above). When the initial
slagging layer loses sufficient adhesion to further accumulate the fly
Fig. 9. Formation and transformation of ash during sewage sludge combustion.
903
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80 (2017) 888–913
ashes, a new sticky layer containing alkali metal-enriched submicron
particles is formed and the capture of ash particles continue. The
repeated cycles of sticky layer formation by alkali metal-containing
submicron particles and the capture of fly ash results in the formation
of multi-layered deposit on the heating surfaces [221]. This process is
referred to as alkali-induced slagging.
The low-melting substances formed from the interaction between
alkali metal aerosols with fly ashes will melt upon further exposure at
high temperature. In a fluidised-bed combustor, the molten particles
may induce bed agglomeration which can then result in defluidisation
and process interruption. Agglomeration of bed particles takes place
via two main routes: melt-induced agglomeration and coating-induced
agglomeration [221]. In the melt-induced agglomeration, the bed
particles are “glued” together via a molten phase which roughly
matches the chemical composition of the ash and is produced at
normal operating temperature [221]. In the coating-induced agglom-
eration, a uniform coating is formed on the surface of the bed material
grains. At certain thickness and/or temperature, a neck formation
occur between coatings of the individual grains. Partial de-fluidisation
after the first neck formation then results in a localised high-tempera-
ture zone that favours melt formation and enhances agglomeration
[221]. Large ash particles ( > 10 µm) usually cause melt-induced
agglomeration, while small ash particles ( < 10 µm) are responsible
for the coating-induced agglomeration [221].
While alkali metals play a dominant role in the alkali-induced
slagging and agglomeration of bed particles, silicate melt-induced
slagging (ash fusion), which is also a problem in sewage sludge
combustion, is more related to Si, Al, and other elements in the ash
[221]. When the temperature inside the furnace surpasses the ash
melting point, the ash deforms and melts and then adheres to the
burner surface through inertial impaction [221]. The ash fusion
temperature (AFT), which is described by initial deformation tempera-
ture (IT), softening temperature (ST), hemispherical temperature (HT),
and fluid temperature (FT), is the simplest parameter used to predict
ash fusibility behaviour. Ash fusion temperatures do not depend only
on chemical constitutions but also on mineral compositions. It was
reported that AFT increases as refractory minerals (e.g. quartz,
metakaolinite, mullite, rutile) contents increase, and decreases when
the content of fluxing minerals (e.g. anhydrite, calcium silicate,
hematite) increase [223]. The base-to-acid ratio (B/A) is another
simple index used to predict ash fusibility. It relates the ash basic
compounds (Fe2O3, CaO, MgO, Na2O, K2O) that reduce ash fusion
temperatures (B) to the ash acidic compounds (SiO2, Al2O3, TiO2) that
increase their value (A) [223]. Deposition of ash (alkali-induced or
silicate-melt induced) on the surface of furnace, boiler or heat
exchanger can lead to the decrease in thermal efficiency, damage to
process equipment and rising maintenance problems.
S.S.A. Syed-Hassan et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80 (2017) 888–913

Corrosion risk in sewage sludge combustion is also high due to amount of pollutants such as NOx, N2O, SOx, CO, polycyclic aromatic
significant presence of chlorine (originating mostly from FeCl3 used as hydrocarbons (PAHs) and chlorinated compounds (HCl, HF, dioxins
coagulant in sewage treatment process) and other inorganic species. and furans) to the atmosphere [234–240]. Dioxins, consisting of 75
Corrosion can occur through one of the following mechanisms: (i) chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and furans, consisting of 135
metal gradation by Cl2 gas, (ii) corrosion associated with gaseous alkali chlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), are highly toxic to human health
chlorides, (iii) corrosion associated with solid/deposited alkali chlor- even in very minute concentrations [206]. PAH, a class of organic
ides, (iv) corrosion associated with molten alkali chlorides, (v) corro- compounds composing of more than two benzene rings, is also a
sion associated with molten alkali sulfates, and (v) corrosion associated potential health hazard owing to their immunotoxicity, genotoxicity,
with molten alkali carbonates [221]. Experience with other biomass carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity properties [238]. Other
indicates that the most severe corrosion is commonly associated with gaseous pollutants (e.g. NOx, N2O, SOx, HCl) are widely known to be
deposits of ash containing alkali metal chlorides on the heat ex- the major precursors of various environmental problems including acid
changing surfaces [222]. These deposits are responsible for signifi- rain, ozone destruction and global warming.
cantly high rates of wear in metals, with reactions occurring below the Dioxins and furans destroy completely during combustion due to
melting point of KCl, and other ash mixtures with low eutectic points the high operating temperature of combustor. However, the re-forma-
(KCl–NaCl–FeCl2 systems) [222]. tion of dioxins and furans takes place in the flue gas cleaning stages via
Aside from the problems related to deposition, corrosion and oxy-chlorination process (often called de novo synthesis), involving
agglomeration, there is also a concern regarding the emissions of reactions between inorganic chlorine compounds and organic com-
heavy metals due to their harmful effects to the human health and the pounds (e.g. PAH and soot) at temperature of 200–400 °C, which can
environment. In sewage sludge combustion, most of the heavy metal be promoted by the catalytic actions of the metallic compounds
elements are captured by the particulate control systems or retained in containing in the fly ash [241,242]. The emissions of dioxin and furans
the bottom ash, but some of the highly volatile elements (e.g. Hg, Cd increase with increasing chlorine content of the sludge, while the
and Pb) may be emitted as vapours [203,224]. The behaviour of heavy presence of huge amount of sulphur may show the opposite effect
metals has been studied by many researchers [101,203,216–219,225– [206]. The control of dioxin and furan emissions can be achieved by
227] in sewage sludge combustion conditions, in addition to those keeping carbon content in the ash low or through removing most of the
specifically performed under pyrolysis and gasification conditions (as ash while they are at higher temperature (as soon as exiting the
discussed earlier). The mechanisms influencing immobilisation and combustion chamber) with the use of cyclone [206].
transformation behaviours of trace elements in combustion processes A study on PAHs emission from the full-scale sewage sludge mono-
are very complex. In general, combustion temperature, gaseous incineration facilities indicated that total concentrations of 16 USEPA
environment, feed composition (e.g. chlorine, sulphur, and water PAHs in the raw flue gas and in the stack flue gas ranged between 3.926
content), volatility of a metal, the speciation of metal, and the presence to 524.176 μg/m3 and 1.153–127.821 μg/m3, respectively [243]. Han
of possible sorbents in the combustion zone can all have significant et al. [238] found that the types of PAH formed from the combustion of
effects on the fates and the amount of heavy metals emitted with the sewage sludge differ to those formed in the mono-combustion of coal.
flue gas from the combustor [101,203,216–218,225]. While the PAHs from coal combustion are dominated by the four- and
So far, based on the previous reported studies, heavy metal five-ring PAHs, the three- and four-ring PAHs are the principal
emissions from sewage sludge incineration are within the legal limits components in the combustion of sewage sludge. This is due to the
except for the Hg in certain cases [227,228]. During combustion (as fact that coal is comprised of complex high-molecular compounds
well as pyrolysis and gasification), due to the low boiling point, Hg which are connected through fatty groups or bridge bonds, and thermal
volatilisation is complete and the bed ashes are usually free from them decomposition is the primary process for PAH formation, while in
[229]. In a study with pilot scale fluidised-bed combustion installation contrast, sewage sludge contains high volatile matter and low fixed
equipped with two high-efficiency cyclones, Gulyurtlu et al. [228] carbon, thus PAHs are formed mainly from the vaporisation of volatile
reported that during mono-combustion of sewage sludge, part of Hg matters and also from synthesis processes [238]. The reduction of PAH
is retained in the cyclones while the rest (almost 50%) are emitted out emission can be achieved through the use of porous bed materials
of the stack as fine particles or in gaseous form. Part of the calcium fine which act as adsorbents [244].
particles which are elutriated out of the combustor and subsequently Since combustion proceeds in an oxidising atmosphere, the pro-
retained in the cyclones contributes to the recovery of Hg in fly ashes cesses of pollutant formation from S and N contents differ from that of
[228]. Although high temperature of the combustor enhances volatili- gasification. While S and N are converted mostly to H2S and NH3
sation of other heavy metals, especially Cd and Pb, most of these metals during gasification, SOx and NOx are the major S- and N-containing
are usually retained in the fly ashes captured by particulate capturing pollutants exiting from the combustion process. As pointed out earlier,
devices, thus lowering their emission values to below the regulated S functionalities in sewage sludge are similar to that in coals. Except for
levels [85,227,228]. Annual heavy metal (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Pb, Ni,
Zn) partitioning based on an industrial scale study by Van de Velden
Table 9
et al. [85] shown in Table 9 provide an evidence that most of the Annual heavy metal partitioning of an industrial scale sewage sludge combustor [85].
volatile trace metals (except for Hg) condense on the surface of fly Source:With permission from Elsevier.
ashes. Typical removal efficiencies of ash particles suspended in the
flue gas are within 95–99% [26]. Majority of the sewage sludge Heavy metal Feed Bottom ash and Effluent Fly ash Stack gas
(kg/yr) scrubber cake water (kg/ (kg/yr) (kg/yr)
combustion ashes are currently being landfilled. However, increasing (kg/yr) yr)
number of investigations have been carried out to allow recycling and
beneficial resource recovery [26]. These include the use of ash in As 348 1 1.33 325 1.4
concrete related applications [230,231], and as a secondary source of Cd 108 1 0.03 162 0.9
Cr 1807 9 2.74 1503 1
phosphate for the production of fertilisers [232,233]. Concerns related Cu 7155 8 3.56 7895 0.5
to the possibility of heavy metals leaching from the ash may limit/ Hg 30 3 4.48 6 6.2
complicate the disposal and the re-use of sewage sludge ash. Pb 3947 20 0.65 4026 2
Ni 856 16 2.48 872 0.5
Zn 37,215 170 7.85 34,669 1.3
7.2.3. Pollutant emissions
Total 51,466 228 23.12 49,458 13.8
Other than the risk of pollution due to the presence of high quantity Recovery 0.44% 0.04% 96.1% 0.03%
of heavy metals, combustion of sewage sludge also emits significant

904
S.S.A. Syed-Hassan et al.
some distinctions in the transformation of sulphoxide and sulphone, as
observed by Li et al. [193], the conversion and transformation
mechanisms of other sulphur forms are believed to be similar with
coals. For that reason, most of the investigations on sewage sludge
combustions were focused on the inhibition of sulphur emissions
rather than on sulphur transformation mechanisms. Yang et al. [245]
found that alkali and alkaline earth metal oxides in sewage sludge may
act as a desulphurising catalyst during sewage sludge combustion.
Folgueras et al. [246] reported that the presence of high amount of CaO
enhances the retention of sulphur in ash due the formation of CaSO4,
while the presence of Fe2O3 and SiO2 can reduce the amount of
retained sulphur due to their reactions with CaO to produce clinker
minerals such as ferrite and larnite. The contribution of Na and K in
the retention is insignificant because of their volatilisation which is
promoted by the presence of chlorine [246]. Elled et al. [247], on the
other hand, reported that phosphorus may interfere the capture of
sulphur by occupying calcium which otherwise available for reactions
with sulphur.
As for NOx (NO + NO2), there are three possible routes for its
formation during fuel combustion: (i) thermal-NOx, (ii) prompt-NOx,
and (iii) fuel-NOx. Thermal-NOx is generated from thermal oxidation of
molecular nitrogen by oxygen in air which occur at high temperature (
> 1000 °C). The contribution of thermal NOx in the flue gas increases
with increasing oxygen concentration and combustion temperature,
but below 1000 °C its role is negligible. The mechanism leading to the
formation of prompt-NOx at the flame front is more complex, involving
CH radical intermediates that reacts with molecular nitrogen from the
air to form HCN which react further to generate NO. Fuel-NOx, on the
other hand, is formed from nitrogen originated in the fuel (sludge), and
its mechanisms are even more complicated. NOx are formed from two
different pathways: (i) by homogeneous (gas-gas) reactions of the
nitrogenous compounds of the volatiles and (ii) through heterogeneous
(gas–solid) reactions of the nitrogen species bound to the char. During
sewage sludge combustion, due to the lower combustion temperature
used (usually < 1000 °C), most of the generated NOx come from the
fuel-NOx.
Nitrogen in sludge can be divided into two: (i) those held in the
solid organic fraction of the sludge, which are partly released with the
volatiles and partly retained in the char during devolatilisation, and (ii)
those held in the moisture content of the sludge (as NH4+) and released
as NH3 during drying [248]. The mechanisms for the release of NH3
and HCN to the gas phase during sludge devolatilisation have been
described earlier during our discussion on sludge gasification. NH3 can
decompose to form NH2 and NH radicals which in the combustion
environment either oxidised by O2 to NO or react with NO and OH
radicals to form N2, while HCN may react with oxygen radical to form
NCO which then react with NO to form N2O, a highly temperature
sensitive compound that decompose to N2 at temperatures higher than
900 °C [206]. Meanwhile, the char-bound nitrogen can react with O2 to
form NO or react with NO to produce N2O [248], but its influence is not
as significant as in the coal combustion due to the low content of fixed
carbon in the sludge. Due to the presence of CaO, MgO and Fe2O3,
char/ash plays a very active role in the reduction of NO and N2O to N2
during combustion [206].
Some differences in the behaviours of NOx emission, however, exist
between the combustion of dried sewage sludge and those contain
significant amount of moisture (mechanically dewatered and semi-
dried sludge) [206,214]. Higher concentrations of NOx and N2O are
emitted from dried sewage sludge though they contain less nitrogen
because of the loss/release of NH3 during drying. Dry sewage sludge
resembles NOx and N2O emission characteristics of coals, where NOx
and N2O emissions increase with increasing excess air ratio whereas
increased combustion temperature leads to an increase in NOx and a
decrease in N2O [214]. The reduction of N2O and NOx could be
achieved through staged combustion, while non-catalytic DeNOx (i.e.
NH3 injection) is effective for NOx control [214]. On the contrary, wet
905
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80 (2017) 888–913
and semi-dried sludges exhibit totally different characteristics where
combustion parameters such as temperature and excess air ratio as
well as emission reduction strategies (e.g. non-catalytic DeNOx and
staged combustion) have little effect on NOx and N2O emissions [214].
8. Other considerations in thermochemical processing of
sewage sludge
The review of the fundamentals of sewage sludge pyrolysis,
gasification and combustion presented above clearly shows both
advantages and challenges in thermochemical processing of sewage
sludge. Without doubt, all thermochemical conversion routes provides
potential for the efficient reduction of sludge volume, elimination of
harmful microorganisms and recovery of stored energy. Mild operating
temperature of pyrolysis allows retention of most of the heavy metals
and other nutrients (e.g. phosphorous) in solid residue. Coupled with
the absence of oxygen, the process emits less pollutants to the air,
allowing less complicated requirement of the process units (compared
to gasification and combustion). Flexibilities exist on the utilisation of
its pyrolytic oil either as a fuel or as a source of chemical products. The
residual char can be re-utilised as an adsorbent while the released gas
can be burned for additional energy recovery to bring the process close
to “zero waste” system. However, pyrolysis process is highly endother-
mic, requiring substantial energy input. Drying requirement further
increases its energy utilisation [249]. For example, 4 MJ/kg dried
sludge are required for reducing water content from 65 to 6.5 wt%
[250]. Pyrolysis oil, storing most of the energy output, cannot simply be
utilised (especially as a fuel) due to the presence of high nitrogen,
oxygen and water contents.
Gasification offers production of syngas at high efficiency. The high
moisture content of the sludge can be an obstacle since most of the
gasifiers require feedstock water content of not more than 30%.
Nevertheless, the energy content of the producer gas is enough to
cover the energy demand for both the sewage sludge thermal drying
and the gasification process itself [250,251]. Flexibility on the utilisa-
tion of syngas brings some advantages to this thermochemical conver-
sion route. However, heavy organic pollutant compounds in the
exhaust stream requires extensive gas cleaning for syngas applications,
thus complicating the construction and operation of sludge gasification
plant. The presence of high amount of inorganics in sludge, although
can catalyse gasification reactions, may increase the risk associated
with ash depositions and heavy metal emissions. Combustion/incin-
eration, on the other hand, is a more mature technology compared to
pyrolysis and gasification, offering nearly complete destruction of
organic materials and currently being applied widely across the world.
Air pollution problems, although higher than pyrolysis and gasification,
can be controlled/minimised with modern air pollution control equip-
ment. From waste minimisation point of view, this process is con-
sidered highly versatile as it can accept sludge with various degrees of
moisture. From energy recovery perspective, however, this process can
be energy deficient due to the requirement of supplementary fuel for
handling wet sludge, thus offering limited, if at all, energy recovery
benefits. Flue gas cleaning and ash disposal problems also add to
increased capital and operating costs. There are some other alternative
approaches in the application of thermochemical process to recover
energy from sewage sludge. These are briefly discussed below.
8.1. Co-utilisation with other fuels in thermochemical processes
Co-utilisation (especially co-combustion) allows the use of existing
thermochemical processing facilities (meant to process other types of
fuel/material) to process sewage sludge without major modification,
thus eliminating the need for vast capital investments for a new
processing plant [21]. In most cases, sewage sludge contributes only
to a small fraction of a plant's feedstock capacity and does not adversely
affect the existing process and its product. Examples of co-utilisation
S.S.A. Syed-Hassan et al.
include co-combustion with coal [252–255], co-incineration with
municipal solid waste [255–258], co-combustion with other biomass
[255,259,260], co-combustion in cement kiln [255,261], co-gasifica-
tion [46,65,262,263], and co-pyrolysis [117,264,265].
Mixing sewage sludge with other fuels, in many cases, also helps to
dilute some problems associated with individual utilisation of sludge in
thermochemical processes described earlier, for example by reducing
its total moisture content [80,266]. Investigation by Ninomiya et al.
[267] showed that co-combustion with coal has better performance
than the mono-combustion of sludge. Roy et al. [260] suggested that a
mixture of sewage sludge up to 10% with wood pellets can be burned
without any significant degradation of efficiency and emissions.
Improved devolatilisation of sewage sludge during co-pyrolysis with
pine sawdust was described by Zhu et al. [265]. Co-gasification of
sewage sludge and straw pellets has been shown to lower the
concentrations of both NH3 and H2S [263]. Akkache et al. [262] found
that co-gasification of sewage sludge, particularly with plastics, limits
ammonia release, maximises the gas heating value and limits the ashes
problems. Garcia et al. [46], on the other hand, reported a noteworthy
reduction on tar generation when mixtures of coal (regardless of types
of coal) and sewage sludge were gasified together. The use of sewage
sludge as a co-fuel or as a substitute fuel in energy-intensive industrial
processes, such as cement production, also seems to be a worthwhile
option. The major constituents of sludge ash, i.e. CaO, Al2O3, Fe2O3,
and SiO2, are also the main chemical compositions of cement raw
materials, and hence ash can directly be disposed through its use in
cement production.
Five co-utilisation scenarios were evaluated by Cartmell et al.[255]:
(i) co-combustion with coal in a large-scale combustion facility, (ii) co-
combustion with MSW at a third party facility, (iii) co-combustion with
MSW at WWTP, (iv) co-combustion with plant biomass at WWTP and
(v) co-combustion in a cement kiln. The authors claimed that positive
energy balance can be achieved in all of the scenarios after considering
energy input and output from transportation, drying, combustion,
steam generation and electricity generation. Raw sludge scenarios
resulted in a higher net energy gain than digested sludge scenarios
due to the higher calorific value of the raw sludge. A longer transporta-
tion distance and a higher drying requirements can reduce net energy
gain significantly. A life cycle assessment (LCA) by Houillon and Jolliet
[104], however, concluded that mono-incineration of sludge has lower
non-renewable primary energy consumption than the utilisation of
sewage sludge in cement kiln, but cement kiln application showed a
better global warming balance. This is supported by a recent LCA study
by Abuşoğlu et al. [268] which suggested that sewage sludge mono-
incineration facility, not only has a better environmental performance,
Fig. 10. Sewage sludge drying methods.
906
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80 (2017) 888–913
but also consumes less fossil energy for the disposal of a specified
amount of digested sewage sludge compared to cement kiln applica-
tion. Furthermore, it was reported that sludge usage in cement kiln
may not be economically feasible if the distance between a cement
plant and a wastewater treatment plant is more than 30–50 km due to
the high costs and environmental burdens of the transportation process
[268,269]. Hong et al. [254], on the other hand, reported that sewage
sludge co-incineration brings greater environmental burden to the
coal-based energy production technology although it presents higher
economic benefits. Their LCA study indicates that sewage sludge co-
combustion is unsuitable for mitigating the increasing pressure
brought on by sewage sludge pollution, and the reduction in the overall
environmental effect of sludge co-combustion necessitates reduction of
sludge water content as well as enhancement in net coal consumption
efficiency, ash reuse rate, and dust removal efficiency [254]. Given that
coal power plants and cement manufacturing plants are limited in
number, construction of new coal-based power plant has been re-
stricted in many countries, and often the cement and power plants are
not in close proximity to WWTP, there are certainly some barriers in
co-utilising sewage sludge in such facilities.
8.2. Pre-processing of sewage sludge before thermochemical
conversion applications
Another approaches in thermochemical processing of sewage
sludge involve pre-processing of the sludge before it is used in
thermochemical conversion. Pre-processing is carried out for at least
one of the following purposes: (i) to reduce sludge water content for a
more efficient thermochemical conversion, (ii) to increase bulk and/or
energy density of the sludge for a more efficient transportation of
sludge as a fuel especially in co-utilisation process and (iii) to remove
inorganics materials and modify organic matter compositions and/or
structure in sludge.
8.2.1. Drying
Many methods of sewage sludge drying are discussed in the
literature, and they are summarised in Fig. 10. Dewatering is usually
used to remove water from wastes that contain a high percentage of
initial moisture and a huge quantity of liquid in their composition, such
as sewage sludge. Dewatering methods, in principle, are not regarded
as drying, but it is not uncommon to find the term “drying” is used in
referring to the mechanical/physical process of removing water in
sewage sludge [270]. The advantage of dewatering is that it is low cost
and much easier to perform than the thermal methods [270]. However,
as described earlier, dewatered sludge from WWTP still holds sig-
S.S.A. Syed-Hassan et al.
nificant moisture content, ranging from 73% to 84% in weight [39],
which usually prevents its energy content from being recovered directly
through thermochemical conversion. A thermal drying stage, involving
simultaneous heat and mass transfer, is necessary to further reduce the
moisture content, but it is an energy-intensive process. Dewatering can
therefore be applied prior to drying to lower the energy expenditure of
the thermal drying process.
In traditional thermal drying, gas as at high temperature and flow
rate are generally required, not only for the purposes of heating and
evaporating the moisture of the solid, but also to “carry” the water
vapour out from the material. These demands utilisation of a sig-
nificant quantity of energy which is usually supplied by burning natural
gas, digester gas, fuel oil, or coal. One way to make sewage sludge
drying more efficient is obviously by recovering waste heat from the
drying process itself [271]. However, as long as the power is fed by
primary energy sources, thermal drying cannot be an appealing
process. Li et al. [272] proposed a technique that integrates drying
with incineration where direct and indirect drying mechanisms are
employed. Sewage sludge containing about 80% moisture is fed into a
bubbling fluidised-bed dryer where it is blended intensively with high
temperature incineration ash and is subjected to direct heat transfer,
causing sludge to dry and break down into small particles while the
water is evaporated. Further reduction of moisture content (to below
20%) is obtained via indirect heat transfer using heat recovered from
the flue gas generated by sludge incineration. Dried sludge with 20%
moisture content is then released from the bottom of the dryer and
flows directly into the incinerator to be continuously incinerated.
Another possibility is to utilise the flue gas from thermal power
plants, which is normally discharged at 160–200 °C, as a free heating
source such as implemented at the Kangshun sludge treatment plant in
China. Ma et al. [273] reported that the sludge processing system
employed at Kangshun plant is able to reduce water content of
dewatered sludge from 78% to less than 30% and contributes to 80%
savings in the drying cost as well as an annual CO2 emission reduction
of 16,440 t, even though daily transportation of about 100 t of 78%
water containing sludge is required. The report by Ma et al. [273], and
also by Lu et al. [274], thus pointed that a system combining sludge
drying and co-combustion is feasible for the large scale treatment of
sewage sludge. In another report, Bianchini et al. [275] proposed an
integration of sludge drying with a waste-to-energy (WTE) power plant,
instead of the coal-fired power plant. From the energy and mass
balances based on a WTE power plant in Bologna, Italy, the authors
estimated that a thermal power of 1 MW could be recovered from the
flue gas and 10,300 t of water per year could be saved from being used
in the usual flue gas treatment system.
A further possibility involves utilisation of free solar energy in the
drying of sewage sludge. Solar drying systems can be categorised into
direct, indirect and mixed-mode operations [276]. Direct solar dryers
constituted of an enclosed structure (greenhouse), made of a trans-
parent material and equipped with a solar collector. Sewage sludge is
spread inside the greenhouse where they are mixed (automatically or
manually) several times a day, and dried directly using concentrated
thermal solar energy. The dryer can be operated in either passive
(natural convection) or active (forced convection) mode [276]. In
passive mode, the movement of air takes place due to the density
difference – the humid air is ventilated naturally through the ventilator
at the top of the greenhouse. In active mode, the humid air is ventilated
by the assistance of exhaust fan or blower at the ventilator, providing
more efficient drying than the passive dryer. Contrary to the drying in
conventional thermal dryer, the operating conditions in a direct solar
dryer change continuously with time [277]. In indirect dryers, air is
heated in solar air heater before passing through the sludge, thus giving
a better controlled of drying temperature. In the mixed-mode opera-
tions, sewage sludge are exposed directly to solar radiations and hot air
from solar collector. Further heating of the floor of the greenhouse can
also be achieved using hot water pipes connected to the solar collectors
907
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80 (2017) 888–913
[277]. Although offering low construction and operating costs, a long
drying time can be a major drawback of solar dryer for its application
along with thermochemical conversion processes. Mathioudakis et al.
[278] reported that the time necessary to achieve a dry solid content up
to 95% ranged between 8 and 31 days, depending on the weather
conditions. Furthermore, solar drying also causes a reduction of sludge
organic matter by 5–21% [278]. Inconsistencies in solar energy
availability will lead to the inconsistency in the properties of dried
sewage sludge, thus affecting the subsequent thermochemical process.
New drying techniques, namely fry-drying [279–282] and biodry-
ing [283–286], have recently attracted great interests in sewage sludge
drying applications. Fry drying involves evaporation of sludge moisture
content through direct contact of sludge with boiling oil which is at a
temperature higher than the boiling temperature of water ( between
100 and 180 °C). During fry drying, oil fills the solid pores and moves
water vapour to the ambient air. The contact between sludge and oil
causes a series of physical and chemical reactions which in turn provide
high heat and mass transfer rates for the reduction of sludge moisture
content [270]. The main advantage of fry drying over the traditional
thermal drying method is the direct contact of sludge with the drying
agent (frying oil), which provides a greater drying rate. This is achieved
through a significant time reduction in the removal of free water
(constant drying rate) and the second falling drying rate period, in
which vapour diffusion is the dominant mass transfer mechanism
[270]. Biodrying, on the other hand, is based on a similar process as
composting. The aim, however is not directed towards a complete
mineralisation of the sludge as in the conventional composting process.
Instead, the metabolic heat, upon adequate aeration at high tempera-
tures, is used to remove water from the sludge matrix at the lowest
possible residence time and minimal biodegradation [283]. Most of the
gross calorific value of the waste matrix are therefore preserved. During
the process, the organic matrix is both a substrate for microorganisms
(which produce heat for drying) and also the end product. The
advantage of biodrying lies in the use of thermal energy being
generated from the aerobic biodegradation of waste organic matter to
evaporate water, thus offering a so-called “self-drying” mechanism
[270]. The dried sewage sludge, regardless of drying method, although
has an interesting properties as fuel, requires safety considerations
during storage and handling due to the potential risk of dust explosion
[287].
8.2.2. Physical densification
Sludge drying can be combined with physical densification to
further increase sludge bulk and energy densities for a more efficient
transportation, handling and storage. The product which has an energy
density equal to that of intermediate soft coal can be classified as
densified solid biofuel, referring to fuel that has certain shape and high
density which is pressed at certain temperature and under certain
pressure [288]. Pellet mill, briquette press, and screw extruder are the
most commonly used densification systems. The general shapes of
densified solid biofuel can be pellet (small cylinder having diameter of
5–12 mm and length of 10–30 mm), rod (generally hexagonal cross-
section type, with the diameter of 50–60 mm, length about 500 mm
and a 20 mm central-through hole) or briquette (square and cylindrical
in shape, usually with 30×30 mm diameter and a length of 30–80 mm)
[288]. Physical densification can be done on sewage sludge alone or on
its mixture with biomass [8]. The denaturation of protein and the
gelatinisation of carbohydrate in the sludge could serve as a natural
binder which can improve the strength of fiber grid in the densified
sludge [7]. Poor heat and mass transfer during thermochemical
processes and high energy consumption during sludge compaction
are the key drawbacks of the physically densified sludge.
8.2.3. Torrefaction
Torrefaction is a thermal pre-treatment which is normally carried
out between 200 and 300 °C under inert atmosphere and at atmo-
S.S.A. Syed-Hassan et al.
spheric pressure. It is also sometime called roasting or mild pyrolysis
[289]. The process results in the production of solid product with lower
moisture content, higher energy density, lower oxygen-to-carbon (O/C)
ratio and higher calorific value due to the release of water, carbon
dioxide, carbon monoxide and lightweight organic compounds,
[68,290–293]. Torrefaction can be incorporated into a combined
drying, torrefaction, and physical densification process [290]. It has
been proposed primarily as a treatment prior to gasification or
combustion of biomass resources. Except for the study by Atienza-
Martínez et al. [68] on the fast pyrolysis of torrefied sludge and the
research by Abrego et al. [293] on the feasibility of three-stage
thermochemical process incorporating torrefaction, pyrolysis, and char
activation, the effects of torrefaction on the subsequent thermochemi-
cal conversion of sewage sludge have not been widely studied.
8.2.4. Chemical and biological leaching
Chemical and biological leaching of sewage sludge were originally
proposed and developed for reducing heavy metal concentration in
order to safely use sewage sludge as soil fertiliser/conditioner, while at
the same time offering pathogen destruction, odour reduction and
metal recovery prospects. The use of various chemicals such as
Fe2(SO4)3 and FeCl3, chelating agents such as ethylene di-amine
tetraacetic acid (EDTA) and nitrilotriacetic acid, and organic and
inorganic acids have been reported for the extraction of metals from
sludge [29]. Such treatment was also found to be able to remove and/or
alter some organic compounds and consequently modify sewage sludge
thermochemical conversion performance [133,294]. Although interest-
ing, the practical application of the chemical leaching processes is
limited by the requirements of vast quantity of chemical, high operat-
ing cost, operational difficulties and secondary pollution problems.
Bioleaching, using variety of acidophilic and chemoautolithotrophic
bacteria such as acidithiobacillus thiooxidans and acidithiobacillus
ferrooxidans, is an alternative option at a chemical consumption cost
of 80% lower than the chemical methods employed for sewage sludge
metal leaching. It is defined as the dissolution of metals from solid
substrates either directly by the metabolism of leaching bacteria or
indirectly by the products of metabolism [29]. Bioleaching process can
be coupled with sludge digestion process in a single stage reactor in an
integrated technique called Simultaneous Sewage Sludge Digestion and
Metal Leaching, abbreviated as SSDML, which results in simultaneous
removal of metals, sludge volatile solids and pathogens [29]. The
process was claimed to cost less than the conventional aerobic
digestion. Steam gasification of bioleached sewage sludge has been
studied by Li et al. [161], while the effect of bioleaching on sewage
sludge pyrolysis was reported by Chen et al. [134]. Both of the studies
indicated that sewage sludge after the bioleaching treatment may be a
feasible feedstock for thermochemical process. The potential for the
recovery of metals from the metal rich leachate is an advantage of
bioleching as sewage sludge treatment method. However, at present,
most of the bioleaching studies were only performed in batch mode and
within controlled laboratory conditions, while its large scale application
in actual field conditions are still limited.
9. Conclusions
Sewage sludge production is increasing worldwide. The traditional
methods of sewage sludge disposal are no longer feasible, both
economically and environmentally. Thermochemical process, not only
incineration, but also pyrolysis and gasification, can be a dominant
method of sewage sludge disposal in the near future. Efficient reduction
of sludge volume, total destruction of harmful bacteria, and most
importantly the possibility of recovering significant amount of em-
bedded energy in sewage sludge, make thermochemical conversion
processes to be appealing. The fundamentals of three sewage sludge
thermochemical conversion routes, namely pyrolysis, gasification and
combustion, have been reviewed in this paper. Obviously, thermo-
908
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80 (2017) 888–913
chemical conversion of sewage sludge is different and more challenging
than similar process for other fuels such as biomass and coal due to the
unique properties of sewage sludge. In the opinion of present authors,
the high moisture content is the biggest obstacle in the application of
thermochemical process in converting sewage sludge to energy or fuel.
Gasification may have advantages over combustion and pyrolysis since
it can accept sludge water content up to 30% without significant
drawback to overall energy recovery, while at the same time the
trapped water content in sludge provides a free source of steam to
enhance gasification reactions. Nevertheless, the selection of the best
strategy for converting sewage sludge thermochemically, either with or
without co-utilisation of other fuels/materials, must take into account
the overall energy balance of the system which in turn depends largely
on how the water in sludge is handled/removed and how the sludge is
transported to its processing facilities. On the other hand, the usability
of product and co-products will also determine the feasibility of a
particular thermochemical processing strategy. Emission problems and
other operational issues, for example due to the presence of high
quantity of inorganic constituents, can be controlled/minimised with
proper design of reactor and installation of modern pollution control
equipment, or perhaps through pre-processing of sludge prior to
thermochemical conversion, but certainly these will add to both capital
and operating costs. It seems apparent that detailed assessments, using
a more consistent and thorough methodology than the existing LCA
reports in literature, are still needed to determine technical, environ-
mental, energy and economic feasibility of various possible strategies of
sewage sludge thermochemical processing technology.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by National High Technology Research
and Development Program of China [No. 2013AA063504], National
Natural Science Foundation of China [No. 51576072] & [No.
51606080], and Natural Science Foundation of HuBei Province,
China [No. 2016CFB106].
References
[1] Kelessidis A, Stasinakis AS. Comparative study of the methods used for treatment
and final disposal of sewage sludge in European countries. Waste Manag
2012;32:1186–95.
[2] Peccia J, Westerhoff P. We should expect more out of our sewage sludge. Environ
Sci Technol 2015;49:8271–6.
[3] Yang G, Zhang G, Wang H. Current state of sludge production, management,
treatment and disposal in China. Water Res 2015;78:60–73.
[4] Hu M, Gao L, Chen Z, Ma C, Zhou Y, Chen J, Ma S, Laghari M, Xiao B, Zhang B,
Guo D. Syngas production by catalytic in-situ steam co-gasification of wet sewage
sludge and pine sawdust. Energy Convers Manag 2016;111:409–16.
[5] Han R, Zhao C, Liu J, Chen A, Wang H. Thermal characterization and syngas
production from the pyrolysis of biophysical dried and traditional thermal dried
sewage sludge. Bioresour Technol 2015;198:276–82.
[6] Xu C, Chen W, Hong J. Life-cycle environmental and economic assessment of
sewage sludge treatment in China. J Clean Prod 2014;67:79–87.
[7] Li H, Jiang L-B, Li C-Z, Liang J, Yuan X-Z, Xiao Z-H, Xiao Z-H, Wang H. Co-
pelletization of sewage sludge and biomass: the energy input and properties of
pellets. Fuel Process Technol 2015;132:55–61.
[8] Jiang L, Liang J, Yuan X, Li H, Li C, Xiao Z, Huang H, Wang H, Zeng G. Co-
pelletization of sewage sludge and biomass: the density and hardness of pellet.
Bioresour Technol 2014;166:435–43.
[9] Lewis DL, Gattie DK. Peer reviewed: pathogen risks from applying sewage sludge
to land. Environ Sci Technol 2002;36:286A–293AA.
[10] Dumontet S, Scopa A, Kerje S, Krovacek K. The importance of pathogenic
organisms in sewage and sewage sludge. J Air Waste Manag Assoc
2001;51:848–60.
[11] Kouloumbis P, Rigas F, Mavridou A. Environmental problems from the disposal of
sewage sludge in Greece. Int J Environ Res 2000;10:77–83.
[12] Moore PG. Sewage sludge: ‘all at sea’ no more, just up the proverbial without a
comparative risk assessment. Aquat Conserv 2003;13:1–4.
[13] Bondarczuk K, Markowicz A, Piotrowska-Seget Z. The urgent need for risk
assessment on the antibiotic resistance spread via sewage sludge land application.
Environ Int 2016;87:49–55.
[14] Włodarczyk-Makuła M. Persistence of two-, three- and four-ring of PAHs in
sewage sludge deposited in different light conditions. Desalin Water Treat
2016;57:1184–99.
S.S.A. Syed-Hassan et al.
[15] Racz L, Goel RK. Fate and removal of estrogens in municipal wastewater. J
Environ Monit 2010;12:58–70.
[16] Verlicchi P, Zambello E. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in untreated
and treated sewage sludge: occurrence and environmental risk in the case of
application on soil — a critical review. Sci Total Environ 2015;538:750–67.
[17] Nieto A, Borrull F, Pocurull E, Marcé RM. Occurrence of pharmaceuticals and
hormones in sewage sludge. Environ Toxicol Chem 2010;29:1484–9.
[18] Chen P, Xie Q, Addy M, Zhou W, Liu Y, Wang Y, Cheng Y, Li K, Ruan R. Utilization
of municipal solid and liquid wastes for bioenergy and bioproducts production.
Bioresour Technol 2016;215:163–72.
[19] Ferrasse JH, Seyssiecq I, Roche N. Thermal gasification: a feasible solution for
sewage sludge valorisation?. Chem Eng Technol 2003;26:941–5.
[20] Samolada MC, Zabaniotou AA. Comparative assessment of municipal sewage
sludge incineration, gasification and pyrolysis for a sustainable sludge-to-energy
management in Greece. Waste Manag 2014;34:411–20.
[21] Rulkens W. Sewage sludge as a biomass resource for the production of energy:
overview and assessment of the various options. Energy Fuels 2008;22:9–15.
[22] Cao Y, Pawłowski A. Life cycle assessment of two emerging sewage sludge-to-
energy systems: evaluating energy and greenhouse gas emissions implications.
Bioresour Technol 2013;127:81–91.
[23] Jiang L-b, Yuan X-z, Li H, Chen X-h, Xiao Z-h, Liang J, Leng L-j, Guo Z, Zeng G-
m. Co-pelletization of sewage sludge and biomass: thermogravimetric analysis and
ash deposits. Fuel Process Technol 2016;145:109–15.
[24] Bridle TR, Pritchard D. Energy and nutrient recovery from sewage sludge via
pyrolysis. Water Sci Technol 2004;50:169–75.
[25] Mulchandani A, Westerhoff P. Recovery opportunities for metals and energy from
sewage sludges. Bioresour Technol 2016;215:215–26.
[26] Donatello S, Cheeseman CR. Recycling and recovery routes for incinerated sewage
sludge ash (ISSA): a review. Waste Manag 2013;33:2328–40.
[27] Vassilev SV, Baxter D, Andersen LK, Vassileva CG, Morgan TJ. An overview of the
organic and inorganic phase composition of biomass. Fuel 2012;94:1–33.
[28] Cantinho P, Matos M, Trancoso MA, dos Santos MMC. Behaviour and fate of
metals in urban wastewater treatment plants: a review. Int J Environ Sci Technol
2016;13:359–86.
[29] Pathak A, Dastidar MG, Sreekrishnan TR. Bioleaching of heavy metals from
sewage sludge: a review. J Environ Manag 2009;90:2343–53.
[30] Zhang L, Xu C, Champagne P, Mabee W. Overview of current biological and
thermo-chemical treatment technologies for sustainable sludge management.
Waste Manag Res 2014;32:586–600.
[31] Yoshida H, Christensen TH, Scheutz C. Life cycle assessment of sewage sludge
management: a review. Waste Manag Res 2013;31:1083–101.
[32] Vesilind PA. The role of water in sludge dewatering. Water Environ Res
1994;66:4–11.
[33] Magdziarz A, Dalai AK, Koziński JA. Chemical composition, character and
reactivity of renewable fuel ashes. Fuel 2016;176:135–45.
[34] Manara P, Zabaniotou A. Towards sewage sludge based biofuels via thermo-
chemical conversion – a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:2566–82.
[35] Harrison EZ, Oakes SR, Hysell M, Hay A. Organic chemicals in sewage sludges. Sci
Total Environ 2006;367:481–97.
[36] Han H, Hu S, Syed-Hassan SSA, Xiao Y, Wang Y, Xu J, Jiang L, Su S, Xiang J.
Effects of reaction conditions on the emision behaviors of arsenic, cadmium and
lead during sewage sludge pyrolysis. Bioresour Technol 2017;236:138–45.
[37] Tytła M, Widziewicz K, Zielewicz E. Heavy metals and its chemical speciation in
sewage sludge at different stages of processing. Environ Technol
2016;37:899–908.
[38] Spanos T, Ene A, Styliani Patronidou C, Xatzixristou C. Temporal variability of
sewage sludge heavy metal content from Greek wastewater treatment plants. Ecol
Chem Eng S 2016;23:271–83.
[39] Chan WP, Wang J-Y. Comprehensive characterisation of sewage sludge for
thermochemical conversion processes – based on Singapore survey. Waste Manag
2016;54:131–42.
[40] Novak JT. Dewatering of sewage sludge. Dry Technol 2006;24:1257–62.
[41] Vaxelaire J, Cézac P. Moisture distribution in activated sludges: a review. Water
Res 2004;38:2215–30.
[42] Lowe P. Developments in the thermal drying of sewage sludge. Water Environ J
1995;9:306–16.
[43] Griffith DR, Barnes RT, Raymond PA. Inputs of fossil carbon from wastewater
treatment plants to U.S. rivers and oceans. Environ Sci Technol 2009;43:5647–51.
[44] Cano R, Pérez-Elvira SI, Fdz-Polanco F. Energy feasibility study of sludge
pretreatments: a review. Appl Energy 2015;149:176–85.
[45] Folgueras MB, Alonso M, Folgueras JR. Effect of sludge addition to coal on Na, K
and S volatilisation in ashing process and ash fusibility. Fuel Process Technol
2015;138:714–23.
[46] García G, Arauzo J, Gonzalo A, Sánchez JL, Ábrego J. Influence of feedstock
composition in fluidised bed co-gasification of mixtures of lignite, bituminous coal
and sewage sludge. Chem Eng J 2013;222:345–52.
[47] Zhou C, Liu G, Wang X, Qi C, Hu Y. Combustion characteristics and arsenic
retention during co-combustion of agricultural biomass and bituminous coal.
Bioresour Technol 2016;214:218–24.
[48] Tsuji H, Tanno K, Nakajima A, Yamamoto A, Shirai H. Hydrogen sulfide formation
characteristics of pulverized coal combustion – evaluation of blended combustion
of two bituminous coals. Fuel 2015;158:523–9.
[49] Lemaire R, Bruhier C, Menage D, Therssen E, Seers P. Study of the high heating
rate devolatilization of a pulverized bituminous coal under oxygen-containing
atmospheres. J Anal Appl Pyrol 2015;114:22–31.
[50] Lu X, Norbeck JM, Park CS. Production of Fischer–Tropsch fuels and electricity
909
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80 (2017) 888–913
from bituminous coal based on steam hydrogasification. Energy 2012;48:525–31.
[51] Clements BR, Zhuang Q, Pomalis R, Wong J, Campbell D. Ignition characteristics
of co-fired mixtures of petroleum coke and bituminous coal in a pilot-scale
furnace. Fuel 2012;97:315–20.
[52] Abreu P, Casaca C, Costa M. Ash deposition during the co-firing of bituminous
coal with pine sawdust and olive stones in a laboratory furnace. Fuel
2010;89:4040–8.
[53] Areeprasert C, Scala F, Coppola A, Urciuolo M, Chirone R, Chanyavanich P,
Yoshikawa K. Fluidized bed co-combustion of hydrothermally treated paper sludge
with two coals of different rank. Fuel Process Technol 2016;144:230–8.
[54] Gil MV, Casal D, Pevida C, Pis JJ, Rubiera F. Thermal behaviour and kinetics of
coal/biomass blends during co-combustion. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:5601–8.
[55] Haykiri-Acma H, Yaman S. Interaction between biomass and different rank coals
during co-pyrolysis. Renew Energy 2010;35:288–92.
[56] Buratti C, Barbanera M, Bartocci P, Fantozzi F. Thermogravimetric analysis of the
behavior of sub-bituminous coal and cellulosic ethanol residue during co-
combustion. Bioresour Technol 2015;186:154–62.
[57] Krerkkaiwan S, Fushimi C, Tsutsumi A, Kuchonthara P. Synergetic effect during
co-pyrolysis/gasification of biomass and sub-bituminous coal. Fuel Process
Technol 2013;115:11–8.
[58] Masnadi MS, Habibi R, Kopyscinski J, Hill JM, Bi X, Lim CJ, Ellis N, Grace JR.
Fuel characterization and co-pyrolysis kinetics of biomass and fossil fuels. Fuel
2014;117(Part B):1204–14.
[59] Vamvuka D, Sfakiotakis S, Saxioni S. Evaluation of urban wastes as promising co-
fuels for energy production – a TG/MS study. Fuel 2015;147:170–83.
[60] Karampinis E, Vamvuka D, Sfakiotakis S, Grammelis P, Itskos G, Kakaras E.
Comparative study of combustion properties of five energy crops and Greek
lignite. Energy Fuels 2012;26:869–78.
[61] Zhan X, Jia J, Zhou Z, Wang F. Influence of blending methods on the co-
gasification reactivity of petroleum coke and lignite. Energy Convers Manag
2011;52:1810–4.
[62] Yıldız Z, Uzun H, Ceylan S, Topcu Y. Application of artificial neural networks to co-
combustion of hazelnut husk–lignite coal blends. Bioresour Technol
2016;200:42–7.
[63] Yu MM, Masnadi MS, Grace JR, Bi XT, Lim CJ, Li Y. Co-gasification of biosolids
with biomass: thermogravimetric analysis and pilot scale study in a bubbling
fluidized bed reactor. Bioresour Technol 2015;175:51–8.
[64] Campoy M, Gómez-Barea A, Ollero P, Nilsson S. Gasification of wastes in a pilot
fluidized bed gasifier. Fuel Process Technol 2014;121:63–9.
[65] Seggiani M, Vitolo S, Puccini M, Bellini A. Cogasification of sewage sludge in an
updraft gasifier. Fuel 2012;93:486–91.
[66] Kar Y. Co-pyrolysis of walnut shell and tar sand in a fixed-bed reactor. Bioresour
Technol 2011;102:9800–5.
[67] Hua M-Y, Li B-X. Co-pyrolysis characteristics of the sugarcane bagasse and
Enteromorpha prolifera. Energy Convers Manag 2016;120:238–46.
[68] Atienza-Martínez M, Fonts I, Lázaro L, Ceamanos J, Gea G. Fast pyrolysis of
torrefied sewage sludge in a fluidized bed reactor. Chem Eng J 2015;259:467–80.
[69] Folgueras MB, Alonso M, Díaz RM. Influence of sewage sludge treatment on
pyrolysis and combustion of dry sludge. Energy 2013;55:426–35.
[70] Cao J-P, Li L-Y, Morishita K, Xiao X-B, Zhao X-Y, Wei X-Y, Takarada T. Nitrogen
transformations during fast pyrolysis of sewage sludge. Fuel 2013;104:1–6.
[71] Azuara M, Fonts I, Barcelona P, Murillo MB, Gea G. Study of catalytic post-
treatment of the vapours from sewage sludge pyrolysis by means of γ-Al2O3. Fuel
2013;107:113–21.
[72] Nipattummakul N, Ahmed II, Kerdsuwan S, Gupta AK. Hydrogen and syngas
production from sewage sludge via steam gasification. Int J Hydrog Energy
2010;35:11738–45.
[73] Xu WY, Wu D. Comprehensive utilization of the pyrolysis products from sewage
sludge. Environ Technol 2015;36:1731–44.
[74] Chen H, Zhai Y, Xu B, Xiang B, Zhu L, Qiu L, Liu X, Li C, Zeng G. Characterization
of bio-oil and biochar from high-temperature pyrolysis of sewage sludge. Environ
Technol 2015;36:470–8.
[75] Alvarez J, Amutio M, Lopez G, Barbarias I, Bilbao J, Olazar M. Sewage sludge
valorization by flash pyrolysis in a conical spouted bed reactor. Chem Eng J
2015;273:173–83.
[76] Pedroza MM, Sousa JF, Vieira GEG, Bezerra MBD. Characterization of the
products from the pyrolysis of sewage sludge in 1 kg/h rotating cylinder reactor. J
Anal Appl Pyrol 2014;105:108–15.
[77] Gil-Lalaguna N, Sánchez JL, Murillo MB, Rodríguez E, Gea G. Air–steam
gasification of sewage sludge in a fluidized bed. Influence of some operating
conditions. Chem Eng J 2014;248:373–82.
[78] Debono O, Villot A. Nitrogen products and reaction pathway of nitrogen
compounds during the pyrolysis of various organic wastes. J Anal Appl Pyrol
2015;114:222–34.
[79] Niu X, Shen L, Jiang S, Gu H, Xiao J. Combustion performance of sewage sludge
in chemical looping combustion with bimetallic Cu–Fe oxygen carrier. Chem Eng
J 2016;294:185–92.
[80] Huang X, Cao J-P, Shi P, Zhao X-Y, Feng X-B, Zhao Y-P, Fan X, Wei X-Y,
Takarada T. Influences of pyrolysis conditions in the production and chemical
composition of the bio-oils from fast pyrolysis of sewage sludge. J Anal Appl Pyrol
2014;110:353–62.
[81] Liu Z, Guo Y, Balasubramanian R, Hoekman SK. Mechanical stability and
combustion characteristics of hydrochar/lignite blend pellets. Fuel
2016;164:59–65.
[82] Onay O, Koca H. Determination of synergetic effect in co-pyrolysis of lignite and
waste tyre. Fuel 2015;150:169–74.
S.S.A. Syed-Hassan et al.
[83] He Q, Wan K, Hoadley A, Yeasmin H, Miao Z. TG–GC–MS study of volatile
products from Shengli lignite pyrolysis. Fuel 2015;156:121–8.
[84] Xu C, Hu S, Xiang J, Zhang L, Sun L, Shuai C, Chen Q, He L, Edreis EMA.
Interaction and kinetic analysis for coal and biomass co-gasification by TG–FTIR.
Bioresour Technol 2014;154:313–21.
[85] Van de Velden M, Dewil R, Baeyens J, Josson L, Lanssens P. The distribution of
heavy metals during fluidized bed combustion of sludge (FBSC). J Hazard Mater
2008;151:96–102.
[86] Meier C, Voegelin A, del Real AP, Sarre G, Mueller CR, Kaegi R. Transformation of
silver nanoparticles in sewage sludge during incineration. Environ Sci Technol
2016;50:3503–10.
[87] Lester JN, Sterritt RM, Kirk PWW. Significance and behaviour of heavy metals in
waste water treatment processes II. Sludge treatment and disposal. Sci Total
Environ 1983;30:45–83.
[88] Dąbrowska L. Speciation of heavy metals in non-volatile solids of sewage sludge.
Desalin Water Treat 2014;52:3761–6.
[89] Fuentes A, Lloréns M, Sáez J, Aguilar MI, Ortuño JF, Meseguer VF. Phytotoxicity
and heavy metals speciation of stabilised sewage sludges. J Hazard Mater
2004;108:161–9.
[90] Álvarez EA, Mochón MC, Sánchez JCJ, Rodrı́guez MT. Heavy metal extractable
forms in sludge from wastewater treatment plants. Chemosphere
2002;47:765–75.
[91] Wang C, Hu X, Chen M-L, Wu Y-H. Total concentrations and fractions of Cd, Cr,
Pb, Cu, Ni and Zn in sewage sludge from municipal and industrial wastewater
treatment plants. J Hazard Mater 2005;119:245–9.
[92] Lester JN. Significance and behaviour of heavy metals in waste water treatment
processes I. Sewage treatment and effluent discharge. Sci Total Environ
1983;30:1–44.
[93] Lester JN. Heavy metals in wastewater and sludge treatment processes volume 1:
sources, analysis and legislation. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Pres; 1987.
[94] Lester JN. Heavy metals in wastewater and sludge treatment processes volume II:
treatment and disposal. Boca Raton, FL: CRCPress; 1987.
[95] Vassilev SV, Vassileva CG, Baxter D. Trace element concentrations and associa-
tions in some biomass ashes. Fuel 2014;129:292–313.
[96] Ketris MP, Yudovich YE. Estimations of Clarkes for Carbonaceous biolithes: world
averages for trace element contents in black shales and coals. Int J Coal Geol
2009;78:135–48.
[97] Finkelman R. Abundance, source, and mode of occurrence of the inorganic
constituents in coal. In: Kural O, editor. Coal: resources, properties, utilization,
pollution. Istanbul: Istanbul Technical University; 1994. p. 115–25.
[98] Cohen D, Dunn CE. Form and distribution of major and trace elements in biomass
for power generation [Research report 48 of the cooperative research centre for
coal in sustainable development Pullenvale, Qld]. QCAT Technology Transfer
Centre; 2004. p. 66.
[99] Westerhoff P, Lee S, Yang Y, Gordon GW, Hristovski K, Halden RU, Herckes P.
Characterization, recovery opportunities, and valuation of metals in municipal
sludges from U.S. wastewater treatment plants nationwide. Environ Sci Technol
2015;49:9479–88.
[100] Reed GP, Paterson NP, Zhuo Y, Dugwell DR, Kandiyoti R. Trace element
distribution in sewage sludge gasification: source and temperature effects. Energy
Fuels 2005;19:298–304.
[101] Folgueras MB, Dı́az RM, Xiberta J, Prieto I. Volatilisation of trace elements for
coal–sewage sludge blends during their combustion. Fuel 2003;82:1939–48.
[102] Adar E, Karatop B, İnce M, Bilgili MS. Comparison of methods for sustainable
energy management with sewage sludge in Turkey based on SWOT-FAHP
analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;62:429–40.
[103] Cao Y, Pawłowski A. Sewage sludge-to-energy approaches based on anaerobic
digestion and pyrolysis: brief overview and energy efficiency assessment. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:1657–65.
[104] Houillon G, Jolliet O. Life cycle assessment of processes for the treatment of
wastewater urban sludge: energy and global warming analysis. J Clean Prod
2005;13:287–99.
[105] Kan T, Strezov V, Evans TJ. Lignocellulosic biomass pyrolysis: a review of product
properties and effects of pyrolysis parameters. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;57:1126–40.
[106] Damartzis T, Zabaniotou A. Thermochemical conversion of biomass to second
generation biofuels through integrated process design —a review. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2011;15:366–78.
[107] Sikarwar VS, Zhao M, Clough P, Yao J, Zhong X, Memon MZ, Shah N, Anthony
EJ, Fennell PS. An overview of advances in biomass gasification. Energy Environ
Sci 2016.
[108] Li M, Xiao B, Wang X, Liu J. Consequences of sludge composition on combustion
performance derived from thermogravimetry analysis. Waste Manag
2015;35:141–7.
[109] Urban DL, Antal MJ. Study of the kinetics of sewage sludge pyrolysis using DSC
and TGA. Fuel 1982;61:799–806.
[110] Conesa JA, Marcilla A, Moral R, Moreno-Caselles J, Perez-Espinosa A. Evolution
of gases in the primary pyrolysis of different sewage sludges. Thermochim Acta
1998;313:63–73.
[111] Conesa JA, Marcilla A, Prats D, Rodriguez-Pastor M. Kinetic study of the pyrolysis
of sewage sludge. Waste Manag Res 1997;15:293–305.
[112] Font R, Fullana A, Conesa JA, Llavador F. Analysis of the pyrolysis and
combustion of different sewage sludges by TG. J Anal Appl Pyrol 2001;58–
59:927–41.
[113] Magdziarz A, Werle S. Analysis of the combustion and pyrolysis of dried sewage
sludge by TGA and MS. Waste Manag 2014;34:174–9.
910
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80 (2017) 888–913
[114] Shao J, Yan R, Chen H, Wang B, Lee DH, Liang DT. Pyrolysis characteristics and
kinetics of sewage sludge by thermogravimetry Fourier transform infrared
analysis. Energy Fuels 2008;22:38–45.
[115] Nowicki L, Ledakowicz S. Comprehensive characterization of thermal decom-
position of sewage sludge by TG–MS. J Anal Appl Pyrol 2014;110:220–8.
[116] Gao N, Li J, Qi B, Li A, Duan Y, Wang Z. Thermal analysis and products
distribution of dried sewage sludge pyrolysis. J Anal Appl Pyrol 2014;105:43–8.
[117] Alvarez J, Amutio M, Lopez G, Bilbao J, Olazar M. Fast co-pyrolysis of sewage
sludge and lignocellulosic biomass in a conical spouted bed reactor. Fuel
2015;159:810–8.
[118] Calvo LF, Otero M, Jenkins BM, Garcı́a AI, Morán A. Heating process char-
acteristics and kinetics of sewage sludge in different atmospheres. Thermochim
Acta 2004;409:127–35.
[119] Caballero JA, Front R, Marcilla A, Conesa JA. Characterization of sewage sludges
by primary and secondary pyrolysis. J Anal Appl Pyrol 1997;40:433–50.
[120] de Andrés JM, Roche E, Narros A, Rodríguez ME. Characterisation of tar from
sewage sludge gasification. Influence of gasifying conditions: temperature,
throughput, steam and use of primary catalysts. Fuel 2016;180:116–26.
[121] Alvarez J, Lopez G, Amutio M, Artetxe M, Barbarias I, Arregi A, Bilbao J, Olazar
M. Characterization of the bio-oil obtained by fast pyrolysis of sewage sludge in a
conical spouted bed reactor. Fuel Process Technol 2016;149:169–75.
[122] Fonts I, Gea G, Azuara M, Ábrego J, Arauzo J. Sewage sludge pyrolysis for liquid
production: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:2781–805.
[123] Park ES, Kang BS, Kim JS. Recovery of oils with high caloric value and low
contaminant content by pyrolysis of digested and dried sewage sludge containing
polymer flocculants. Energy Fuels 2008;22:1335–40.
[124] Fonts I, Juan A, Gea G, Murillo MB, Sanchez JL. Sewage sludge pyrolysis in
fluidized bed, 1: influence of operational conditions on the product distribution.
Ind Eng Chem Res 2008;47:5376–85.
[125] Shen L, Zhang D-K. An experimental study of oil recovery from sewage sludge by
low-temperature pyrolysis in a fluidised-bed. Fuel 2003;82:465–72.
[126] Stammbach MR, Kraaz B, Hagenbucher R, Richarz W. Pyrolysis of sewage sludge
in a fluidized bed. Energy Fuels 1989;3:255–9.
[127] Dai Q, Jiang X, Jiang Y, Jin Y, Wang F, Chi Y, Yan J. Formation of PAHs during
the pyrolysis of dry sewage sludge. Fuel 2014;130:92–9.
[128] Fuentes-Cano D, Gómez-Barea A, Nilsson S, Ollero P. The influence of tempera-
ture and steam on the yields of tar and light hydrocarbon compounds during
devolatilization of dried sewage sludge in a fluidized bed. Fuel 2013;108:341–50.
[129] Pokorna E, Postelmans N, Jenicek P, Schreurs S, Carleer R, Yperman J. Study of
bio-oils and solids from flash pyrolysis of sewage sludges. Fuel 2009;88:1344–50.
[130] Park HJ, Heo HS, Park Y-K, Yim J-H, Jeon J-K, Park J, Ryu C, Kim S-S. Clean
bio-oil production from fast pyrolysis of sewage sludge: effects of reaction
conditions and metal oxide catalysts. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:S83–S85.
[131] Inguanzo M, Domı́nguez A, Menéndez JA, Blanco CG, Pis JJ. On the pyrolysis of
sewage sludge: the influence of pyrolysis conditions on solid, liquid and gas
fractions. J Anal Appl Pyrol 2002;63:209–22.
[132] Shao J, Yan R, Chen H, Yang H, Lee DH. Catalytic effect of metal oxides on
pyrolysis of sewage sludge. Fuel Process Technol 2010;91:1113–8.
[133] Liu G, Mba Wright M, Zhao Q, Brown RC. Hydrocarbon and ammonia production
from catalytic pyrolysis of sewage sludge with acid pretreatment. ACS Sustain
Chem Eng 2016;4:1819–26.
[134] Chen Z, Hu M, Cui B, Liu S, Guo D, Xiao B. The effect of bioleaching on sewage
sludge pyrolysis. Waste Manag 2016;48:383–8.
[135] Mahadevan R, Adhikari S, Shakya R, Wang K, Dayton D, Lehrich M, Taylor SE.
Effect of alkali and alkaline earth metals on in-situ catalytic fast pyrolysis of
lignocellulosic biomass: a microreactor study. Energy Fuels 2016;30:3045–56.
[136] Hu S, Jiang L, Wang Y, Su S, Sun L, Xu B, He L, Xiang J. Effects of inherent alkali
and alkaline earth metallic species on biomass pyrolysis at different temperatures.
Bioresour Technol 2015;192:23–30.
[137] Liu H, Chen T, Chang D, Chen D, Kong D, Zou X, Frost RL. Effect of preparation
method of palygorskite-supported Fe and Ni catalysts on catalytic cracking of
biomass tar. Chem Eng J 2012;188:108–12.
[138] Piskorz J, Scott DS, Westerberg IB. Flash pyrolysis of sewage sludge. Ind Eng
Chem Res Process Des Dev 1986;25:265–70.
[139] Zhang B, Xiong S, Xiao B, Yu D, Jia X. Mechanism of wet sewage sludge pyrolysis
in a tubular furnace. Int J Hydrog Energy 2011;36:355–63.
[140] Dominguez A, Menendez JA, Pis JJ. Hydrogen rich fuel gas production from the
pyrolysis of wet sewage sludge at high temperature. J Anal Appl Pyrol
2006;77:127–32.
[141] Fonts I, Juan A, Gea G, Murillo MB, Arauzo J. Sewage sludge pyrolysis in a
fluidized bed, 2: influence of operating conditions on some physicochemical
properties of the liquid product. Ind Eng Chem Res 2009;48:2179–87.
[142] Oasmaa A, Sundqvist T, Kuoppala E, Garcia-Perez M, Solantausta Y, Lindfors C,
Paasikallio V. Controlling the phase stability of biomass fast pyrolysis bio-oils.
Energy Fuels 2015;29:4373–81.
[143] Karayildirim T, Yanik J, Yuksel M, Bockhorn H. Characterisation of products from
pyrolysis of waste sludges. Fuel 2006;85:1498–508.
[144] Lehto J, Oasmaa A, Solantausta Y, Kytö M, Chiaramonti D. Review of fuel oil
quality and combustion of fast pyrolysis bio-oils from lignocellulosic biomass.
Appl Energy 2014;116:178–90.
[145] ASTM D7544-12 standard specification for pyrolysis liquid biofuel. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International; 2012.
[146] Gil-Lalaguna N, Fonts I, Gea G, Murillo MB, Lazaro L. Reduction of water content
in sewage sludge pyrolysis liquid by selective online condensation of the vapors.
Energy Fuels 2010;24:6555–64.
[147] Kistler RC, Widmer F, Brunner PH. Behavior of chromium, nickel, copper, zinc,
S.S.A. Syed-Hassan et al.
cadmium, mercury, and lead during the pyrolysis of sewage sludge. Environ Sci
Technol 1987;21:704–8.
[148] Parnaudeau V, Dignac M-F. The organic matter composition of various waste-
water sludges and their neutral detergent fractions as revealed by pyrolysis-GC/
MS. J Anal Appl Pyrol 2007;78:140–52.
[149] Fonts I, Azuara M, Gea G, Murillo MB. Study of the pyrolysis liquids obtained
from different sewage sludge. J Anal Appl Pyrol 2009;85:184–91.
[150] Fonts I, Kuoppala E, Oasmaa A. Physicochemical properties of product liquid
from pyrolysis of sewage sludge. Energy Fuels 2009;23:4121–8.
[151] Trinh TN, Jensen PA, Dam-Johansen K, Knudsen NO, Sorensen HR. Influence of
the pyrolysis temperature on sewage sludge product distribution, bio-oil, and char
properties. Energy Fuels 2013;27:1419–27.
[152] Czernik S, Bridgwater AV. Overview of applications of biomass fast pyrolysis oil.
Energy Fuels 2004;18:590–8.
[153] Midilli A, Dogru M, Howarth CR, Ling MJ, Ayhan T. Combustible gas production
from sewage sludge with a downdraft gasifier. Energy Convers Manag
2001;42:157–72.
[154] Manya JJ, Sanchez JL, Gonzalo A, Arauzo J. Air gasification of dried sewage
sludge in a fluidized bed: effect of the operating conditions and in-bed use of
alumina. Energy Fuels 2005;19:629–36.
[155] Manyà JJ, Aznar M, Sánchez JL, Arauzo J, Murillo MB. Further experiments on
sewage sludge air gasification: influence of the nonstationary period on the overall
results. Ind Eng Chem Res 2006;45:7313–20.
[156] Aznar M, Manya JJ, Garcia G, Sanchez JL, Murillo MB. Influence of freeboard
temperature, fluidization velocity, and particle size on tar production and
composition during the air gasification of sewage sludge. Energy Fuels
2008;22:2840–50.
[157] Mun T-Y, Kang B-S, Kim J-S. Production of a producer gas with high heating
values and less tar from dried sewage sludge through air gasification using a two-
stage gasifier and activated carbon. Energy Fuels 2009;23:3268–76.
[158] Mun T-Y, Kim J-W, Kim J-S. Air gasification of dried sewage sludge in a two-stage
gasifier: part 1. the effects and reusability of additives on the removal of tar and
hydrogen production. Int J Hydrog Energy 2013;38:5226–34.
[159] Werle S, Dudziak M. Gaseous fuels production from dried sewage sludge via air
gasification. Waste Manag Res 2014;32:601–7.
[160] Chun YN, Ji DW, Yoshikawa K. Pyrolysis and gasification characterization of
sewage sludge for high quality gas and char production. J Mech Sci Technol
2013;27:263–72.
[161] Li H, Chen Z, Huo C, Hu M, Guo D, Xiao B. Effect of bioleaching on hydrogen-rich
gas production by steam gasification of sewage sludge. Energy Convers Manag
2015;106:1212–8.
[162] Lee U, Dong J, Chung JN. Production of useful energy from solid waste materials
by steam gasification. Int J Energy Res 2016;40:1474–88.
[163] Nipattummakul N, Ahmed I, Kerdsuwan S, Gupta AK. High temperature steam
gasification of wastewater sludge. Appl Energy 2010;87:3729–34.
[164] de Andrés JM, Narros A, Rodríguez ME. Air-steam gasification of sewage sludge in
a bubbling bed reactor: effect of alumina as a primary catalyst. Fuel Process
Technol 2011;92:433–40.
[165] Roche E, de Andrés JM, Narros A, Rodríguez ME. Air and air-steam gasification of
sewage sludge. The influence of dolomite and throughput in tar production and
composition. Fuel 2014;115:54–61.
[166] Nilsson S, Gómez-Barea A, Ollero P. Gasification of char from dried sewage sludge
in fluidized bed: reaction rate in mixtures of CO2 and H2O. Fuel 2013;105:764–8.
[167] Choi Y-K, Cho M-H, Kim J-S. Steam/oxygen gasification of dried sewage sludge in
a two-stage gasifier: effects of the steam to fuel ratio and ash of the activated
carbon on the production of hydrogen and tar removal. Energy 2015;91:160–7.
[168] Kwon EE, Yi H, Kwon H-H. Thermo-chemical process with sewage sludge by
using CO2. J Environ Manag 2013;128:435–40.
[169] Dogru M, Midilli A, Howarth CR. Gasification of sewage sludge using a throated
downdraft gasifier and uncertainty analysis. Fuel Process Technol 2002;75:55–82.
[170] Nilsson S, Gómez-Barea A, Cano DF. Gasification reactivity of char from dried
sewage sludge in a fluidized bed. Fuel 2012;92:346–53.
[171] Inguanzo M, Menéndez JA, Fuente E, Pis JJ. Reactivity of pyrolyzed sewage
sludge in air and CO2. J Anal Appl Pyrol 2001;58–59:943–54.
[172] Urych B, Smoliński A. Kinetics of sewage sludge pyrolysis and air gasification of its
chars. Energy Fuels 2016;30:4869–78.
[173] Nowicki L, Markowski M. Gasification of pyrolysis chars from sewage sludge. Fuel
2015;143:476–83.
[174] Scott SA, Davidson JF, Dennis JS, Fennell PS, Hayhurst AN. The rate of
gasification by CO2 of chars from waste. Proc Combust Inst 2005;30:2151–9.
[175] Bridgwater AV. Renewable fuels and chemicals by thermal processing of biomass.
Chem Eng J 2003;91:87–102.
[176] Arjharn W, Hinsui T, Liplap P, Raghavan GSV. Evaluation of an energy
production system from sewage sludge using a pilot-scale downdraft gasifier.
Energy Fuels 2013;27:229–36.
[177] Seggiani M, Puccini M, Raggio G, Vitolo S. Effect of sewage sludge content on gas
quality and solid residues produced by cogasification in an updraft gasifier. Waste
Manag 2012;32:1826–34.
[178] Kim M, Lee Y, Park J, Ryu C, Ohm T-I. Partial oxidation of sewage sludge
briquettes in a updraft fixed bed. Waste Manag 2016;49:204–11.
[179] Warnecke R. Gasification of biomass: comparison of fixed bed and fluidized bed
gasifier. Biomass- Bioenergy 2000;18:489–97.
[180] McKendry P. Energy production from biomass (part 3): gasification technologies.
Bioresour Technol 2002;83:55–63.
[181] Ruiz JA, Juárez MC, Morales MP, Muñoz P, Mendívil MA. Biomass gasification for
electricity generation: review of current technology barriers. Renew Sustain
911
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80 (2017) 888–913
Energy Rev 2013;18:174–83.
[182] Molino A, Chianese S, Musmarra D. Biomass gasification technology: the state of
the art overview. J Energy Chem 2016;25:10–25.
[183] de Andrés JM, Narros A, Rodríguez ME. Behaviour of dolomite, olivine and
alumina as primary catalysts in air–steam gasification of sewage sludge. Fuel
2011;90:521–7.
[184] Cao J-P, Huang X, Zhao X-Y, Wang B-S, Meesuk S, Sato K, Wei X-Y, Takarada T.
Low-temperature catalytic gasification of sewage sludge-derived volatiles to
produce clean H2-rich syngas over a nickel loaded on lignite char. Int J Hydrog
Energy 2014;39:9193–9.
[185] Garcia G, Monzon A, Bimbela F, Sanchez JL, Abrego J. Desulfurization and
catalytic gas cleaning in fluidized-bed co-gasification of sewage sludge-coal blends.
Energy Fuels 2013;27:2846–56.
[186] Devi L, Ptasinski KJ, Janssen FJJG. A review of the primary measures for tar
elimination in biomass gasification processes. Biomass- Bioenergy
2003;24:125–40.
[187] Shen Y, Yoshikawa K. Recent progresses in catalytic tar elimination during
biomass gasification or pyrolysis — a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2013;21:371–92.
[188] Abu El-Rub Z, Bramer EA, Brem G. Review of catalysts for tar elimination in
biomass gasification processes. Ind Eng Chem Res 2004;43:6911–9.
[189] Woolcock PJ, Brown RC. A review of cleaning technologies for biomass-derived
syngas. Biomass- Bioenergy 2013;52:54–84.
[190] Dote Y, Hayashi T, Suzuki A, Ogi T. Analysis of oil derived from liquefaction of
sewage sludge. Fuel 1992;71:1071–3.
[191] Kienhuis PGM, Geerdink RB. Liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectro-
metric analysis of surface and waste water with atmospheric pressure chemical
ionisation: II. Applications. TrAC Trends Anal Chem 2000;19:460–74.
[192] Merino I, Arévalo LF, Romero F. Preparation and characterization of ceramic
products by thermal treatment of sewage sludge ashes mixed with different
additives. Waste Manag 2007;27:1829–44.
[193] Li P-S, Hu Y, Yu W, Yue Y-N, Xu Q, Hu S, Hu N-S, Yang J. Investigation of sulfur
forms and transformation during the co-combustion of sewage sludge and coal
using x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. J Hazard Mater 2009;167:1126–32.
[194] Liu S, Wei M, Qiao Y, Yang Z, Gui B, Yu Y, Xu M. Release of organic sulfur as
sulfur-containing gases during low temperature pyrolysis of sewage sludge. Proc
Combust Inst 2015;35:2767–75.
[195] Tian F-J, Li B-Q, Chen Y, Li C-Z. Formation of NOx precursors during the
pyrolysis of coal and biomass. Part V. pyrolysis of a sewage sludge. Fuel
2002;81:2203–8.
[196] Paterson N, Zhuo Y, Dugwell D, Kandiyoti R. Formation of hydrogen cyanide and
ammonia during the gasification of sewage sludge and bituminous coal. Energy
Fuels 2005;19:1016–22.
[197] Aznar M, Anselmo MS, Manya JJ, Murillo MB. Experimental study examining the
evolution of nitrogen compounds during the gasification of dried sewage sludge.
Energy Fuels 2009;23:3236–45.
[198] Choi Y-K, Cho M-H, Kim J-S. Air gasification of dried sewage sludge in a two-stage
gasifier. Part 4: application of additives including Ni-impregnated activated
carbon for the production of a tar-free and H2-rich producer gas with a low NH3
content. Int J Hydrog Energy 2016;41:1460–7.
[199] Tian K, Liu WJ, Qian TT, Jiang H, Yu HQ. Investigation on the evolution of N-
containing organic compounds during pyrolysis of sewage sludge. Environ Sci
Technol 2014;48:10888–96.
[200] Zhang Q, Liu HF, Li WF, Xu JL, Liang QF. Behavior of phosphorus during co-
gasification of sewage sludge and coal. Energy Fuels 2012;26:2830–6.
[201] Reed GP, Dugwell DR, Kandiyoti R. Control of trace elements in gasification:
distribution to the output streams of a pilot scale gasifier. Energy Fuels
2001;15:794–800.
[202] Marrero TW, McAuley BP, Sutterlin WR, Steven Morris J, Manahan SE. Fate of
heavy metals and radioactive metals in gasification of sewage sludge. Waste
Manag 2004;24:193–8.
[203] Elled A-L, Åmand L-E, Leckner B, Andersson B-Å. The fate of trace elements in
fluidised bed combustion of sewage sludge and wood. Fuel 2007;86:843–52.
[204] Cui H, Ninomiya Y, Masui M, Mizukoshi H, Sakano T, Kanaoka C. Fundamental
behaviors in combustion of raw sewage sludge. Energy Fuels 2006;20:77–83.
[205] Ogada T, Werther J. Combustion characteristics of wet sludge in a fluidized bed:
release and combustion of the volatiles. Fuel 1996;75:617–26.
[206] Werther J, Ogada T. Sewage sludge combustion. Prog Energy Combust Sci
1999;25:55–116.
[207] Urciuolo M, Solimene R, Chirone R, Salatino P. Fluidized bed combustion and
fragmentation of wet sewage sludge. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 2012;43:97–104.
[208] Kijo-Kleczkowska A, Środa K, Otwinowski H. Study into combustion of sewage
sludge as energetic fuel. Arch Min Sci 2013;58:1085–110.
[209] Dennis JS, Lambert RJ, Milne AJ, Scott SA, Hayhurst AN. The kinetics of
combustion of chars derived from sewage sludge. Fuel 2005;84:117–26.
[210] Kijo-Kleczkowska A, Środa K, Kosowska-Golachowska M, Musiał T, Wolski K.
Mechanisms and kinetics of granulated sewage sludge combustion. Waste Manag
2015;46:459–71.
[211] Hartman M, Svoboda K, Pohorely M, Trnka O. Combustion of dried sewage sludge
in a fluidized-bed reactor. Ind Eng Chem Res 2005;44:3432–41.
[212] Lee DH, Yan R, Shao J, Liang DT. Combustion characteristics of sewage sludge in
a bench-scale fluidized bed reactor. Energy Fuels 2008;22:2–8.
[213] Han XX, Niu MT, Jiang XM, Liu JG. Combustion characteristics of sewage sludge
in a fluidized bed. Ind Eng Chem Res 2012;51:10565–70.
[214] Sänger M, Werther J, Ogada T. NOx and N2O emission characteristics from
fluidised bed combustion of semi-dried municipal sewage sludge. Fuel
S.S.A. Syed-Hassan et al.
2001;80:167–77.
[215] Magdziarz A, Wilk M, Gajek M, Nowak-Wozny D, Kopia A, Kalemba-Rec I,
Kozinski JA. Properties of ash generated during sewage sludge combustion: a
multifaceted analysis. Energy 2016;113:85–94.
[216] Hartman M, Pohořelý M, Trnka O. Behaviour of inorganic constituents of
municipal sewage sludge during fluidized-bed combustion. Chem Pap 2007:181.
[217] Marani D, Braguglia CM, Mininni G, Maccioni F. Behaviour of Cd, Cr, Mn, Ni, Pb,
and Zn in sewage sludge incineration by fluidised bed furnace. Waste Manag
2003;23:117–24.
[218] Folgueras MB, Diaz RM, Xiberta J, Alonso M. Effect of inorganic matter on trace
element behavior during combustion of coal-sewage sludge blends. Energy Fuels
2007;21:744–55.
[219] Liu J-y, Huang L, Sun S, Ning Xa, Kuo J, Sun J, Wang Y, Xie W. Thermodynamic
equilibrium calculations on Cd transformation during sewage sludge incineration.
Water Environ Res 2016;88:548–56.
[220] Li LN, Ren QQ, Li SY, Lu QG. Effect of phosphorus on the behavior of potassium
during the co-combustion of wheat straw with municipal sewage sludge. Energy
Fuels 2013;27:5923–30.
[221] Niu Y, Tan H, Hui Se. Ash-related issues during biomass combustion: alkali-
induced slagging, silicate melt-induced slagging (ash fusion), agglomeration,
corrosion, ash utilization, and related countermeasures. Prog Energy Combust Sci
2016;52:1–61.
[222] Nunes LJR, Matias JCO, Catalão JPS. Biomass combustion systems: a review on
the physical and chemical properties of the ashes. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;53:235–42.
[223] Folgueras MB, Diaz RM, Xiberta J, Garcia MP, Pis JJ. Influence of sewage sludge
addition on coal ash fusion temperatures. Energy Fuels 2005;19:2562–70.
[224] Takaoka M, Domoto S, Oshita K, Takeda N, Morisawa S. Mercury emission from
sewage sludge incineration in Japan. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag
2012;14:113–9.
[225] Liu ZZ, Qian GR, Sun Y, Xu R, Zhou JZ, Xu YF. Speciation evolutions of heavy
metals during the sewage sludge incineration in a laboratory scale incinerator.
Energy Fuels 2010;24:2470–8.
[226] Corella J, Toledo JM. Incineration of doped sludges in fluidized bed. Fate and
partitioning of six targeted heavy metals. I. Pilot plant used and results. J Hazard
Mater 2000;80:81–105.
[227] Pudasainee D, Seo Y-C, Kim J-H, Jang H-N. Fate and behavior of selected heavy
metals with mercury mass distribution in a fluidized bed sewage sludge
incinerator. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 2013;15:202–9.
[228] Gulyurtlu I, Lopes MH, Abelha P, Cabrita I, Oliveira JF. The study of partitioning
of heavy metals during fluidized bed combustion of sewage sludge and coal. J
Energy Resour Technol 2005;128:104–10.
[229] Åmand LE, Leckner B. Metal emissions from co-combustion of sewage sludge and
coal/wood in fluidized bed. Fuel 2004;83:1803–21.
[230] Lynn CJ, Dhir RK, Ghataora GS, West RP. Sewage sludge ash characteristics and
potential for use in concrete. Constr Build Mater 2015;98:767–79.
[231] Chen M, Blanc D, Gautier M, Mehu J, Gourdon R. Environmental and technical
assessments of the potential utilization of sewage sludge ashes (SSAs) as
secondary raw materials in construction. Waste Manag 2013;33:1268–75.
[232] Herzel H, Krüger O, Hermann L, Adam C. Sewage sludge ash — a promising
secondary phosphorus source for fertilizer production. Sci Total Environ
2016;542(Part B):1136–43.
[233] Havukainen J, Nguyen MT, Hermann L, Horttanainen M, Mikkilä M, Deviatkin I,
Linnanen L. Potential of phosphorus recovery from sewage sludge and manure
ash by thermochemical treatment. Waste Manag 2016;49:221–9.
[234] Batistella L, Silva V, Suzin RC, Virmond E, Althoff CA, Moreira RFPM, José HJ.
Gaseous emissions from sewage sludge combustion in a moving bed combustor.
Waste Manag 2015;46:430–9.
[235] Hou HM, Li SY, Lu QG. Gaseous emission of monocombustion of sewage sludge in
a circulating fluidized bed. Ind Eng Chem Res 2013;52:5556–62.
[236] Leckner B, Åmand LE, Lücke K, Werther J. Gaseous emissions from co-
combustion of sewage sludge and coal/wood in a fluidized bed. Fuel
2004;83:477–86.
[237] Li H, Li Y, Jin Y. Gaseous emissions from the co-combustion of wet sludge and
coal. Energy Sources A: Recov Util Environ Eff 2015;37:2064–72.
[238] Han J, Qin L, Ye W, Li Y, Liu L, Wang H, Yao H. Emission of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons from coal and sewage sludge co-combustion in a drop tube furnace.
Waste Manag Res 2012;30:875–82.
[239] Deng W, Yan J, Li X, Wang F, Chi Y, Lu S. Emission characteristics of dioxins,
furans and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons during fluidized-bed combustion of
sewage sludge. J Environ Sci 2009;21:1747–52.
[240] Shimizu T, Toyono M. Emissions of NOx and N2O during co-combustion of dried
sewage sludge with coal in a circulating fluidized bed combustor. Fuel
2007;86:2308–15.
[241] Weber R, Iino F, Imagawa T, Takeuchi M, Sakurai T, Sadakata M. Formation of
PCDF, PCDD, PCB, and PCN in de novo synthesis from PAH: mechanistic aspects
and correlation to fluidized bed incinerators. Chemosphere 2001;44:1429–38.
[242] Altarawneh M, Dlugogorski BZ, Kennedy EM, Mackie JC. Mechanisms for
formation, chlorination, dechlorination and destruction of polychlorinated di-
benzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs). Prog Energy Combust Sci
2009;35:245–74.
[243] Park JM, Lee SB, Kim JP, Kim MJ, Kwon OS, Jung DI. Behavior of PAHs from
sewage sludge incinerators in Korea. Waste Manag 2009;29:690–5.
[244] Qin LB, Han J, Zhan YQ, Chen WS, Kim H. Reduction of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbon emission by porous alumina bed material during sewage sludge
incineration. Energy Fuels 2016;30:544–50.
912
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80 (2017) 888–913
[245] Yang Z, Zhang Y, Liu L, Wang X, Zhang Z. Environmental investigation on co-
combustion of sewage sludge and coal gangue: SO2, NOx and trace elements
emissions. Waste Manag 2016;50:213–21.
[246] Folgueras MB, Marı́a Dı́az R, Xiberta J. Sulphur retention during co-combustion
of coal and sewage sludge. Fuel 2004;83:1315–22.
[247] Elled A-L, Åmand L-E, Leckner B, Andersson B-Å. Influence of phosphorus on
sulphur capture during co-firing of sewage sludge with wood or bark in a fluidised
bed. Fuel 2006;85:1671–8.
[248] Marias F, Benzaoui A, Vaxelaire J, Gelix F, Nicol F. Fate of nitrogen during
fluidized incineration of sewage sludge. Estimation of NO and N2O content in the
exhaust gas. Energy Fuels 2015;29:4534–48.
[249] Kim Y, Parker W. A technical and economic evaluation of the pyrolysis of sewage
sludge for the production of bio-oil. Bioresour Technol 2008;99:1409–16.
[250] Gil-Lalaguna N, Sánchez JL, Murillo MB, Atienza-Martínez M, Gea G. Energetic
assessment of air-steam gasification of sewage sludge and of the integration of
sewage sludge pyrolysis and air-steam gasification of char. Energy
2014;76:652–62.
[251] Groß B, Eder C, Grziwa P, Horst J, Kimmerle K. Energy recovery from sewage
sludge by means of fluidised bed gasification. Waste Manag 2008;28:1819–26.
[252] Stelmach S, Wasielewski R. Co-combustion of dried sewage sludge and coal in a
pulverized coal boiler. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 2008;10:110–5.
[253] Li H, Li Y, Jin Y. Co-combustion analyses of coal and sewage sludge with high
moisture content. Energy Sources A: Recov Util Environ Eff 2015;37:1896–903.
[254] Hong J, Xu C, Hong J, Tan X, Chen W. Life cycle assessment of sewage sludge co-
incineration in a coal-based power station. Waste Manag 2013;33:1843–52.
[255] Cartmell E, Gostelow P, Riddell-Black D, Simms N, Oakey J, Morris J, Jeffrey P,
Howsam P, Pollard SJ. Biosolids - A fuel or a waste? An integrated appraisal of
five co-combustion scenarios with policy analysis. Environ Sci Technol
2006;40:649–58.
[256] Biganzoli L, Grosso M, Giugliano M, Campolunghi M. Chemical and sewage sludge
co-incineration in a full-scale MSW incinerator: toxic trace element mass balance.
Waste Manag Res 2012;30:1081–8.
[257] Lin H, Ma X. Simulation of co-incineration of sewage sludge with municipal solid
waste in a grate furnace incinerator. Waste Manag 2012;32:561–7.
[258] Lee H-S, Bae S-K. Combustion kinetics of sewage sludge and combustible wastes.
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 2009;11:203–7.
[259] Kijo-Kleczkowska A, Środa K, Kosowska-Golachowska M, Musiał T, Wolski K.
Experimental research of sewage sludge with coal and biomass co-combustion, in
pellet form. Waste Manag 2016;53:165–81.
[260] Roy MM, Dutta A, Corscadden K, Havard P, Dickie L. Review of biosolids
management options and co-incineration of a biosolid-derived fuel. Waste Manag
2011;31:2228–35.
[261] Zabaniotou A, Theofilou C. Green energy at cement kiln in Cyprus — Use of
sewage sludge as a conventional fuel substitute. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2008;12:531–41.
[262] Akkache S, Hernández A-B, Teixeira G, Gelix F, Roche N, Ferrasse JH. Co-
gasification of wastewater sludge and different feedstock: feasibility study.
Biomass- Bioenergy 2016;89:201–9.
[263] Pinto F, Andre RN, Lopes H, Dias M, Gulyurtlu I, Cabrita I. Effect of experimental
conditions on gas quality and solids produced by sewage sludge cogasification. 2.
Sewage sludge mixed with biomass. Energy Fuels 2008;22:2314–25.
[264] Wang X, Deng S, Tan H, Adeosun A, Vujanović M, Yang F, Duić N. Synergetic
effect of sewage sludge and biomass co-pyrolysis: a combined study in thermo-
gravimetric analyzer and a fixed bed reactor. Energy Convers Manag
2016;118:399–405.
[265] Zhu X, Chen Z, Xiao B, Hu Z, Hu M, Liu C, Zhang Q. Co-pyrolysis behaviors and
kinetics of sewage sludge and pine sawdust blends under non-isothermal
conditions. J Therm Anal Calorim 2015;119:2269–79.
[266] Peng L, Wang Y, Lei Z, Cheng G. Co-gasification of wet sewage sludge and forestry
waste in situ steam agent. Bioresour Technol 2012;114:698–702.
[267] Ninomiya Y, Zhang L, Sakano T, Kanaoka C, Masui M. Transformation of mineral
and emission of particulate matters during co-combustion of coal with sewage
sludge. Fuel 2004;83:751–64.
[268] Abuşoğlu A, Özahi E, İhsan Kutlar A, Al-jaf H. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of
digested sewage sludge incineration for heat and power production. J Clean Prod
2017;142:1684–92.
[269] Aranda-Usón A, Ferreira G, López-Sabirón AM, Sastresa EL, De Guinoa AS.
Characterisation and environmental analysis of sewage sludge as secondary fuel
for cement manufacturing. Chem Eng Trans 2012;29:457–62.
[270] Perazzini H, Freire FB, Freire FB, Freire JT. Thermal treatment of solid wastes
using drying technologies: a review. Dry Technol 2016;34:39–52.
[271] Tańczuk M, Kostowski W, Karaś M. Applying waste heat recovery system in a
sewage sludge dryer – a technical and economic optimization. Energy Convers
Manag 2016;125:121–32.
[272] Li S, Li Y, Lu Q, Zhu J, Yao Y, Bao S. Integrated drying and incineration of wet
sewage sludge in combined bubbling and circulating fluidized bed units. Waste
Manag 2014;34:2561–6.
[273] Ma X-w, Weng H-x, Su M-h, Pan L. Drying sewage sludge using flue gas from
power plants in China. Environ Earth Sci 2012;65:1841–6.
[274] Lu S, Yang L, Zhou F, Wang F, Yan J, Li X, Chi Y, Cen K. Atmospheric emission
characterization of a novel sludge drying and co-combustion system. J Environ Sci
2013;25:2088–92.
[275] Bianchini A, Bonfiglioli L, Pellegrini M, Saccani C. Sewage sludge drying process
integration with a waste-to-energy power plant. Waste Manag 2015;42:159–65.
[276] Patil R, Gawande R. A review on solar tunnel greenhouse drying system. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2016;56:196–214.
S.S.A. Syed-Hassan et al.
[277] Bennamoun L. Solar drying of wastewater sludge: a review. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2012;16:1061–73.
[278] Mathioudakis VL, Kapagiannidis AG, Athanasoulia E, Paltzoglou AD, Melidis P,
Aivasidis A. Sewage sludge solar drying: experiences from the first pilot-scale
application in Greece. Dry Technol 2013;31:519–26.
[279] Hong S, Ryu C, Ko HS, Ohm T-I, Chae J-S. Process consideration of fry-drying
combined with steam compression for efficient fuel production from sewage
sludge. Appl Energy 2013;103:468–76.
[280] Shin M, Kim H, Jang D, Ohm T. Novel fry-drying method for the treatment of
sewage sludge. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 2011;13:232–9.
[281] Peregrina C, Rudolph V, Lecomte D, Arlabosse P. Immersion frying for the
thermal drying of sewage sludge: an economic assessment. J Environ Manag
2008;86:246–61.
[282] Ayol A, Durak G. Fate and effects of fry-drying application on municipal
dewatered sludge. Dry Technol 2013;31:350–8.
[283] Winkler MKH, Bennenbroek MH, Horstink FH, van Loosdrecht MCM, van de Pol
GJ. The biodrying concept: an innovative technology creating energy from sewage
sludge. Bioresour Technol 2013;147:124–9.
[284] Villegas M, Huiliñir C. Biodrying of sewage sludge: kinetics of volatile solids
degradation under different initial moisture contents and air-flow rates. Bioresour
Technol 2014;174:33–41.
[285] Huiliñir C, Villegas M. Simultaneous effect of initial moisture content and airflow
913
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80 (2017) 888–913
rate on biodrying of sewage sludge. Water Res 2015;82:118–28.
[286] Cai L, Krafft T, Chen T-B, Gao D, Wang L. Structure modification and extracellular
polymeric substances conversion during sewage sludge biodrying process.
Bioresour Technol 2016;216:414–21.
[287] Fernandez-Anez N, Garcia-Torrent J, Medic-Pejic L. Flammability properties of
thermally dried sewage sludge. Fuel 2014;134:636–43.
[288] Zhou Y, Zhang Z, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Yu Y, Ji F, Ahmad R, Dong R. A
comprehensive review on densified solid biofuel industry in China. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2016;54:1412–28.
[289] Chew JJ, Doshi V. Recent advances in biomass pretreatment – torrefaction
fundamentals and technology. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:4212–22.
[290] Poudel J, Ohm T-I, Lee S-H, Oh SC. A study on torrefaction of sewage sludge to
enhance solid fuel qualities. Waste Manag 2015;40:112–8.
[291] Atienza-Martínez M, Mastral JF, Ábrego J, Ceamanos J, Gea G. Sewage sludge
torrefaction in an auger reactor. Energy Fuels 2015;29:160–70.
[292] Atienza-Martínez M, Fonts I, Ábrego J, Ceamanos J, Gea G. Sewage sludge
torrefaction in a fluidized bed reactor. Chem Eng J 2013;222:534–45.
[293] Abrego J, Sanchez JL, Arauzo J, Fonts I, Gil-Lalaguna N, Atienza-Martinez M.
Technical and energetic assessment of a three-stage thermochemical treatment for
sewage sludge. Energy Fuels 2013;27:1026–34.
[294] Gasco G, Cueto MJ, Mendez A. The effect of acid treatment on the pyrolysis
behavior of sewage sludges. J Anal Appl Pyrol 2007;80:496–501.