Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 423–443

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

Recent developments on thermal municipal sludge pretreatment T

technologies for enhanced anaerobic digestion
Gokce Kor-Bicakcia,b, Cigdem Eskicioglua,∗
a
UBC Bioreactor Technology Group, School of Engineering, University of British Columbia Okanagan Campus, Kelowna, British Columbia, V1V 1V7, Canada
b
Istanbul Technical University, Civil Engineering Faculty, Department of Environmental Engineering, 34469, Maslak, Istanbul, Turkey

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Sludge management is still one of the most challenging issues in wastewater treatment plants due to a dramatic
Wastewater sludge increase in sludge production, high sludge disposal costs, legal constraints as well as social and environmental
Anaerobic digestion concerns. There is a great effort to develop more environmentally friendly and economical technologies for
Enhanced hydrolysis minimization of excess sludge production and converting wastewater treatment sludge from waste into a re-
Thermal pretreatment
newable resource for bioenergy recovery. Recently, among these technologies, pretreatment processes applied
Bioenergy
Resource recovery
before anaerobic sludge digestion have received a growing attention with several advantages over conventional
Full-scale applications digestion process. The main goal of the present paper is to present a state-of-the-art review of recent develop-
ments on advanced anaerobic digestion employed in municipal wastewater treatment plants. Thermal pre-
treatment technologies documented in the literature are presented extensively. The effectiveness of thermal
pretreatment methods, namely conventional, microwave and radio frequency heatings, are discussed and
compared in terms of heating principles, sludge disintegration, digester performance, and sludge rheology. The
effectiveness and practicality of the aforementioned methods at industrial-scale and some challenges associated
with the implementation at full-scale are also reviewed. Particular attention is paid to integration of combined
heat and power systems with thermal hydrolysis for achieving energy self-sufficiency in full-scale plants.
Furthermore, the municipal sludge production around the world as well as current sludge disposal and reuse
options are addressed.

1. Introduction
The unavoidable production of wastewater sludge is increasing all
over the world due to a growing population, industrialization, and ur-
banization [1]. The higher amount of sludge generation is also caused
by the implementation of more strict regulations as well as an increase
in the extent of wastewater treatment. Wastewater sludge must undergo
further treatment on site before it can be disposed to make it easily
transportable, less odorous, almost pathogen-free and in line with the
regulatory requirements that minimize the possible adverse impacts on
human health & environment as well as high sludge handling/disposal
costs [2,3].
As a common practice for sludge stabilization, anaerobic digestion
(AD) converts high-strength organic waste into bioenergy and stable
organic residues as well as reduces total mass of sludge to be disposed
thereby reducing the operational cost of sludge disposal [4]. However,
the slow and partial degradability of waste activated sludge (WAS) is
the bottleneck of conventional AD process. Different pretreatment
processes are generally applied before AD to disrupt the complex mi-
crobial sludge floc structures and hard cell walls and increase the ac-
cessibility to both extra-cellular and intra-cellular materials before
sludge is sent to AD for bioenergy generation [5–7].
Thermal pretreatment (namely heat treatment) is a well-known and
preferred sludge disintegration method before digestion process. It was
applied initially by conventional heating (CH) [8–11], and later mi-
crowave (MW) irradiation became an alternative to CH with different
aspects [12–14]. There are also recent studies using radio frequency
(RF) at the bench-scale with a prototype designed according to di-
electric properties of municipal sludge [15–17]. In addition to ad-
vancements in thermal pretreatment technologies, there is a substantial

Abbreviations: AD, anaerobic digestion; CH, conventional heating; CHP, combined heat and power; COD, chemical oxygen demand; DS, dry solids; EPS, extra-
cellular polymeric substances; MW, microwave; n/a, data not available; RF, radio frequency; SR, specific resistance; SRT, sludge retention time; TS, total solids; UBC,
University of British Columbia; VS, volatile solids; WAS, waste activated sludge; WWTPs, wastewater treatment plants
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: gokce.kor@gmail.com (G. Kor-Bicakci), cigdem.eskicioglu@ubc.ca (C. Eskicioglu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.05.002
Received 4 January 2019; Received in revised form 18 April 2019; Accepted 1 May 2019
1364-0321/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
G. Kor-Bicakci and C. Eskicioglu
effort to explore and improve cost-effective and sustainable strategies
for energy efficiency optimization especially in medium- and/or large-
scale wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). This paper presents a lit-
erature review about the recent advancements in thermal pretreatment
technologies with AD of municipal wastewater treatment sludge for
enhanced bioenergy recovery. Moreover, for WWTPs with an aim of
energy self-sufficiency, the energy balance of full-scale installations that
have thermal hydrolysis (≥100°C) integrated to the conventional AD
are also discussed. Finally, the sludge characteristics for various treat-
ment processes, amounts of sludge production around the world, and
the current legislations on sludge management as well as sludge dis-
posal and reuse options are addressed.
2. Municipal sludge production and disposal
2.1. Sludge characteristics
Large amounts of wastewater treatment sludge in solid, semi-solid,
or liquid form are unavoidably generated during all the treatment
stages [18,19]. The amount and characteristics of treatment sludge
produced at a WWTP depends on the composition of the incoming
wastewater and variations of the treatment on wastewater and sludge
[2]. While primary sludge is produced from the sedimentation of raw
wastewater, secondary sludge comes from the biological treatment of
wastewater (e.g. conventional activated sludge systems or biological
nutrient removal). Generally, sludge from the primary clarifier is mixed
with secondary sludge from the bioreactor and can be further treated by
a number of different processes, with AD being the most common.
Stabilized sludge, also called biosolids, can be beneficial after digestion
or composting as a soil amendment [20,21]. A typical WWTP combined
with conventional sludge treatment process is presented in Fig. 1.
Suspended solids in the incoming wastewater accounts for 50–60%
of the primary sludge. It contains identifiable putrecible solid matter
(1% by weight, e.g. fecal matter and food scraps) as well as scum that
makes it aesthetically unpleasing [22,23]. Water content in the primary
sludge can be easily decreased by thickening/dewatering. It also has
Fig. 1. Typical layout of a wastewater treatment plant combined with conventional sludge treatment process.
424
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 423–443
larger particle size and higher pathogenic organisms compared to sec-
ondary sludge [20]. Secondary sludge, called WAS, is comprised of
numerous microorganisms (mostly bacteria) embedded in a polymeric
network as well as non-biodegradable debris from dead bacteria, in-
organic compounds (e.g. silicates, aluminates, calcium, magnesium),
ionic components (e.g. divalent cations), and refractory compounds
(e.g. organic and inorganic contaminants, endocrine disrupting che-
micals) [24–26]. This polymeric network formed by extracellular
polymeric substances (EPS), are a mixture of high-molecular weight
polymers excreted by the microorganisms, produced from cell lysis and
hydrolysis, and/or adsorbed organic matter (e.g. cellulose, humic acids)
from the wastewater [27,28].
Compared to primary sludge, WAS is inherently less biodegradable
due to the its complex composition and low content of readily biode-
gradable compounds [29]. It has a greater quantity of protein and
phosphorous but less lipids and fibres than primary sludge [30]. Pri-
mary sludge is usually grey & slimy and has an extremely offensive
odor, whereas secondary sludge generally has a brown flocculated ap-
pearance and an earthy odor. On the other hand, anaerobically digested
biosolids are dark brown to black. When properly digested, they are not
offensive, the odor being relatively faint and resembles that of hot tar,
burnt rubber, or sealing wax [21]. Typical characteristics of untreated
primary, activated, and digested sludges are given in Table 1. Some
heavy metals such as chromium, copper, manganese, lead, mo-
lybdenum, nickel, and zinc can be found in the sludge at a wide range of
concentrations [21].
Sludge characteristics alter as it passes successive treatment units.
The key changes are: 1) an increase in concentration of total solids (TS)
and a reduction in sludge volume during thickening and dewatering
processes, and 2) a decrease in TS mass with a reduction of volatile
solids (VS) in the digestion process [31]. Table 2 lists sludge char-
acteristics in different phases of sludge treatment process. Character-
ization of waste sludge streams from various biological treatment pro-
cesses including both suspended (e.g. activated sludge) as well as
attached growth (e.g. trickling filters) systems is also given in Table 3.
G. Kor-Bicakci and C. Eskicioglu Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 423–443

Table 1
Chemical composition and properties of untreated primary, activated, and digested sludgesa.
Metcalf and Eddy [21] Manara and Zabaniotou [32]

b
Primary sludge Activated sludge Primary sludge Activated sludge Digested sludge

c d
Item Range Typical Range Typical - #1 #2 -

Total dry solids (TS, %) 1–6 3 0.4–1.2 0.8 1.2 0.9 0.7 3
Volatile solids (% of TS) 60–85 75 60–85 70 65 67 77 50
Grease and fats (% of TS) 5–8 6 5–12 8 18 8 10 10
Protein (% of TS) 20–30 25 32–41 36 24 36 34 18
Fibres (% of TS) n/a n/a n/a n/a 16 17 10 10
Nitrogen (N, % of TS) 1.5–4 2.5 2.4–5 3.8 – – – –
Phosphorus (P2O5, % of TS) 0.8–2.8 1.6 2.8–11 5.5 2 2 2 2
Potash (K2O, % of TS) 0–1 0.4 0.5–0.7 0.6 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Cellulose (% of TS) 8–15 10 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Iron (not as sulfide) 2–4 2.5 n/a n/a 2 2 2 2
Silica (SiO2, % of TS) 15–20 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
pH (−) 5–8 6 6.5–8 7.1 6 7 7 7
Carbon (C, % of VM) n/a n/a n/a n/a 51.5 52.5 53 49
Hydrogen (H, % of VM) n/a n/a n/a n/a 7 6 6.7 7.7
Nitrogen (N, % of VM) n/a n/a n/a n/a 4.5 7.5 6.3 6.2
Carbon to nitrogen ratio (−) n/a n/a n/a n/a 11.4 7 8.7 7.9
Oxygen (O, % of VM) n/a n/a n/a n/a 35.5 33 33 35
Sulphur (S, % of VM) n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.5 1 1 2.1
Potassium (K, % of VM) n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) 500 - 1,500 600 580 - 1,100 790 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Organic acids (mg/L as HAc) 200 - 2,000 500 1,100–1,700 1,350 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Energy content (kJ/kg VSS) 23,000–29,000 25,000 19,000–23,000 20,000 – – – –
Calorific value (kWh/tonne TS) – – – – 4,200 4,100 4,800 3,000

a
TS: total solids, VM: volatile matter, VSS: volatile suspended solids, n/a: data not available.
b
Primary sludge with physical/chemical treatment or high pollution load (> 0.5 kg BOD5/kg sludge/day).
c
Biological sludge (low load: between 0.07 and 0.2 kg BOD5/kg sludge/day).
d
Biological sludge from clarified water (middle load: between 0.2 and 0.5 kg BOD5/kg sludge/day and low load).

2.2. Sludge production and regulatory aspects
“A National Biosolids Regulation, Quality, End Use, and Disposal
Survey” reported that 7.2 million dry tons of biosolids were disposed in
the fifty states of the U.S. in 2004 [36]. As per UN-Habitat [37] sta-
tistics, the sewage sludge production is estimated to be approximately 3
and 2 million dry metric tons per year in China and Japan, respectively.
After the implementation of the EU “Urban Waste Water Treatment Di-
rective (91/271/EC)” [38] and related legislation in the EU 27, the
amount of sludge quantities has been estimated to increase from around
11.8 million dry tons in 2010 to 13 million dry tons in 2020 [39].
Barber [40] stated that sludge production can be in the range of 10–75 g
of dry sludge per capita per day (using several literature resources
collected), depending on the quantity of WWTPs installed. In Europe,
sludge generation is also reported by Fytili and Zabaniotou [18] with an
average value of 90 g dry sludge per capita per day. As displayed in
Fig. 2, nearly 0.66 and 0.58 million tons of dry sludge are generated
annually in Canada [41] and Turkey [37], respectively. All legislations
aim to protect human health and the environment against the adverse
impacts of contaminants (e.g. pathogens and organic & inorganic pol-
lutants) present in sludge. Differences exist in different legislations re-
lated to specific requirements between the countries (e.g. U.S., Canada,
EU, Turkey, South Africa) and also among the EU member states (e.g.
France, Netherlands, Denmark). For instance, the U.S. EPA “Part 503
Biosolids Rule” describes the general requirements, pollutant (i.e. me-
tals, pathogens, and vector attraction reduction) limits, management
applications, and operational principles for the final use or disposal of
sewage sludge produced from the domestic WWTPs [42].
In the EU, agricultural use of sewage sludge is described in “Sewage
Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC)” [43] which only covers the concentra-
tion of heavy metals and nutrients in sludge for agricultural use, thus
efforts are being made to establish better European regulations that also
deal with organic pollutants.
In this context, the EU has developed a “Working Document on Sludge
- 3rd draft/proposed regulation” to set the new limit values for persistant
organic pollutants in biosolids to be used as fertilizer [46]. As a part of
the resource recovery solution, agricultural use of biosolids is also en-
couraged by several EU studies such as “Roadmap to a Resource Efficient
Europe” [47] and “End-of-Waste (EoW) criteria for biodegradable waste
subjected to biological treatment (compost & digestate)” [48].
2.2.1. Sludge treatment
The sludge is converted to biosolids by a series of treatments in-
cluding preliminary operations, thickening, stabilization, and dewa-
tering (Table 4). Because of the its inherent features, sludge must be
stabilized and meet minimum biosolids quality limits in terms of pa-
thogens (e.g. Salmonella spp., fecal coliform bacteria, Escherichia coli,
enteric viruses, helminth ova), vector attraction reduction (e.g. related
to animals, flies, mosquitoes, rodents, birds), and trace elements (me-
tals) before it is applied to land.
2.2.2. Sludge disposal and reuse
The sludge management is mostly accomplished through three main
disposal routes: applied to land to condition the soil or to fertilize crops
and other vegetation grown in the soil, incinerated and placed on a
surface disposal or landfilled [18,19,40,42]. Other representative
techniques such as composting, AD and recycling as building materials
or refuse-derived fuel in mono/co-firing plants, are also practiced as
sludge disposal methods [20,26,49]. Sludge reuse is an essential part of
sustainable waste management. The potential beneficial options for
municipal sludge and biosolids are listed in Table 5.
The comparison of different sludge disposal routes based on average
total costs (net internal and external costs) is given in Table 6 for the
EU-15 countries. It appears that the average costs vary from approxi-
mately 105 to 360 EUR per tonne of dry solids (DS) and the recycling of
sludge to land was the best option compared to other disposal routes.
When calculating net costs, internal costs (i.e. investment, operating
costs), external costs (i.e. quantifiable air-borne emissions,

425
 G. Kor-Bicakci and C. Eskicioglu

Table 2
Sludge characteristics in each stage of sludge treatment processa (adapted from Ref. [31]).
Sludge removed from the liquid Sludge Thickened sludge Digested sludge Dewatered sludge
phase mass
(g SS/
VS/TS Dry solids Density of capita.d) Thickening VS/TS Dry solids Density of Sludge Digestion VS/TS Dry solids Density of Sludge Dewatering VS/TS Dry solids Density of
ratio (%) sludge process ratio (%) sludge mass process ratio (%) sludge mass process ratio (%) sludge
WW treatment (g/g) (kg/m3) (g/g) (kg/m3) (g SS/ (g/g) (kg/m3) (g SS/ (g/g) (kg/m3)
system capita.d) capita.d)

Conventional activated sludge

Primary 0.75 – 2 – 6 1003 – 35 – 45 Gravity 0.75 – 4–8 1006 25 – 28 Anaerobic 4–8 – – –
sludge 0.80 1010 0.80 –
1010

426
Secondary 0.75 – 0.6 – 1 1010 25 – 35 Gravity 0.65 – 2 – 3 1004 16 – 22 Aerobic 1.5 – 4 – – –
sludge 0.80 Flotation 0.70 2 – 5 –
Centrifuge 3 – 7 1010
Mixed sludge – 1–2 – 60 – 80 Gravity 0.75 – 3 – 7 1004 38 – 50 Anaerobic 0.60 – 3–6 1007 38 – 50 Drying bed 0.60 30–40 1050
Centrifuge 0.80 4 – 8 – 0.65 – Filter press – 25–35 –
1010 1020 Centrifuge 0.65 20–30 1100
Belt press 20–25
Extended aeration
Activated 0.65 – 0.8 – 1.2 1002 40 – 45 Gravity 0.65 – 2–3 1004 – – – – – 40 – 45 Drying bed – 25–35 –
sludge 0.70 Flotation 0.70 3–6 – Filter press 20–30
Centrifuge 3–6 1010 Centrifuge 15–20
Belt press 15–20

a
WW: wastewater, TS: total solids, VS: volatile solids, SS: suspended solids.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 423–443
G. Kor-Bicakci and C. Eskicioglu Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 423–443

Table 3
Characterization of waste sludge streams from various treatment processesa.
Conventional activated sludge processb Five-stage modified Bardenpho processc Trickling filter and solids contact processd

Primary sludge Thickened WAS [34] Fermented primary sludge Thickened WAS [35] Thickened screened primary Thickened WAS
Item [33] [35] sludge

Sludge taken from primary clarifier thickener centrifuge gravity thickener dissolved air flotation primary sedimentation diffused air flotation
fermenters
TS (%, w/w) 4.13 ± 0.04 5.46 ± 0.47 7.6 ± 1.6 3.7 ± 0.3 3.7 ± 0.14 4.4 ± 0.04
VS (%, w/w) 3.4 ± 0.02 3.78 ± 0.35 6.7 ± 1.3 2.9 ± 0.2 3.29 ± 0.14 3.75 ± 0.03
VS/TS (%) 83 69 88 79 88 84
TCOD (mg/L) 51,778 ± 836 66,758 ± 2,162 91,711 ± 10,682 41,524 ± 4,538 58,517 ± 1982 63,212 ± 3174
SCOD (mg/L) 1,269 ± 20 4,842 ± 1,124 3,194 ± 954 1,860 ± 647 n/a n/a
SCOD/TCOD*100 (%) 2.45 ± 0.05 7.2 ± 1.3 3.5 4.5 n/a n/a
pH (−) n/a 7.1 ± 0.46 4.9 ± 0.3 6.3 ± 0.2 5.088 6.095
Ammonia (mg/L) 127 ± 19 n/a 149.7 ± 33 172.1 ± 13 178 ± 2 782 ± 0.1
Alkalinity (mg CaCO3/ 341 ± 121 n/a 207 ± 156 581 ± 200 526 ± 8 2013 ± 16
L)
Total VFAs (mg/L) 910 ± 5 281 ± 12 2244 ± 656 285 ± 102 2301 ± 53 2762 ± 46

a
WAS: waste activated sludge, TS: total solids, VS: volatile solids, TCOD: total chemical oxygen demand, SCOD: soluble chemical oxygen demand, n/a: data not
available, VFAs: volatile fatty acids.
b
Robert O. Pickard Environmental Center in Canada.
c
Kelowna Wastewater Treatment Plant in Canada.
d
Annual averages for 2017 provided by a wastewater treatment plant near Vancouver, Canada.

transportation) and benefits (i.e. the use and saving of fertilisers) were
considered in the economic report of European Commission [51]. The
options of land spreading were estimated to have the lowest costs
(107–157 EUR/tonne DS), whereas landfilling and incineration of
sludge had the highest associated costs (263–355 EUR/tonne DS). Ac-
cording to estimates from the 2010 study [39] evaluating the “Sewage
Sludge Directive”, if the route of sludge usage in agriculture was replaced
by incineration, about 650 million EUR per year would be lost.
The use of biosolids in agriculture is reported as the most beneficial
and environmentally accepted disposal option [52]. It is also an effec-
tive replacement for chemical fertilizers, especially phosphorus [53].
The fertilizer value of biosolids for agricultural use is dependent upon
the typical nutrient contents as well as the soil and crop needs. Ni-
trogen, phosphorus, and potassium (potash) levels in wastewater bio-
solids are 3.3, 2.3 and 0.3% (based on TS), while commercial fertilizers
typically have 5, 10 and 10%, respectively [21]. Land application is a
comparatively economical route and capital costs are usually lower
compared to other sludge management methods. It represents ap-
proximately 50% of the total usage annually in the U.S. (49%), the EU-
15 (44%), the EU-27 (41%) and Canada (52%) [36,37]. Between 2005
and 2010, the sludge production increased almost 6% in the EU-28, the
agricultural sludge use rose by almost 10%; and the ratio of agricultural

Fig. 2. Amounts of sludge production from urban wastewater in medium and high-income countries (the data were adapted from Refs. [36,37,41,44,45).

427
G. Kor-Bicakci and C. Eskicioglu Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 423–443

Table 4 [54,55]. The calorific value of sludge ranges widely depending on its
Principal processes and methods used for sludge treatment and processing composition and VS content. Generally, raw (untreated) sludge is pre-
(adapted from Ref. [21]). ferred for incineration because of higher VS content which leads to a
Process and method Function higher calorific value on a dry basis [56]. Calorific values of various
types of sludge and comparison with other common solid industrial
Preliminary Grinding Particle size reduction fuels are given in Table 7. The average heating value for dry sewage
operation Screening Removal of fibrous material
sludge (12,000–20,000 kJ/kg) is almost equivalent to that of lignite
Degritting Grit removal
Blending Homogenization of sludge coal (11,700–15,800 kJ/kg), but lower than that of conventional coal
Storage Flow equalization and petroleum (30,000–40,000 kJ/kg) [57,58]. As seen in Table 7,
Thickening Gravity thickening Volume reduction when the sludge is digested with and without thermal hydrolysis, the
Flotation thickening
calorific value of raw mixed sludge is reduced on a dry basis by ap-
Centrifugation
Gravity belt
proximately 30 and 20%, respectively, because VS is converted to
thickening biogas in AD [59]. Despite having less VS on a dry basis, enhanced
Rotary drum sludge dewatering with lower water content increases the energy value
thickening of sludge, and provides better energy balance around the incinerator
Stabilization Alkaline stabilization Stabilization
with more sludge capacity [60].
Anaerobic digestion Stabilization, mass reduction,
resource recovery In spite of its other advantages such as thermal destruction (of or-
Aerobic digestion Stabilization, mass reduction ganic compounds and pathogens), compactness, and minimization of
Composting Stabilization, product recovery odor production [18,55], incineration does not constitute a complete
Heat drying Stabilization, volume reduction,
disposal method because of remaining around 20–30% of the solids as
resource recovery
Dewatering Centrifuge Volume reduction
ash (potential hazardous/toxic waste due to its metal content), which
Belt filter press requires further management [18,26]. Large capital investment costs of
Rotary press incinerators and possible adverse environmental effects from air emis-
Screw press sions/ash are also drawbacks of this technology [54]. Incineration still
Filter press
remains the attractive sludge disposal method especially in densely
Drying beds
Lagoons Storage and volume reduction populated countries [37,54]. Based on the most recent data available
from Eurostat [44], the Netherlands (2014), Germany (2015) and Slo-
venia (2015) incinerate more than 90, 60, and 50% of their wastewater
sludge, respectively. For instance, about 80 plants (by fluidized bed
use to overall sludge production rose from 41% to 48% [53]. Data from furnaces) currently use incineration for sludge disposal route and most
Eurostat [44] shows that some countries in the EU (e.g. 83% in Spain, of them have been installed in Germany (23), France (21), Switzerland
80% in Ireland, 74% in the United Kingdom) apply more than 70% of (14), the United Kingdom (11) and Denmark (5) [62]. On the other
their total sludge to agricultural land, while reuse in agriculture reaches hand, these rates only reach 22% in Canada, 15% in the U.S. (2014),
44% in France, 24% in Germany, and 19% in Poland. Percentages of 20% in the United Kingdom (2012), 18% in France (2014), 5% in Spain
ultimate sludge disposal routes for different countries are shown in (2010) and barely 1% in Turkey (2011), as can be seen in Fig. 3
Fig. 3. [36,37,44,61]. Landfilling is widely recognized as a less desirable
Incineration significantly reduces the volume of sludge by rapidly practice and is being discouraged or banned in many countries [37].
oxidizing the organic substance at excessively high temperature (450 °C Unavailability of landfill space and operating costs are increasing be-
and higher), which are supplied by specialized furnaces (e.g. modern cause of the lower land availability in urban areas and stricter regula-
fluidized-bed (preferred) and conventional multiple-hearth furnaces) tions [26].

Table 5
Potential beneficial disposal options for municipal biosolids (adapted from Refs. [37,41,50]).
Potential beneficial option Explanation and examples

Beneficial use of sludge on land

Agricultural land and forestry applications •Biosolids involve organic matter that improves soil properties containing texture, porosity, bulk density and water holding
capacity, tilth, and soil aeration.
•Biosolids provide several vital macro/micro nutrients to the soil (such as copper, cobalt, chromium, nitrogen, nickel, phosphorus
and zinc).
•Biosolids are less water soluble than commercial fertilizers so they do not easily leach into ground or surface waters. They can
easily replace costly chemical fertilizers and reduce overall commercial fertilizer usage.
Land reclamation • Biosolids promote soil development and improve the drought tolerance of vegetation.
• Biosolids can be used for mine reclamation sites to mitigate acid mine drainage.
• Biosolids can be used for remediation/bioremediation of urban/suburban contaminated sites.
• Biosolids can be used for restoration and development of water features.
Horticulture and landscaping • Biosolids can be used for compost feedstock, potting mixes, fertilizers (e.g. heat-dried pellet fertilizer), sod production, lawns,
parks, sports fields, green roofs, erosion control, treatment of stormwater flow, highway right-of-way revegetation, tailored soil
products.
Other potential beneficial options
Compost and soil products • Biosolids can be used as an ingredient in topsoil and compost for supporting plant establishment and growth.
• Biosolids can be used in the improvement of a final cover for placement on landfills to mitigate fugitive methane emissions.
Resource recovery • Biosolids can provide minerals and metals (e.g. struvite production) for industrial applications.
Energy recovery • Biogas produced during anaerobic sludge digestion can be used for electricity production and heat recovery (exhaust gases and hot
water).
• The energy in the biogas (methane) can be recovered to be sold or reused within/outside of the WWTP.
Industrial processes • Biosolids can be used in cement kilns as a fuel source.
• Biosolids can be used to make brick or other building materials.

428
G. Kor-Bicakci and C. Eskicioglu Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 423–443

Table 6
Average total costs (net internal and external) of different sludge disposal routes in the EU-15 countries (adapted from Ref. [51]).
Disposal route Net cost
(EUR/tonnes dry solids)

Recycling to land •Land spreading of semi-solid sludge (no digestion) 107

•Land spreading of semi-solid sewage sludge (with aerobic digestion) 114
•Land spreading of solid sewage sludge (with anaerobic digestion) 157
•Land spreading of composted sewage sludge 238
•Use of sludge in silviculture (use in forestry) 210
•Use of sludge in land reclamation or green areas 247
Incineration •Mono-incineration of sewage sludge 355
•Co-incineration of sewage sludge with other wastes 288
Landfilling •Landfilling of solid sewage sludge 263

3. Advanced anaerobic sludge digestion highly effective with additional advantages described in Section 3.3.

3.1. Limitations of conventional anaerobic digestion

3.3. Recent advancement in thermal pretreatment processes
In AD process, a mixture of primary and secondary sludge is bio-
In the thermal pretreatment process of sludge, the initial sludge
logically stabilized by a microbial consortium in the absence of mole-
temperature is increased from the ambient temperature to a desired
cular oxygen through four sequential stages (i.e. hydrolysis, acidogen-
final temperature, at low- (< 100°C) or high-temperature (≥100°C),
esis, acetogenesis and methanogenesis). It is an economically and
and held for a defined time period (i.e. from minutes (min) to hours)
environmentally friendly method of producing methane-enriched
[1]. By means of an effective thermal pretreatment, not only extra-
biogas that can be combusted to generate electricity and/or waste heat
cellular substances (e.g. polysaccharides, proteins, humic acids, lipids)
or converted into renewable gas and transportation fuels, which re-
are degraded from the complex sludge matrix and eventually released
duces fossil fuel energy dependence and greenhouse gas emissions
into the soluble phase, but also intra-cellular organics (especially pro-
[4,58]. However, WAS is a relatively unfavourable substrate for the
teins) are solubilized due to the breaking of chemical bonds in the cell
rate-limiting hydrolysis step during conventional digestion [4,63] with
membranes and/or cell walls [26,75]. Proteins are preserved from the
lower organic degradation efficiency (30–50%), longer sludge retention
enzymatic hydrolysis by the cell wall, whereas carbohydrates and lipids
time (SRT) requirement (20–30 days) leading to larger digester volume
in the sludge matrix are generally easily degradable. Therefore, thermal
requirement and higher capital cost [4,24,26]. The complex microbial
pretreatment applied in a broad range of temperature destroys the
floc structure of WAS creates physical and chemical barriers to the
microbial cell walls and makes the proteins available for biological
penetration of hydrolytic enzymes to degrade the intracellular & readily
degradation [76,77]. Thermal technologies achieve higher pathogen
available organics in microbial cells and limits the rate and extent of
destruction (production of Class A biosolids) [76], faster digestate de-
anaerobic microbial degradation [5,26,64]. Pretreatment technologies
waterability rate [11,77] and lower sludge viscosity, allowing for a
for sludge have received attention for accelarating conventional AD
higher solids concentration to enter AD [71]. There has been an as-
process.
cending trend in the number of scientific papers published related to
thermal pretreatment of sludge during a 38-year period from 1978 to
2017 (Fig. 4).
3.2. Principles of pretreatment technologies
The other benefits of the thermal pretreatment include: 1) enhanced
biodegradability of sludge, 2) increased rate of digestion and biogas
Pretreatments coupled with AD (advanced AD) can be used to solve
production, 3) increased organic loading rates due to altered rheolo-
the above-mentioned limitations. By means of an effective pretreat-
gical properties that requires smaller digester volume at new facilities
ment, hard to degrade complex organic molecules are converted into
(lower capital costs) or higher digester capacity at existing facilities, 4)
smaller compounds and eventually released into the soluble phase for
reduced digestate volume allowing for savings on the final biosolids
subsequent AD. Sludge pretreatment/AD achieves: 1) enhanced VS
transport, 5) better quality biosolids in terms of odor, and 6) reduced
degradation, 2) enhanced biogas production rate, 3) increased organic
scum and foaming [1,59].
loading capacity in existing digesters, 4) reduced retention time in di-
Technology maturity applied in the conventional, MW, and RF
gesters, 5) reduced volume requirements and capital cost for digesters,
heating methods is summarized in Table 8. The conventional heating is
and 6) reduced biosolids volume for disposal [6,26,49,65]. Pretreat-
used in bench-, pilot-, and full-scale, while there is no commercially
ment can be applied to either primary sludge, WAS or the mixture of
available products for MW systems as a sludge pretreatment technique
primary and WAS. It is considered less beneficial for primary sludge in
in full-scale applications. As the most recent thermal pretreatment
comparison to WAS due to the greater amount of readily degradable
technology, RF heating is currently applied in bench-scale. A detailed
compounds in primary sludge [29,33,66,67]. Because of the its complex
comparison of these methods in terms of heating mechanism and
sludge structure, WAS digestibility can be approximately the half of
principles is also shown in Table 9.
that of primary sludge, especially at long SRT [24]. The study by Kepp
and Solheim [68] reported the expected amount of methane gas pro-
duced from AD process as 146–217 L CH4/kg VSfed/d for WAS and 3.3.1. Conventional (conductive) heating
306 L CH4/kg VSfed/d for primary sludge. Therefore, sludge pretreat- Conventional heating (or namely thermal hydrolysis) was initially
ment is more beneficial when applied to WAS and then WAS is mixed used to enhance sludge dewaterability by the “Porteous” heat-treatment
with primary sludge before being fed to AD [69–72]. Studies have ex- process to release the bound and intercellular water in the sludge [85],
amined different sludge pretreatment methods such as thermal, che- later it was comprehensively studied to enhance the solubilization and
mical, ultrasonic, mechanical, and enzymatic pretreatments or their anaerobic sludge biodegradability of sludge [8,11,86]. Numerous stu-
combinations (e.g. thermo-chemical, thermo-mechanical) dies suggested that the optimal treatment temperature and duration for
[26,29,67,73,74]. In addition to the aforementioned benefits of pre- thermal hydrolysis were reported in the range of 160–180°C (with
treatments, thermal pretreatment processes have been shown to be pressures of 600–2,500 kPa) and 20–40 min, respectively

429
G. Kor-Bicakci and C. Eskicioglu Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 423–443

Fig. 3. Percentages of ultimate sludge disposal routes in (a) United States, (b) Canada, (c) Germany, (d) Spain, (e) Japan, (f) Turkey, and (g) China (the data were
adapted from Refs. [36,37,44,45,49,61]).

430
G. Kor-Bicakci and C. Eskicioglu Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 423–443

Table 7
Calorific values of various types of sludge and comparison with common solid industrial fuels.
Fuel Type Calorific value (kJ/kg) Reference

Range (dry basis) Typical

Sludge Raw primary 23,000 – 29,000 25,000 [21]

Activated sludge 20,000 – 23,000 21,000
Anaerobically digested primary 9,000 – 14,000 12,000
Chemically precipitated primary 14,000 – 18,000 16,000
Biological filter 16,000 – 23,000 20,000
Dry basis Wet cake
Raw mixed sludge (60:40 primary:activated sludge) 18,100 4,530 [59]
Digested sludge 15,000 3,445
Thermally hydrolysed + digested 13,300 4,385
Dry sewage sludge 12,000 – 20,000 [32]
Wet sewage sludge 1,000 – 3,000
Plastics, wood, paper, garbage – 17,600 – 20,000 [32]
Wood – 16,000 – 20,000
Lignite coal – 11,700 – 15,800 [57]
Pet coke – 32,000 – 36,000
Bituminous coal – 32,000 – 36,300
Sub-bituminous coal – 29,000 – 30,700
Rubber derivative – 36,000 – 40,000

[8,11,26,29,59,77,87,88]. Some studies for thermal hydrolysis have Table 8

been performed within a broad range of treatment temperature and Development stage of different thermal pretreatment processes.
duration: for temperature of 60–220°C and time periods of 1–4,320 min Method Development stage
[9,89–93]. Studies about low-temperature (< 100°C) and high-tem-
perature (≥100°C) conventional heating under batch and/or con- Bench-scale Pilot- Full-scale
tinuous-flow regime systems are summarized in Tables 10 and 11, re- scale

spectively. Conventional heating (or thermal ✓ ✓ ✓

Barber [59] summarized the impacts of increasing thermal hydro- hydrolysis)
lysis temperature up to an optimum temperature range as follows: 1) Microwave irradiation ✓ ✓
improvement of anaerobic digestibility of sludge, 2) reduction of ap- Radio frequency ✓

parent viscosity, 3) enhancement of biopolymer solubility, such as

carbohydrates and proteins, 4) negligible influence of lipids solubility,
and even inhibit the biodegradation of other organics [9,49,88,95].
5) reduction in average particle size, and 5) possibility of refractory
Melanoidins are one of the highest molecular weight heterogeneous
compound formation (e.g. COD, nitrogen, color). However, increasing
polymers, which are responsible for the dark brown color (tea-colored
thermal hydrolysis reaction temperature beyond the optimal tempera-
liquor) in thermal hydrolysis effluents at elevated pretreatment tem-
ture range (> 160–180°C) caused a reduction in sludge digestibility in
peratures [93,95]. On the other hand, burnt sugar reactions occur if
spite of further improvement in sludge solubilization, dewaterability
carbohydrates in the soluble phase react with other carbohydrates
and viscosity reduction [59]. This was attributed to the formation of
during high-temperature treatment, and then the formation of Amadori
recalcitrant soluble compounds or toxic/inhibitory intermediates, and
compounds (resulting in the brown color of the soluble phase), re-
can be explained by the phenomenon of sugar “caremelization/burnt
fractory and potentially inhibitory to subsequent AD, starts [88,96,97].
sugar reaction” or “Maillard reaction” [8,75,93,94]. During the final
According to the findings of Dwyer et al. [95], by decreasing the
stage of the Maillard reaction, polymerisation of carbohydrates and
thermal hydrolysis operating temperature from 165 to 140°C (for a
amino compounds produces melanoidins which are difficult to degrade

Fig. 4. Number of scientific documents on the topic of “thermal pretreatment of sludge” published between 1978 and 2017 (the data generated from Ref. [78]).

431
G. Kor-Bicakci and C. Eskicioglu Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 423–443

Table 9
Comparison of different thermal pretreatment prosesses.
Conventional Heating (CH) Electromagnetic (EM) Heating

Microwave (MW) Radio Frequency (RF)

2,450 MHz 13.56 MHz

Heating methodology The heat is transferred with the electrons'
movement and particles' microscopic collision
[17].
An external source (e.g. a kitchen oven) heats the
exterior surface of the material and heat is
distributed toward the cooler interior parts
through thermal conduction & convection under
pressure [79,80].
The dry exterior layer (hot) acts as an insulating
barrier and heat is not transferred into the
internal parts of the load effectively, which
creates large temperature gradients.
Specifications The heating rate depends on the thermal
properties of the material and temperature
difference across the material [82].
Long time is generally required due to the poor
thermal conductivity of vessels used.
Distribution Non-uniform heating
Due to the thermal gradients, heat is not
homogenously distributed in the material.
Athermal (non- Not available
thermal) effects
Heat is generated by the friction, which is
resulted from the direct interaction between the
polar water molecules in the sample and the EM
field [13]. The energy remained (not
transformed to heat) move into the material
[79].
MW heating raises the material overall
temperature however, the surface becomes
cooler than inner as it loses its heat to the
surroundings [79].
Microwaves are a form of EM energy which is
generated by oscillator tubes/magnetrons
through a coaxial transmission line. The output
of these tubes are generally between 0.5 and
100 kW.
Non-uniform heating
Due to the short penetration depth of the EM
waves, heat is not homogenously distributed in
the material [16]. However, MW heating is
volumetric and uniform compared to CH [80].
Yes
The electric field intensity causes possible
breakage of hydrogen bonds leading to damage
of microbial cell structures and eventually
denaturation and death of cells [16,84].
The alternating electric field applied is
oscillating ions which creates the heat as result
of molecular friction between molecules [81].
RF heating enables the heating by applying a
high voltage to two parallel electrodes and
creating an alternating electric field [81].
At 13.56 MHz, an ionic conduction current
flows throughout the load (between the two
parallel plates) [15,80].
The material to be heated is placed between the
electrodes causing polar water molecules in the
material to continuously reorient to face
opposite electrodes [83].
13.56, 27.12 and 40.68 MHz are the widely
used frequencies for RF heating [81].
Uniform heating
Yes
The molecules and ions are affected by the EM
field as the polarity changes rapidly (at
13.56 MHz → 13.56 million times/second),
they continuously try realigning themselves
with the electric field by flip-flop motion
[81,83].

reaction period of 30 min), the effluent color of sludge, due to the
formation of melanoidins, also decreased from 12,677 to 3,837 mg
PtCo/L without any significant impact on anaerobic biodegradability of
sludge. Moreover, another study by Carrère et al. [89] showed that
although mesophilic biodegradability of WAS (batch AD) increased
with thermal treatment temperatures up to 190°C, sludge biodegrad-
ability was reduced because of the formation of recalcitrant compounds
during Maillard reaction, when sludge was pretreated at 210°C. Mail-
lard reaction effect occur even at low-temperature range (< 100°C) for
extended duration of thermal hydrolysis treatment. For this reason,
rapid (∼1 min) thermal hydrolysis combined with a high pressure and
temperature was used to be a more preferrable method of sludge dis-
integration and solubilization [98]. According to a mechanism of rapid
hydrolysis, because of a SRT of anaerobic biomass in the reactor, the
microbial cells are disrupted after exposure to a shock pressure with
high efficiency, however an enzyme inactivation does not occur at a
high extent.
When the treatment temperature and treatment duration were
compared, the effect of treatment temperature was often more im-
portant than the treatment duration, as reported by researchers
[77,87,99,100]. Valo et al. [99] studied the impact of different pre-
treatment temperatures (130, 150, and 170°C) and pretreatment times
(15, 30, and 60 min) on WAS solubilization. Their results indicated that
treatment duration had limited effect on chemical oxygen demand
(COD) solubilization, sludge was almost completely solubilized after
15 min and COD solubilization increased marginally with longer
treatment time. However, soluble COD increased from 2.7% (before
treatment) to 25.3% at 130°C, 43.9% at 150°C and 59.5% at 170°C,
after 60 min of treatment. Li and Noike [87] also studied two thermal
pretreatment parameters (time: 15, 30, 60, and 120 min and tempera-
ture: from 62 to 175°C) on WAS degradation and their effects on the
total gas production in the bench-scale batch experiment under meso-
philic temperature. The highest gas production was observed between
15 and 30 min at a temperature of 150°C and minimal increase was
measured past 30 min of pretreatment time.
Thermal hydrolysis has been commercially available for over 20
years as the most preferred pretreatment technology for AD [59]. At
present, Cambi™ Thermal Hydrolysis Process (CambiTHP™ - Cambi Group
AS) and Exelys/BioThelys™ (Veolia Waters Technologies) are the most
common pilot- and full-scale commercial thermal hydrolysis processes
available on several continents. The first full-scale CambiTHP™ process
was implemented in 1995 at HIAS WWTP serving approximately
90,000 people in Norway [101]. A total number of 56 CambiTHP™
systems have been successfully incorporated into WWTPs in 20 coun-
tries, including Denmark, Norway, the United Kingdom, Greece, Ire-
land, and China (total population equivalent of 62 million) [60].
CambiTHP™ is a continuous process, based on multiple Sequencing
Batch Hydrolysis Reactors with low operating costs. Both CambiTHP™
and Exelys™ processes have mainly the same operational parameters:
the sludge is heated by direct steam for 20–30 min, at a pressure around
6–8 bars and temperature around 165°C. As Exelys™ operates in con-
tinuous mode as a modification of Veolia Waters’ BioThelys™ batch
thermal hydrolysis system [1], this process is capable of helping large
WWTPs to move towards electrical energy neutrality [102]. A number
of full-scale Exelys™ systems were built in different countries such as
France, Korea and Denmark. Other commercialized thermal hydrolysis
products applied at industrial scale for sludge pretreatment are Tur-
boTec® (Sustec) in 2011 with one pilot plant, Continuous Thermal Hy-
drolysis (CTH - University of Valladolid & Aqualogy) in 2012 with an
industrial prototype, LysoTherm® (ELIQUO STULZ) in 2012 with one
full-scale plant, and Biorefinex (Biosphere Technologies) in 2013 with
one full-scale plant [70].
Based on the studies summarized in Tables 10 and 11, it can be
concluded that the increasing pretreatment temperature to some extent
(150–175°C) usually enhances sludge disintegration and solubilization,
which improves AD performance. The improvement over the control

432
 G. Kor-Bicakci and C. Eskicioglu

Table 10
Results of low-temperature (< 100°C) conventional heating pretreatment studiesa.
Sludge type Pretreatment conditions AD conditions Key results Ref.

WAS: temp: 70°C batch TH AD • A 50% increase of biogas production was observed at 70°C. [90]
TS = 3.8–4.9% holding time: 9, 24, 48, 72 h in thermostatic duration: 32 days • No differences in biogas production were observed at high temperature PrT between 110 and
bath 134°C.
temp: from 110 to 134°C
holding time: from 20 to 90 min in an
autoclave
Mixed sludge (thickened primary & temp: 70°C batch TH AD • After PrT, sludge solubilization increased up to 10 times after 9 h and 24 h (from ∼1.5 g/L in raw [91]
WAS): holding time: 9, 24, 48, and 72 h in duration: 40–60 days sludge to ∼12.73 g/L in pretreated sludge based on volatile dissolved solids concentration), After
TS = 3.9% thermostatic bath semi-continuously fed TH digestion 24 h, VFA concentration increased with PrT time, from 0 to nearly 5 g/L after 72 h.
HRT: 10 days • Biogas production increased up to 30% in batch and semi-continuous flow AD tests.
• Methane content in biogas increased from 64 (control) to 69% in the pretreated digester.
WAS samples; temp: from 70 to 90°C with magnetic stirring batch MH AD • COD solubilization was not sludge dependent and was linearly correlated to PrT temperature. [89]
A: TS = 3.37% or • WAS-F solubilization did not seem different than the others (4 h vs. 30 min).
B: TS = 1.53% temp: from 110 to 210°C in an autoclave • For PrT up to 190°C, MH AD biodegradability increased by PrT (as a function of sludge COD
C: TS = 1.71% (Zipperclave) solubilization and sludge initial biodegradability).
D: TS = 1.50% holding time: from 30 min to 4 h for sample of • However, when PrT at 210°C was applied (to samples of D and E), biodegradability was lower

433
E: TS = 1.48% F than biodegradability at 190°C due to the formation of recalcitrant compounds.
F: TS = 1.58% • The lower the initial biodegradability of sludge, the higher the efficiency of PrT.
WAS: temp: 70, 80, and 90°C batch MH AD • Organic and inorganic compounds were efficiently solubilized during PrT and higher temperature [75]
DS = 6.51% holding time: 15, 30, and 60 min in thermal duration: 20 days & longer PrT time improved the organics' release.
reactor • The 70°C was too low to enhance the biogas production.
• At higher temperatures, the biogas production increased significantly (from 76.69 to 377.56 mL/g
organic DS for the 60 min PrT at 90°C).
Diluted TWAS: temp: 72, 82, and 93°C with batch MH AD at 72°C • Increase in soluble COD after PrT was about 14% (of the total COD) for WAS and only 3% for [103]
TS = 2.24% holding time: 7.5, 9.5, and 13 min, primary sludge.
Primary sludge: respectively, in an electric hot plate • Increasing temperature from 72 to 93°C slightly enhanced sludge disintegration.
TS = 2.29% • PrT at 72°C improved anaerobic biodegradability of WAS, while methane production of primary
sludge did not changed significantly.
WAS: temp: 70, 80, and 90°C full-scale application at an Italian • For the considered PrT times (1–15 h), disintegration rate increased from 15 to 25% at 70°C, from [105]
TS = 2.0, 4.0, 9.0% holding time: 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 15 h WWTP (2,300,000 p.e.) 15 to 28% at 80°C and from 19 to 30% at 90°C, for durations of less than 3 h.
temp: MH • The specific methane production increased by 21 and 31% for PrT at 70 and 90°C for 3 h,
HRT: 17 days respectively, compared to untreated samples.
• Low-temperature thermal PrT decreased WAS viscosity significantly.

a
AD: anaerobic digestion, COD: chemical oxygen demand, CST: capillary suction time, DS: dry solids, HRT: hydraulic retention time, MH: mesophilic, p.e.: population equivalent, PrT: pretreatment, temp: temperature,
TH: thermophilic, TS: total solids, TWAS: thickened waste activated sludge, VFA: volatile fatty acids, VS: volatile solids, WAS: waste activated sludge, WWTP: wastewater treatment plant.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 423–443
 G. Kor-Bicakci and C. Eskicioglu

Table 11
Results of high-temperature (≥100°C) conventional heating pretreatment studiesa.
Sludge type Pretreatment conditions AD conditions Key results Ref.

Primary sludge temp: 175°C semi-continuously fed MH AD • The methane production of primary sludge did not change after PrT (∼252 mL/g CODadded), [11]
WAS holding time: 30 min HRT: 15 days whereas the methane production of WAS enhanced by 62% (115 → 186 mL/g CODadded).
Mixed sludge (1:1 v/v) • The methane production of mixed sludge enhanced by 14% (205 → 234 mL/g CODadded).
• Improvements in VS removal efficiency were around 5, 85, and 18% after PrT of primary
sludge, WAS, and mixed sludge, respectively, compared to control digesters.
WAS: temp: 180°C semi-continuously fed MH and • COD solubilization was around 50 and 25% for WAS and mixed sludge, respectively, after [104]
TS = 3.6% holding time: 30 min TH AD PrT.
Mixed sludge: pressure: 10 bar through CambiTHP™ HRT: 20 days • The biogas yield of WAS increased by about 24% (from 225 to around 280 L/kg CODfed)
TS = 5.0% (Primary:WAS = 75:25 on DS when PrT was applied before TH digestion.
basis) • The biogas yield of mixed sludge increased by around 22% (from around 370 to around
450 L/kg CODfed) for both MH and TH digestion.
• The WAS showed a DS reduction of 40% after PrT tandem with TH digestion. The mixed
sludge showed a DS reduction of 49% regardless of the digestion temperature.
Dewatered mixed sludge: temp: 165–180°C full-scale application at HIAS • Compared to conventional digestion process, degree of stabilization (COD) increased from [101]
TS = 15–20% holding time: 30 min through CambiTHP™ WWTP in Norway 40 to 59%, digester volume decreased from 3,500 to 1,500 m3, the amount of sludge to be
HRT: 17 days disposed decreased from 9,000 to 4,370 tonne, and net electricity generation increased from

434
175 to 223 kW in the HIAS WWTP (∼90,000 p.e.).
Diluted TWAS: temp: 170 and 190°C in an autoclave batch MH AD • COD solubilization was 40–45% after PrT. [71]
TS = 2.0% (Zipperclave) duration: 24 days • Apparent viscosity decreased efficiently after thermal PrT. CST decreased from 151 s to 39
and 29 s after PrT at 170 and 190°C, respectively. Median diameter of sludge flocs increased
from 36 to 76.8 and 77.1 μm after PrT at 170 and 190°C, respectively.
• Biogas production increased from 221 to 333 and 328 mL CH4/g CODadded after PrT at 170
and 190°C, respectively (with ∼70% CH4 content).
WAS: temp: 135 and 190°C semi-continuously fed MH AD • Thermal PrT at 190°C was more efficient than PrT at 135°C for total COD, lipids, [72]
TS = 1.45% holding time: 30 min (135°C) and 15 min 3 digesters: control, R135°C, and carbohydrates and protein degradation and methane yield.
(190°C) in an autoclave (Zipperclave) R190°C • PrT at 190°C also produced refractory soluble COD.
HRT: 20 days • Degradation yield of lipids (67% without PrT and 84% with 190°C PrT) was higher than
carbohydrates (56% without PrT and 82% with 190°C PrT) and proteins (35% without PrT
and 46% with 190°C PrT).
• Methane yield improved by 25% after the 190°C PrT.
WAS: temp: 170°C batch & continuous MH and TH • Efficiency of thermal hydrolysis was increased at higher sludge concentration. [106]
TS = 1.6, 2.2, 3.6% holding time: 30 min AD • Methane production increased by 50% in batch experiment.
pressure: 7 bar through thermal hydrolysis HRT: 12 days in MH • Methane production increased by 55% (445 L/kg VSadded) in MH digester, and 48% (405 L/
pilot plant HRT: 16 days in TH kg VSadded) in TH digester.

a
AD: anaerobic digestion, COD: chemical oxygen demand, CST: capillary suction time, DS: dry solids, HRT: hydraulic retention time, MH: mesophilic, p.e.: population equivalent, PrT: pretreatment, temp: temperature,
TH: thermophilic, TS: total solids, TWAS: thickened waste activated sludge, VFA: volatile fatty acids, VS: volatile solids, WAS: waste activated sludge, WWTP: wastewater treatment plant.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 423–443
 Table 12
G. Kor-Bicakci and C. Eskicioglu

Results of low-temperature (< 100°C) microwave pretreatment studiesa.

Sludge type Pretreatment conditions AD conditions Key results Ref.

WAS: bench-scale industrial MW 2.45 GHz 1600 W BMP MH test • MW-pretreated AD at 96°C improved the ultimate degradability and generated the highest amount [69]
TS = 1.4–5.4% temp: 50, 75 and 96°C of biogas with 15, 14, 20 and 21% increases over the controls after 19 days at 100 & 50% intensities
intensity: 50 and 100% and at 1.4 & 5.4% TS, respectively.
• Relative enhancement in dewatering time was considerably increased as WAS reached to 96°C,
resulting in 41% better dewaterability vs. control.
TWAS: bench-scale industrial MW 2.45 GHz 1,250 W BMP MH test • The ratios of SCOD to TCOD increased with heat exposure times (slower heating rate) to similar [84]
TS = 4.6–5.5% temp: 50, 75 and 96°C temperature.
heating rate: 1.4, 1.3, and 1.2°C/min • Acclimated inoculum digesting MW-pretreated (to 96°C) TWAS, generated 16 ± 4% higher biogas
holding time: 0 min compared to the control after 15 days, in spite of the first 7 days of mild acute inhibition. However,
initial acute inhibition was more severe for non-acclimated inoculum requiring two times longer
recovery period with only 4 ± 0% higher biogas production after 17 days. Inoculum acclimation
both enhanced the biogas production rate and the extent of the ultimate MH biodegradation of MW-
pretreated sludge (after 15–27 days).
Primary sludge: household MW oven 2.45 GHz 1,460 W BMP MH test • SCOD/TCOD ratio increased from 2.5 to btw 6–7% for primary sludge at 90°C with 4% TS. [33]
TS = btw 1–4% temp: 35, 65, and 90°C • The disintegration of concentrated sludge was found to be greater than that of diluted sludge.
intensity: 40 and 80% of total MW power • Higher MW irradiation temperature and TS concentration resulted in higher digestion rates (up to
37% higher than control) and required less digestion time (up to 27% less time than control) to

435
attain ultimate cumulative biogas yield.
• MW PrT influenced only the rate of primary sludge degradability but not the ultimate extent of
primary sludge degradability.
TWAS: MW oven 2.45 GHz 700 W semi-continuously fed MH AD • SCOD/TCOD ratio increased up to 22% as MW PrT treatment time increased. [123]
VS = 1.9% treatment time: 0, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 15 min corresponding to HRT: 8, 10, 12, 15 days • The specific methane productions with the pretreated sludge at 10 and 15 days HRTs were 315
temp. of 10, 59, 77, 91°C, boiling, respectively. (29% increase) and 314 (30% increase) L/kg VSremoved respectively (with 72–76% CH4 content),
while those with the control sludge were 245 and 242 L/kg VSremoved.
• Pretreated sludge at HRTs of 10 and 15 days produced 64 and 43% higher TCOD removal over
their control sludge, respectively.
Mixed sludge (50:50 v/v): high pressure MW oven 2.45 GHz 1,600 W semi-continuously fed MH AD • VS removal of pretreated digesters slightly decreased (from 40 to 29%) when the HRT was reduced [108]
TS = 1.3–1.9% temp: 80°C HRT: 20, 15, 10, 7, and 5 days from 20 to 5 days and the control AD performed less efficiently than MW digestion (from 32 to 20%
heating rate: 15°C/min VS removal). The highest relative improvement in VS removal (41%) compared to the control
holding time: 5 min occurred at 5 days.
• When the HRT was reduced from 20 to 5 days, improvements in biogas yield increased in MW-
pretreated digester (from 1 to 13%) vs. control.
Sludge: MW oven 800 W pilot scale semi-continuously • Carbohydrates solubilization was slightly higher than proteins when the MW PrT was applied. [124]
DS = 4.0% temp: 80°C fed MH AD • A 50% increase in biogas yield was observed for a HRT of 20 days. The additional biogas yield was
treatment time: 3.5 min HRT: 20 days not sufficient to offset the energy consumed by the PrT, therefore, the system was not self-
supporting.

a
AD: anaerobic digestion, BMP: biochemical methane potential, DS: dry solids, HRT: hydraulic retention time, MH: mesophilic, MW: microwave, PrT: pretreatment, SRT: sludge retention time, TCOD and SCOD: total
and soluble chemical oxygen demand, temp: temperature, TH: thermophilic, TS: total solids, TWAS: thickened waste activated sludge, VS: volatile solids, WAS: waste activated sludge.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 423–443

Table 13
Results of high-temperature (≥100°C) microwave pretreatment studiesa.
Sludge type Pretreatment conditions
WAS: bench-scale industrial MW 2.45 GHz
TS = btw 1 & 3% 1,600 W
temp: 60–120°C
output power: 400–1,600 W
TWAS: bench-scale MW 2.45 GHz 1,200 W
TS = 3.3% temp: 175°C
heating rate: 1.25 and 3.75°C/min
holding time: 1 min
TWAS: bench-scale industrial MW 2.45 GHz
TS = 4.6% 1,250 W
temp: 50, 75, 96,120,150, and 175°C
heating rate: 1.2–1.4°C/min
holding time: 0 min
TWAS: bench-scale MW 2.45 GHz 1,250 W
436
1st sample 1st temp: 110–175°C
TS = 6 & 11.85% 1st heating rate: 3.75 & 7.5°C/min
2nd sample 2nd temp: 120, 150, and 175°C
TS = 4.6% 2nd heating rate: 0.83°C/min
Dewatered mixed sludge cake: bench-scale MW 2.45 GHz 1200 W
TS = 17.2% temp: 80, 120, and 160°C
heating rate: 7.5°C/min
holding time: 1 min
Dewatered mixed sludge cake: bench-scale MW 2.45 GHz 1,200 W
TS = 19.2% temp: 80, 120, and 160°C
heating rate: 3, 6, and 11°C/min
a
AD: anaerobic digestion, BMP: biochemical methane potential, MH: mesophilic, MW: microwave, PrT: pretreatment, SRT: sludge retention time, TCOD and SCOD: total and soluble chemical oxygen demand, temp:
temperature, TH: thermophilic, TS: total solids, TWAS: thickened waste activated sludge, VS: volatile solids, WAS: waste activated sludge.
G. Kor-Bicakci and C. Eskicioglu
AD conditions Key results Ref.
– • The MW power, temperature, and sludge TS concentration considerably affected the sludge solubilization. The [107]
ratio of SCOD to TCOD increased from 6.9% (control) to 17.5% at the condition of 400 W, 102°C, and 2.3% TS
which represented the maximum solubilization degree.
semi-continuously fed MH AD SRT: 20, 10 • Low MW heating rate (1.25°C/min) enhanced the solubilization of TWAS, however it had negative impact on [125]
and 5 days MH AD performance at low SRTs.
• 62% higher methane produced from MH digester pretreated at 175°C with 3.75°C/min at SRT of 5 days
compared to control digester (from 430 to 698 L/kg VSremoved).
• MW PrT improved the dewaterability of digestates compared to raw digestate at all SRTs.
BMP MH test • The ratios of SCOD to TCOD increased from 9% (control) to 24, 28 and 35% at 120, 150, 175°C, respectively. [126]
• In spite of mild acute inhibition in the first 9 days, MW-pretreated sludge (acclimated inoculum), irradiated to
175°C, produced the highest cumulative biogas production, which was 31 + 6% higher than the control after
18 days of digestion. However, non-acclimatized inoculum (2 times longer recovery times) digesting the identical
MW-pretreated sample attained only 18 + 2% higher biogas compared to control after 20 days.
BMP MH test • 1st BMP test: 6% TWAS pretreated at 175°C with 7.5°C/min (low intensity) led to the highest improvement of [127]
13% in biogas yield over the control at 21st day, despite inhibition.
• 2nd BMP test: further acclimation of MH inoculum (acclimatized for an extra 3 months) minimized methanogenic
inhibition during PrT and enhanced the rate of TWAS biodegradation. As a result, TWAS pretreated to 175°C at
0.83°C/min produced 31 ± 6% more biogas than control on 18th days.
• The potential dewaterability of digested sludge enhanced, as PrT temperature increased and MW heating rate
decreased.
semi-continuously fed MH and TH AD • Soluble COD, sugar, protein, and humic acids concentrations increased, as the PrT temperature increased. [82]
SRT: 20, 10 and 5 days • As the SRT was decreased, TS and VS removal efficiencies of digesters decreased, but the relative improvements
increased compared to control.
• At 160°C, the amount methane recovered was not enough to cover for the energy input. Control and pretreated
digesters at 80°C were more favorable at SRT of 10 days in terms of net energy.
BMP TH test • The maximum solubilization ratio was accomplished when the PrT was applied at 3°C/min (the slowest) and [120]
160°C (the highest).
• The highest ultimate biogas yield (498 mL/g VSadded) was attained at the lowest heating ramp rate and final
temperature (24.7% improvement over control). However, the lowest ultimate biogas production was 424 mL/g
VSadded obtained under the most intensive condition (11°C/min and 160°C).
• TH AD found to be more sensitive to inhibitory effects of PrT at elevated temperature to MH AD.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 423–443
G. Kor-Bicakci and C. Eskicioglu
(without pretreatment) AD is more pronounced for secondary sludge
samples and diminishes when primary sludge is added to WAS prior to
AD due to readily biodegradability nature of the primary sludge. In-
creasing pretreatment temperature beyond 175°C or apply it for a
prolonged period of time at lower temperatures (< 100°C) can form
refractory/inhibitory compounds to AD and reduce biodegradability of
pretreated sludge. These compounds can also interfere with the main-
stream treatment processes (e.g. UV disinfection) at WWTP due to dark
color present in AD centrate recycled back to WWTP. In addition to
benefits regarding enhanced energy recovery and sludge destruction,
high temperature (> 150°C) pretreatment provides significant decrease
in sludge viscosity and dewaterability time with additional operational
cost savings for WWTPs. It is also important to emphasize that, it is not
easy to make comparison among the findings of bench-, pilot- and full-
scale conventional heating studies due to the lack of standardized ap-
paratus and procedure. Moreover, the efficiency of pretreatment on AD
also varies depending on the different characteristics of primary, acti-
vated and mixed sludges, discussed in Section 2.1 and presented in
Tables 1–3. This effect is particularly emphasized by some of the studies
included in Tables 10 and 11 [11,103,104].
3.3.2. Microwave irradiation
As an emerging pretreatment technology on sludge treatment in the
early 2000's, many studies have evaluated MW irradiation as an alter-
native to the CH with further benefits such as rapid/selective heating, a
dramatic decrease in operation time, easier operation, compactness and
reduction in hazardous product emissions [79,107,108]. MW irradia-
tion at 2,450 MHz has been proven to rupture the microbial cell walls,
disrupt the complex sludge structure of WAS effectively, hereby it en-
hances sludge disintegration and solubilization [107,109–112]. The
solubilization degree of mixed sludge (1.7%TS) is affected by both
heating ramp rate (2.9–17.1°C/min) and temperature (52–108°C) sig-
nificantly [110]. In their study, the ratio of soluble COD to total COD
increased from 2.6% (control) to 3.3–14.7% after MW pretreatment to
52–108°C. Maximum solubilization degree of 15.8% was achieved at a
ramp rate of 2.9°C/min and a final temperature of 104°C, within the
design boundaries. According to another study by Toreci et al. [111],
the solubilization ratios were 4.5- and 8.8-fold more than unpretreated
thickened WAS for 6 and 11.85% TS concentrations, respectively. MW
pretreatment at 175°C with the lowest MW intensity of 3.75°C/min had
the highest enhancement on sludge solubilization for both sludge con-
centrations. As pretreatment temperature increased (110 → 150→
175°C), soluble protein and sugar concentrations increased. Lower MW
intensity (3.75°C/min) achieved a greater release of proteins and sugars
into soluble phase compared to higher MW intensity (7.5°C/min).
MW irradiation is also known to be effective in destroying patho-
gens like Salmonella spp., and fecal coliforms [12,14,113–116]. Hong
et al. [115] ] informed that fecal coliforms were not detected at 65°C for
primary & anaerobically digested sludge and at 85°C for WAS after MW
irradiation. During the bench-scale AD operation (SRT of 20 days) in a
semi-batch mode, the highest average log reduction of fecal coliforms
was accomplished by the digester fed with MW-pretreated mixed sludge
(> 2.66 log removal) over the other two digesters fed with raw mixed
sludge (a mixture of primary sludge and WAS: 1.27 log removal) and
externally heated mixed sludge (2.08 log removal), respectively [115].
According to study by Pino-Jelcic et al. [14], during continuous op-
eration of mesophilic AD (HRT of 25 days), the fecal coliforms’ log
inactivation for microwaved and digested sludge (at 60–65°C for 110 s)
was 4.2 ± 0.4, whereas for conventionally heated (at 60–65°C for
960 s) and digested sludge and raw sludge, log inactivations were
2.9 ± 0.5 and 1.5 ± 0.5, respectively. Additionally, in terms of Sal-
monella spp., no colonies were detected in 85% of the microwaved and
digested samples. MW pretreatment also provides important enhance-
ments in sludge dewaterability with subsequent improvement of di-
gestate handling [69,117–119]. Wojciechowska [117] reported that the
quantitative improvement of dewaterability depends on the sludge
437
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 423–443
type. Higher effect is observed for the primary sludge (average specific
resistance (SR): 0.797 ± 1013 m/kg) when MW irradiation (at 550 W)
was applied at an optimal exposure time of 180 s compared to mixed
(average SF: 7.720 ± 1013 m/kg at the contact time of 180 s) or
anaerobically-digested sludge (average SF: 21.587 ± 1013 m/kg at the
contact time of 120 s). The study by Yu et al. [118] also stated that the
AD of MW-pretreated sludge significantly enhanced the sludge dewa-
terability at a short contact time (60 s at 900 W), whereas it deterio-
rated dewaterability at a long contact time (140 s). In the literature,
many studies have confirmed that the AD performance of waste sludge
is improved by low- and high-temperature MW pretreatment prior to
digestion under both batch and continuous mode, as can be seen in
Tables 12 and 13, respectively. Similar to CH pretreatment, the results
in Tables 12 and 13 also indicated that, as MW irradiation temperature
increases, sludge solubilization and improvement in methane produc-
tion from AD increases. The additional improvements reported for CH
pretreatment regarding reduced sludge viscosity, enhanced sludge de-
waterability and pathogen destruction are also reported for MW irra-
diation. The slower MW heating rate (3 °C/min) at high MW tempera-
tures (160°C) achieves higher biopolymer solubilization in sludge than
those of faster heating rates (6, 11 °C/min), but this advantage di-
minishes during thermophilic AD, as thermophilic methane formers are
known to be more sensitive to inhibitory compounds formed at high
temperatures applied for prolonged durations [120]. MW irradiation of
primary sludge is not recommended, as it does not improve the extent
of primary sludge degradation in AD. Applying MW irradiation to
secondary sludge with high TS content significantly reduces energy
input requirement for heating, however as commercially available MW
units that operate at 2,450 MHz are not designed to heat municipal
sludge, the energy recovered from methane is not high enough to
compensate the energy input needed for MW irradiation [121] (further
discussed in Section 4). The results of CH and MW studies are very
difficult to compare directly as they vary according to the type of sludge
used (e.g. primary, WAS, mixed sludge), the properties of sludge (e.g.
sludge concentration), pretreatment conditions (e.g. temperature,
duration, heating rate, power), AD process parameters (e.g. hydraulic
retention time, operating temperature, batch or continuous mode).
However, the literature also indicates that when MW irradiation and
CH are applied to same sludge samples under identical pretreatment
conditions in terms of initial and final temperatures (°C), ramp rates
(°C/min), exposure times at desired final temperatures (min) along with
subsequent AD conditions, statistically similar COD/biopolymer solu-
bilization and biodegradation improvement results are obtained [122].
This indicates that there is no additional process benefits gained from
the previously postulated “athermal effects” of MW irradiation
(Table 9) and the decision to choose between CH and MW pretreatment
should be based on energy efficiency/cost and technology readiness of
the pretreatment system, which favours CH at the moment.
3.3.3. Radio frequency
As the most recent thermal pretreatment technology, RF heating is a
novel and energy-efficient system for sludge disintegration and the
bioenergy production from the AD process with rapid and uniform
heating pattern [17]. Operation of household and industrial type MW
ovens is generally restricted to a single heating frequency of 2,450 MHz
(corresponding to a shorter wavelength of 12.2 cm) because of the in-
expensive and readily available high-power tubes (magnetrons) used
[128]. Although the water in the food is a good absorber of MW irra-
diation at this frequency [79], there is no fundamental proof that this
frequency is the most optimal frequency for pretreatment of waste
sludge. Taking into account the above-mentioned drawback of the MW
system as well as the high electrical energy consumption during MW
pretreatment, and its expensive production costs for full-scale applica-
tions, an RF heating system operated at a frequency of 13.56 MHz was
specifically designed to effectively heat municipal sludge in the Uni-
versity of British Columbia (UBC) Bioreactor Technology Group [17].
 G. Kor-Bicakci and C. Eskicioglu

Table 14
Results of low-temperature (< 100°C) and high-temperature (≥100°C) radio frequency pretreatment studiesa.
Sludge type Pretreatment conditions AD conditions Key results Ref.

TWAS: Comparison of RF heating with that of MW heating under identical BMP MH test • No statistically significant difference was observed between RF and MW PrT systems [15]
TS = 3.5% profiles: (p-value > 0.05) as increasing the final temperature and the holding time enhanced COD and
temp: 60, 90, 120°C biopolymer solubilization in both methods.
holding time: 0, 1, 2 h • Compared to control digester, 15.6% higher biogas was produced from the RF heating system under
heating rate: 3°C/min the PrT condition of “120°C and 2 h” (as the maximum ultimate biogas production of
1) bench-scale RF system 13.56 MHz 1,000 W 461.3 ± 2.6 mL/g VSfed). MW and RF PrT applications didn't create any meaningful difference in
max. pressure: 200 psi terms of ultimate biogas production (p-value > 0.05) and they also produced similar level of biogas
RF amplifier max. output power: 1,000 W under all PrT conditions.
2) bench-scale programmable MW 2.45 GHz 1,200 W • The RF PrT system was designed to reach 99.9% maximum power transfer efficiency at 70°C and
more than 95% power transfer efficiency between 40 and 120°C.
• The energy efficiency of the RF system was measured as 67.3–95.5% for the range of 25–120°C. The
custom-built RF system was two times higher than with that of the MW heating system which ranged

438
from 37 to 43%.
TWAS Comparison of RF heating with that of CH and MW heating under identical BMP MH and TH • The three different PrT methods compared accomplished the same level of COD and biopolymers [16]
TS = 3.5% profiles: (RF versus MW and MW versus CH) tests solubilization ((p-value > 0.05).
Dewatered sludge cake: temp: 60, 80, 90, 120°C • The output energy of the advanced digesters, fed with RF-pretreated TWAS, was increased from 5 to
TS = 19.2% holding time: 0, 60, 120 min 21% compared to the control digester according to the different PrT conditions applied. The type of
heating rate: 3, 6, 11°C/min pretreatment method used was not found as a statistically significant factor (p-value > 0.05) in terms
1) bench-scale RF system 13.56 MHz/1000 W of bioenergy production from municipal sludge.
max. pressure: 200 psi • When the different EM heating systems (MW and RF) were compared under different PrT conditions
RF amplifier max. output power: 1,000 W (temperature and holding time) applied, the energy consumption during the MW PrT was
2) bench-scale programmable MW 2.45 GHz/1,200 W considerably (229–441%) higher than that of the RF PrT.
3) bench-scale CH system (custom-built pressure-sealed vessel) • Under the pretreatment condition at 120°C (3°C/min and 0 min), the electrical energy consumption
of the CH, MW, and RF pretreatment methods were 2.0, 3.3, and 0.6 kJ/g sludge, respectively.
• Compared to MW-pretreated digesters, the RF-pretreated digesters had the higher net energy
production, regardless of the PrT conditions (temperature and holding time) applied.

a
AD: anaerobic digestion, BMP: biochemical methane potential, CH: conventional, EM: electromagnetic, max: maximum, MH: mesophilic, MW: microwave, PrT: pretreatment, RF: radio frequency, temp: temperature,
TH: thermophilic, TS: total solids, TWAS: thickened waste activated sludge, VS: volatile solids.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 423–443
G. Kor-Bicakci and C. Eskicioglu Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 423–443

Table 15
Energy self-sufficient full-scale WWTPs by using patented thermal hydrolysis products in the U.S. and Europea.
WWTP Pretreatment conditions AD conditions Bioenergy utilization with CHP integration Ref.

b
Davyhulme WwTW CambiTHP™: 8 × MH ADs 5 × CHP engines and 3 × boilers - [133]
location: Manchester, UK 4 × CambiTHP™ streams −2 digesters per stream capasity: 12 MW [134]
flowrate: 200 MGD 5 batch reactors per stream capacity: 7,500 m3 per each electricity produced: 87.6 GW h per year [135]
OLR: 4.16 kg VS/m3/day pre-dewatered raw substrate: thickened mixed Energy self-sufficiency: 96%
capasity: 121,000 tonnes DS per year sludge: TS: 16.5% sludge (PS + WAS)
average: 91,000 tonnes DS per year temp: 165°C temp: 40 ± 1°C
Previous conditions: holding time: 30 min HRT: 18–19 days
capasity: 39,000 tonnes DS per year pressure: 6 bar 2 x gas holders capacity:
OLR: 1.25 kg VS/m3/day 9000 m3 per each
lime stabilization + dewatering processes biogas produced: 238 GW h per
year
Blue Plains Advanced WWTPc CambiTHP™: 4 × MH ADs capacity: 5 × 4.6 MW gas turbines - capasity: 11.8 [133]
location: Washington, D.C., the U.S. 4 × CambiTHP™ streams 14,200 m3 per each → one of MW [136]
average flowrate: 370 MGD 6 batch reactors per stream the largest in the world electricity produced: 103 GW h per year
peak capacity: 1 BGD → one of the largest in the substrate: thickened mixed →saving of $20 million (estimation)
advanced nutrient removal processes world sludge (PS + WAS) annually: $10 million in power savings
Previous sludge treatment condition: temp: 165°C Advanced AD process: and $10 million in reduced sludge
Lime stabilization + dewatering processes → Class B holding time: 20 min →producing Class A biosolids handling costs
biosolids (1,200 wet tons of biosolids each day, ∼65 pressure: 6 bar →reducing the plant's GHG Energy self-sufficiency: 33%
truckloads) capacity: 410 DS per day emissions by 40%
biogas produced: 360 GW h per
year
Csepel WWTP Exelys™ Thermal Hydrolysis Exelys™-DLD (Digestion-Lysis- electricity produced: 39 GW h per year [102]
location: Budapest, Hungary System Digestion) configuration: heat produced: 20 GW h per year [133]
average flowrate: 93 MGD pre-dewatered raw 3 stages: electricity import: 52.4%
peak capacity: 1 BGD sludge: TS: 22% - 1st digestion: TH AD capacity: Energy self-sufficiency: 65%
biological nutrient removal process temp: 140–165°C 17,000 m3
Previous sludge treatment condition: holding time: 20 min HRT: 12 days
sludge pasteurisation (70°C for 30 min) of mixed pressure: 9–11 bar - Exelys™ hydrolysis
sludge (PS + WAS) + TH AD (HRT: 12 - 2nd digestion: MH AD
days) + dewatering capacity: 63,000 m3
electricity produced: 78.1 MW h per day HRT: 15 days
substrate: thickened mixed
sludge (PS + WAS)
biogas produced: 95 GW h per
year

a
AD: anaerobic digestion, BGD: billion gallons per day, CHP: combined heat and power, DS: dry solids, GHG: greenhouse gas, HRT: hydraulic retention time,
MGD: million gallon per day, MH: mesophilic, OLR: organic loading rate, PS: primary sludge, temp: temperature, TH: thermophilic, THP: thermal hydrolysis process,
TS: total solids, VS: volatile solids, WAS: waste activated sludge, WWTP: wastewater treatment plants, WwTW: wastewater treatment works.
b
Under Davyhulme Sludge Balanced Asset Programme (SBAP) project.
c
Under Biosolids Management Program.

The UBC researchers selected the frequency of 13.56 MHz by experi-
mental measurements based on the dielectric properties (permittivity
and conductivity) of municipal sludge and the higher efficiency of the
power amplifiers at this frequency [80,128]. In their study, the power
efficiency of the amplifier for the custom-built RF heating system at
13.56 MHz was 85%, which was more efficient than typical high power
MW generators (50–60%). Moreover, their experimental results showed
a power transfer efficiency from the amplifier to the load of more than
86% over a temperature range from 20 to 120°C [80]. As an electro-
magnetic heating method, the use of RF pretreatment system has sig-
nificant advantages over traditional heating systems (i.e. CH and MW),
such as rapid and uniform heating through large sludge volumes
[16,80]. Low-temperature (< 100°C) and high-temperature (≥100°C)
RF pretreatment studies are summarized in Table 14. According to their
results, custom-built RF heating has the advantages of having a sig-
nificantly higher energy efficiency and a lower energy consumption
while being as effective as CH and MW heating systems in terms of
sludge disintegration and AD performance under identical thermal
profile [15–17].
4. Energy aspects
Up to now, several studies have focused on WWTPs for moving
towards energy self-sufficient operations in order to reduce their total
operation costs, energy consumption, and carbon footprints
[102,129–132]. For achieving energy self-sufficiency in WWTPs, the
total energy generation gained through the treatment processes (e.g.
the AD of excess sludge) should satisfy the total energy demand for
treating wastewater and sludge. In other words, WWTPs should work
with zero external energy supply [129]. In this context, few WWTPs
(less than 10%) in U.S. are generating extra biogas for commercial
usage within and/or outside the facility [129]. On the way to the en-
ergetically self-sufficient facility, the effective integration of a com-
bined heat and power (CHP) system to WWTP is the most widely ac-
cepted option to increase net recovered energy from the enhanced
methane generation. The CHP systems with AD have been successfully
implemented in the full-scale WWTPs in North America and Europe
(such as Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Hungary) by
achieving energy self-sufficiency with a combination of electricity and
heat [133].
Based on the studies applied at bench-scale, it can be concluded that
the thermal pretreatment technologies have high potential to be applied
in full-scale considering the enhanced bioenergy recovery from excess
sludge. However, the extensive energy feasibility study by Cano et al.
[70] revealed that most of the pretreatment studies at bench-scale,
taken from different scientific papers in the literature, were not energy
feasible when implemented at full-scale due to their high energy re-
quirements for pretreatment (generally in the form of electricity). For
instance, the amount of energy needed for MW pretreatment was in the
range of 37.5–150 kW h per m3 sludge at different sludge concentra-
tions (5.9–52 g/L). The theoretical biogas increase needed to make
energy sufficiency were also calculated as between 338 and 3,150%,

439
G. Kor-Bicakci and C. Eskicioglu
Fig. 5. Flow of sludge, heat, and electricity lines at the Csepel Wastewater Treatment Plant after integration of an Exelys™ - Digestion-Lysis-Digestion configuration (the
data were adapted from Refs. [102,133]).
which indicated the energy unfeasibility of MW pretreatment at the
aforementioned conditions for full-scale applications [70]. Kor-Bicakci
et al. [121] also examined the effect of dewatered sludge MW pre-
treatment on net energy generation (in the form of electricity and heat)
to assess the feasibility of potential full-scale advanced anaerobic di-
gesters. MW irradiation was applied to the dewatered WAS at high
solids concentration (10.5 ± 0.5% by weight) for minimizing electrical
energy consumption during pretreatment and maximizing net energy
generation. The effects of MW final temperature (80 and 160°C) and
holding time (1 and 30 min) were evaluated by ten bench-scale anae-
robic digesters operated in a semi-continuously fed mode. Although the
concentration of sludge subjected to pretreatment was found to have a
substantial impact on electrical energy consumption (between 8 and
34 kJ/g VSfed), all MW-pretreated digesters resulted in negative net
electrical energy generation (between −2 and −29 kJ/g VSfed). This
indicated that the energy recovered from the enhanced methane pro-
duction was not sufficient to cover the electrical energy consumed by
MW unit.
In the case of the use of commercial thermal hydrolysis
440
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 423–443
technologies, such as CambiTHP™ and Exelys™, a complete energy re-
covery and self-sufficiency can be achieved through a full energy in-
tegration of CHP systems in WWTPs [70]. It can be explained by extra
heat produced in the CHP engine, which is used for heating purposes, in
addition to very low electricity demand for pretreatment. When this
scenario was implemented, the relative biogas production increase from
pretreatment needed to satisfy their energy requirements was found to
be below 10% (with the total energy consumption below 10 kW h per
m3 sludge) [70]. Table 15 summarizes studies which reported energy
self-sufficient full-scale WWTPs by using patented thermal hydrolysis
products in the U.S. and Europe. Based on these studies, the electricity
production from biogas utilized to fuel the CHP facility can offset from
33 to 96% of the total energy requirements of the full-scale WWTPs
given in Table 15. For instance, at Csepel WWTP (Budapest, Hungary),
previously, mixed sludge was first pasteurized at 70°C for 30 min and
subsequently subjected to thermophilic AD. With this process config-
uration, Csepel WWTP could only offset 49% of its total energy demand
from biogas [102]. In order to boost bioenergy and power generation,
the new biosolids management design (implementation of Exelys™ and
G. Kor-Bicakci and C. Eskicioglu
a second mesophilic AD) was recently integrated into the plant. With
this new process configuration, as can be seen in Fig. 5, the electricity
production can potentially increase from 78.1 MW h/day to
106.2 MW h/day, enhancing the energy self-sufficiency to 65% [133].
Studies indicate that high DS content reduces energy requirements
for pretreatment [66,101,106,130,137] and increases the net profits of
the facility linearly by the additional electricity yield (with a rate of
0.2 kW h per kg TS increase) [70]. It can be said that sludge con-
centration is the fundamental factor for moving towards an en-
ergetically self-sufficient WWTP. Sludge has to be thickened just over
50 g/L in order to accomplish energy self-sufficiency in WWTP if
thermal hydrolysis is applied in combination with CHP system. On the
contrary, a minimum sludge concentration over 250 g/L has to be
reached if a plant does not have a heat integrated system [70].
5. Conclusions and future direction
Developing energy-efficient biomass-based technologies can help to
solve growing worldwide concerns about energy sustainability by re-
placing fossil fuels and consequently reducing greenhouse gas emis-
sions. The first motivation of this review paper was to evaluate the
performance of the different thermal pretreatment technologies applied
on wastewater treatment sludge to boost bioenergy recovery and im-
prove biosolids quality before agricultural or reclaimed land soil
amendment usage. The second motivation of this review paper was to
discuss the unavoidable sludge generation around the world and cur-
rent sludge disposal & reuse options.
• High temperature/pressure thermal sludge pretreatment systems,
that are utilizing waste steam/heat available at WWTPs, have been
proven successful to enhance bioenergy generation from AD, to
upgrade bisosolids quality by higher pathogen destruction, and to
enhance digestate dewatarability,
• In spite of their numerous advantages, industrial type MW systems
are still very costly as a sludge pretreatment method for full-scale
applications due to their limited energy efficiencies.
• Although similar results have been obtained from CH, MW, and RF
heating methods in terms of sludge disintegration (between ∼5 and
22%) and biogas production (between ∼5 and 21% higher),
custom-built RF system has emerged as a novel and more energy-
efficient thermal pretreatment technology. However, currently,
there is no commercially available MW and RF technology for
sludge disintegration at full-scale.
• Therefore, more studies are urgently needed to make electro-
magnetic systems competitive with the existing patented thermal
hydrolysis processes, such as CambiTHP™ and Exelys™.
• The effect of thermal pretreatment on AD performance is directly
associated with the type of sludge to be treated. When the WAS is
used as substrate during pretreatment prior to digestion, the highest
bioenergy recovery can be achieved because of its containing in-
herently less biodegradable compounds compared to primary and
mixed sludges.
• As a resource recovery option for a sustainable sludge management,
agricultural use of stabilized municipal wastewater sludge is re-
ported as the most economically and environmentally accepted
disposal option.
Acknowledgements
This work has been carried out with the financial support of
TUBITAK - International Research Fellowship Program (2214/A) and
The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) -
Collaborative Research and Development Grant (CRDP J462765-13).
The authors would like to thank Caroline Cimon (MASc student at
UBC's Bioreactor Technology Group) for her proofreading. The authors
also express their gratitude to Dr. Emine Ubay-Çokgor (Professor at
441
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 423–443
Istanbul Technical University) for her valuable comments.
References
[1] Pilli S, Yan S, Tyagi RD, Surampalli RY. Thermal pretreatment of sewage sludge to
enhance anaerobic digestion: a review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol
2015;45:669–702.
[2] EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Biosolids generation, use, and dis-
posal in the United States. 1999. EPA/530/R-99/009, Washington, DC.
[3] Water UK. Recycling of biosolids to land. 2010 from https://assuredbiosolids.co.
uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Recycling-Biosolids-to-Agricultural-Land.pdf,
Accessed date: 5 October 2018.
[4] Appels L, Baeyens J, Degrève J, Dewil R. Principles and potential of the anaerobic
digestion of waste-activated sludge. Prog Energy Combust 2008;34:755–81.
[5] Anjum M, Al-Makishah NH, Barakat MA. Wastewater sludge stabilization using
pre-treatment methods. Process Safe Environ 2016;102:615–32.
[6] Elliott A, Mahmood T. Pretreatment technologies for advancing anaerobic diges-
tion of pulp and paper biotreatment residues. Water Res 2007;41:4273–86.
[7] Eskicioglu C, Kennedy KJ, Droste RL. Initial examination of microwave pretreat-
ment on primary, secondary and mixed sludges before and after anaerobic diges-
tion. Water Sci Technol 2008;57:311–7.
[8] Stuckey DC, McCarty PL. The effect of thermal pretreatment on the anaerobic
biodegradability and toxicity of waste activated sludge. Water Res
1984;18:1343–53.
[9] Pinnekamp J. Effects of thermal pretreatment of sewage-sludge on anaerobic-di-
gestion. Water Sci Technol 1989;21:97–108.
[10] Haug RT, Lebrun TJ, Tortorici LD. Thermal pretreatment of sludges - a field de-
monstration. J Water Pollut Control Fed 1983;55:23–34.
[11] Haug RT, Stuckey D, Gossett J, McCarty PL. Effect of thermal pretreatment on
digestibility and dewaterability of organic sludges. J Water Pollut Control Fed
1978;50:73–85.
[12] Hong SM, Park JK, Lee YO. Mechanisms of microwave irradiation involved in the
destruction of fecal coliforms from biosolids. Water Res 2004;38:1615–25.
[13] Jones DA, Lelyveld TP, Mavrofidis SD, Kingman SW, Miles NJ. Microwave heating
applications in environmental engineering - a review. Resour Conserv Recycl
2002;34:75–90.
[14] Pino-Jelcic SA, Hong SM, Park JK. Enhanced anaerobic biodegradability and in-
activation of fecal coliforms and salmonella spp. in wastewater sludge by using
microwaves. Water Environ Res 2006;78:209–16.
[15] Hosseini Koupaie E, Johnson T, Eskicioglu C. Advanced anaerobic digestion of
municipal sludge using a novel and energy-efficient radio frequency pretreatment
system. Water Res 2017;118:70–81.
[16] Hosseini Koupaie E, Johnson T, Eskicioglu C. Comparison of different electricity-
based thermal pretreatment methods for enhanced bioenergy production from
municipal sludge. Molecules 2018;23.
[17] Hosseini Koupaie E. Design, performance evaluation and energy assessment of a
novel radio frequency hydrolysis system for advanced anaerobic sludge digestion.
Doctoral Dissertation, the College of Graduate Studies The University of British
Columbia (Okanagan); 2017. June 2017.
[18] Fytili D, Zabaniotou A. Utilization of sewage sludge in EU application of old and
new methods - a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2008;12:116–40.
[19] EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A plain English guide to the EPA Part
503 biosolids Rule. 1994. EPA/832/R-93/003.
[20] Verlicchi P, Zambello E. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in untreated
and treated sewage sludge: occurrence and environmental risk in the case of ap-
plication on soil - a critical review. Sci Total Environ 2015;538:750–67.
[21] Metcalf Eddy. AECOM-Wastewater engineering: treatment and resource recovery.
fifth ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education; 2014.
[22] Vesilind PA, Spinosa L. Production and regulations. In: Spinosa L, Vesilind PA,
editors. Sludge into biosolids: processing, disposal, utilization. London: IWA
publishing; 2001. p. 1–18.
[23] Colón J, Alarcón M, Healy MG, Namli A, Sanin FD, Tayà C, et al. Chapter 14:
producing sludge for agricultural applications. In: Lema JM, Suarez S, editors.
Innovative wastewater treatment & resource recovery technologies, impacts on
energy, economy and environment. London, UK: IWA publishing; 2017. p.
296–322.
[24] Parkin GF, Owen WF. Fundamentals of anaerobic digestion of wastewater sludges.
J Environ Eng 1986;112:867–920.
[25] Dai X, Luo F, Dai L, Dong B. Degradation of extracellular polymeric substances
(eps) in anaerobic digestion of dewatered sludge. Procedia Environ Sci
2013;18:515–21.
[26] Tyagi V, Lo S-L. Application of physico-chemical pretreatment methods to enhance
the sludge disintegration and subsequent anaerobic digestion: an up to date re-
view. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 2011;10:215–42.
[27] Frølund B, Palmgren R, Keiding K, Nielsen PH. Extraction of extracellular polymers
from activated sludge using a cation exchange resin. Water Res 1996;30:1749–58.
[28] Wilén B-M, Jin B, Lant P. The influence of key chemical constituents in activated
sludge on surface and flocculating properties. Water Res 2003;37:2127–39.
[29] Carrère H, Dumas C, Battimelli A, Batstone DJ, Delgenès JP, Steyer JP, et al.
Pretreatment methods to improve sludge anaerobic degradability: a review. J
Hazard Mater 2010;183:1–15.
[30] Barber WPF. Influence of wastewater treatment on sludge production and pro-
cessing. Water Environ J 2014;28:1–10.
[31] von Sperling M, Gonçalves RF. Sludge characteristics and production. Andreoli CV,
von Sperling M, Fernandes F, editors. Sludge treatment and disposal. biological
G. Kor-Bicakci and C. Eskicioglu
wastewater treatment series, vol. 6. London, UK: IWA publishing; 2007. p. 4–31.
[32] Manara P, Zabaniotou A. Towards sewage sludge based biofuels via thermo-
chemical conversion – a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:2566–82.
[33] Zheng J, Kennedy KJ, Eskicioglu C. Effect of low temperature microwave pre-
treatment on characteristics and mesophilic digestion of primary sludge. Environ
Technol 2009;30:319–27.
[34] Eskicioglu C, Kennedy KJ, Droste RL. Characterization of soluble organic matter of
waste activated sludge before and after thermal pretreatment. Water Res
2006;40:3725–36.
[35] Wahidunnabi AK, Eskicioglu C. High pressure homogenization and two-phased
anaerobic digestion for enhanced biogas conversion from municipal waste sludge.
Water Res 2014;66:430–46.
[36] NEBRA. North East Biosolids Residuals Association. A national biosolids regula-
tion, quality, end use & disposal survey, Final report. 2007.
[37] UN-Habitat United Nations Human Settlements Programme. LeBlanc Ronald J,
Matthews Peter, Richard Roland P, editors. Global Atlas of excreta, wastewater
sludge, and biosolids management: moving forward the sustainable and welcome
uses of a global resource. 2008.
[38] CEC. Council of the European Communities. Council Directive of 21 May 1991
concerning urban waste water treatment (91/271/EEC). Official Journal of the
European Communities; 1991. No: L 135/40-52.
[39] Milieu, WRc, RPA. Environmental, economic and social impacts of the use of
sewage sludge on land. Final Report, Part III: project Interim Reports 2010. DG
ENV.G.4/ETU/2008/0076r.
[40] Barber WPF. Comparison of thermal destruction technology for complete biosolids
processing. Annual conference 2012, the New Zealand water & wastes association.
2012.
[41] CCME. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Canada-wide approach
for the management of wastewater biosolids. 2012. October 11, PN 1477.
[42] EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Standards for the disposal and utili-
zation of sewage sludge Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 503, Vol.
58, No. 32 February 19, 1993.
[43] CEC. Council of the European Communities, Council Directive of 12 June 1986 on
the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage
sludge is used in agriculture (86/278/EEC), Official Journal of the European
Communities No: L 181/6-12. 1986.
[44] Eurostat. Sewage sludge production and disposal from urban wastewater in
countries from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&plugin=1
&language=en&pcode=ten00030, Accessed date: 23 January 2018.
[45] Yang G, Zhang G, Wang H. Current state of sludge production, management,
treatment and disposal in China. Water Res 2015;78:60–73.
[46] CEC. Council of the European Communities. Council directive of 27 april 2000 on
working document on sludge - third draft. Brussels: European Commission DG
Environment; 2000.
[47] EC. European Commission. Roadmap to a resource efficient Europe. Brussels:
COM; 2011. p. 571. 20.9.2011.
[48] EC. European Commission. Joint research centre (JRC) scientific and policy re-
ports, end-of-waste criteria for biodegradable waste subjected to biological treat-
ment (compost & digestate) - technical proposals by hans saveyn & peter eder.
2014.
[49] Zhen G, Lu X, Kato H, Zhao Y, Li Y-Y. Overview of pretreatment strategies for
enhancing sewage sludge disintegration and subsequent anaerobic digestion:
current advances, full-scale application and future perspectives. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2017;69:559–77.
[50] EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. BiosolidsTechnology fact sheet, land
application of biosolids EPA 832-F-00-064 September 2000 from https://www3.
epa.gov/npdes/pubs/land_application.pdf, Accessed date: 25 January 2018.
[51] European Commission EC. Disposal and recycling routes for sewage sludge, Part 4
– economic sub-component report. 2002.
[52] Clarke BO, Smith SR. Review of 'emerging' organic contaminants in biosolids and
assessment of international research priorities for the agricultural use of biosolids.
Environ Int 2011;37:226–47.
[53] EC - DG Environment European Commission. Ex-post evaluation of certain waste
stream Directives - final report. 2014.
[54] 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.
[55] Jenness N. Mine reclamation using biosolids. Washington, DC: Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Technology Innovation Office; 2001.
[56] Barber WPF. The influence on digestion and advanced digestion on the environ-
mental impacts of incinerating sewage sludge – a case study from the UK.
Proceedings of the water environment federation. Residuals and Biosolids; 2010. p.
865–81.
[57] Samolada MC, Zabaniotou AA. Potential application of pyrolysis for the effective
valorisation of the end of life tires in Greece. Environ Dev 2012;4:73–87.
[58] Nazari L, Sarathy S, Santoro D, Ho D, Ray MB, Xu C. 3 - recent advances in energy
recovery from wastewater sludge. In: Rosendahl L, editor. Direct thermochemical
liquefaction for energy applications. Woodhead Publishing; 2018. p. 67–100.
[59] Barber WPF. Thermal hydrolysis for sewage treatment: a critical review. Water Res
2016;104:53–71.
[60] Barber B, Nilsen PJ, Christy P. Cambi SolidStream®: thermal hydrolysis as a pre-
treatment for dewatering to further reduce operating costs. Proceedings of the
water environment federation, WEFTEC 2017. 5070–5083. 2017. 14.
[61] Insel G, Kendir E, Ayol A, Erdincler A, Arikan O, Imamoglu I, et al. Current si-
tuation and future perspectives in municipal wastewater treatment and sludge
442
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 423–443
management in Turkey. J Residuals Sci Technol 2013;10:133–8.
[62] Mininni G, Blanch AR, Lucena F, Berselli S. EU policy on sewage sludge utilization
and perspectives on new approaches of sludge management. Environ Sci Pollut Res
2015;22:7361–74.
[63] Tanaka S, Kobayashi T, Kamiyama K-i, Signey Bildan MLN. Effects of thermo-
chemical pretreatment on the anaerobic digestion of waste activated sludge. Water
Sci Technol 1997;35:209–15.
[64] Tang B, Yu L, Huang S, Luo J, Zhuo Y. Energy efficiency of pre-treating excess
sewage sludge with microwave irradiation. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:5092–7.
[65] Mills N, Pearce P, Farrow J, Thorpe RB, Kirkby NF. Environmental & economic life
cycle assessment of current & future sewage sludge to energy technologies. Waste
Manag 2014;34:185–95.
[66] Pérez-Elvira SI, Fernández-Polanco F, Fernández-Polanco M, Rodríguez P, Rouge
P. Hydrothermal multivariable approach. Full-scale feasibility study. Electron J
Biotechnol 2008;11:1–10.
[67] Carlsson M, Lagerkvist A, Morgan-Sagastume F. The effects of substrate pre-
treatment on anaerobic digestion systems: a review. Waste Manag
2012;32:1634–50.
[68] Kepp U, Solheim OE. Thermo dynamical assessment of the digestion process. 5th
european biosolids and organic residiuals conference, wakefield, UK. 2000.
[69] Eskicioglu C, Kennedy KJ, Droste RL. Enhancement of batch waste activated sludge
digestion by microwave pretreatment. Water Environ Res 2007;79:2304–17.
[70] Cano R, Pérez-Elvira SI, Fdz-Polanco F. Energy feasibility study of sludge pre-
treatments: a review. Appl Energy 2015;149:176–85.
[71] Bougrier C, Albasi C, Delgenès JP, Carrère H. Effect of ultrasonic, thermal and
ozone pre-treatments on waste activated sludge solubilisation and anaerobic bio-
degradability. Chem Eng Process: Process Intensification 2006;45:711–8.
[72] Bougrier C, Delgenès JP, Carrère H. Impacts of thermal pre-treatments on the semi-
continuous anaerobic digestion of waste activated sludge. Biochem Eng J
2007;34:20–7.
[73] Ariunbaatar J, Panico A, Esposito G, Pirozzi F, Lens PNL. Pretreatment methods to
enhance anaerobic digestion of organic solid waste. Appl Energy
2014;123:143–56.
[74] Neumann P, Pesante S, Venegas M, Vidal G. Developments in pre-treatment
methods to improve anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge. Rev Environ Sci
Biotechnol 2016;15:173–211.
[75] Appels L, Degreve J, Van der Bruggen B, Van Impe J, Dewil R. Influence of low
temperature thermal pre-treatment on sludge solubilisation, heavy metal release
and anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:5743–8.
[76] Muller JA. Prospects and problems of sludge pre-treatment processes. Water Sci
Technol 2001;44:121–8.
[77] Neyens E, Baeyens J. A review of thermal sludge pre-treatment processes to im-
prove dewaterability. J Hazard Mater 2003;98:51–67.
[78] Web of Science. Number of scientific documents on the topic of “thermal pre-
treatment of sludge” published between 1978. 2017http://wcs.webofknowledge.
com/RA/analyze.do?product=WOS&SID=D5c5jCqnqMtUrjjsrg7&field=PY_
PublicationYear_PublicationYear_en&yearSort=true, Accessed date: 7 October
2018.
[79] Tyagi VK, Lo S-L. Microwave irradiation: a sustainable way for sludge treatment
and resource recovery. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;18:288–305.
[80] Ferdous MS, Koupaie EH, Eskicioglu C, Johnson T. An experimental 13.56 MHz
radio frequency heating system for efficient thermal pretreatment of wastewater
sludge. Prog Electromagn Res B 2017;79:83–101.
[81] Piyasena P, Dussault C, Koutchma T, Ramaswamy HS, Awuah GB. Radio frequency
heating of foods: principles, applications and related properties-a review. Crit Rev
Food Sci Nutr 2003;43:587–606.
[82] Mehdizadeh SN, Eskicioglu C, Bobowski J, Johnson T. Conductive heating and
microwave hydrolysis under identical heating profiles for advanced anaerobic
digestion of municipal sludge. Water Res 2013;47:5040–51.
[83] Hartshorn L. Radio-frequency heating. Ruskin House, Museum St., London: George
Allen & Unwin Ltd.; 1949.
[84] Eskicioglu C, Terzian N, Kennedy KJ, Droste RL, Hamoda M. Athermal microwave
effects for enhancing digestibility of waste activated sludge. Water Res
2007;41:2457–66.
[85] Lumb C. Heat treatment as an aid to sludge dewatering-ten months' full-scale
operation. Surveyor 1940;98:287–91.
[86] Haug RT. Sludge processing to optimize digestibility and energy-production. J
Water Pollut Con F 1977;49:1713–21.
[87] Li Y-Y, Noike T. Upgrading of anaerobic digestion of waste activated sludge by
thermal pretreatment. Water Sci Technol 1992;26:857–66.
[88] Bougrier C, Delgenes JP, Carrere H. Effects of thermal treatments on five different
waste activated sludge samples solubilisation, physical properties and anaerobic
digestion. Chem Eng J 2008;139:236–44.
[89] Carrère H, Bougrier C, Castets D, Delgenes JP. Impact of initial biodegradability on
sludge anaerobic digestion enhancement by thermal pretreatment. J Environ Sci
Heal A 2008;43:1551–5.
[90] Climent M, Ferrer I, Baeza MdM, Artola A, Vázquez F, Font X. Effects of thermal
and mechanical pretreatments of secondary sludge on biogas production under
thermophilic conditions. Chem Eng J 2007;133:335–42.
[91] Ferrer I, Ponsá S, Vázquez F, Font X. Increasing biogas production by thermal
(70°C) sludge pre-treatment prior to thermophilic anaerobic digestion. Biochem
Eng J 2008;42:186–92.
[92] Gavala HN, Yenal U, Skiadas IV, Westermann P, Ahring BK. Mesophilic and
thermophilic anaerobic digestion of primary and secondary sludge. Effect of pre-
treatment at elevated temperature. Water Res 2003;37:4561–72.
[93] Wilson CA, Novak JT. Hydrolysis of macromolecular components of primary and
G. Kor-Bicakci and C. Eskicioglu
secondary wastewater sludge by thermal hydrolytic pretreatment. Water Res
2009;43:4489–98.
[94] Penaud V, Delgenès J-P, Moletta R. Characterization of soluble molecules from
thermochemically pretreated sludge. J Environ Eng 2000;126:397–402.
[95] Dwyer J, Starrenbury D, Tait S, Barr K, Batstone DJ, Lant P. Decreasing activated
sludge thermal hydrolysis temperature reduces product colour, without decreasing
degradability. Water Res 2008;42:4699–709.
[96] Mottet A, Steyer JP, Déléris S, Vedrenne F, Chauzy J, Carrère H. Kinetics of
thermophilic batch anaerobic digestion of thermal hydrolysed waste activated
sludge. Biochem Eng J 2009;46:169–75.
[97] Ramirez I, Mottet A, Carrère H, Déléris S, Vedrenne F, Steyer J-P. Modified ADM1
disintegration/hydrolysis structures for modeling batch thermophilic anaerobic
digestion of thermally pretreated waste activated sludge. Water Res
2009;43:3479–92.
[98] Dohanyos M, Zabranska J, Kutil J, Jenicek P. Improvement of anaerobic digestion
of sludge. Water Sci Technol 2004;49:89–96.
[99] Valo A, Carrère H, Delgenès JP. Thermal, chemical and thermo-chemical pre-
treatment of waste activated sludge for anaerobic digestion. J Chem Technol
Biotechnol 2004;79:1197–203.
[100] Donoso-Bravo A, Pérez-Elvira S, Aymerich E, Fdz-Polanco F. Assessment of the
influence of thermal pre-treatment time on the macromolecular composition and
anaerobic biodegradability of sewage sludge. Bioresour Technol 2011;102:660–6.
[101] Kepp U, Machenbach I, Weisz N, Solheim OE. Enhanced stabilisation of sewage
sludge through thermal hydrolysis - three years of experience with full scale plant.
Water Sci Technol 2000;42:89–96.
[102] Gurieff N, Bruus J, Nielsen B, Nawawi-Lansade D, Cantegril M. Moving towards an
energy neutral WWTP - the positive impact of ExelysTM continuous thermal hy-
drolysis in achieving this goal. Water Pract Technol 2012;7:034.
[103] Vergine P, Zabranska J, Canziani R. Low temperature microwave and conventional
heating pre-treatments to improve sludge anaerobic biodegradability. Water Sci
Technol 2014;69:518–24.
[104] Sørensen J, Tholstrup G, Andreasen K. Anaerobic digestion and thermal hydrolysis
to reduce production of sludge in WWTPs. Vatten 1999;1999:45–51.
[105] Ruffino B, Campo G, Genon G, Lorenzi E, Novarino D, Scibilia G, et al.
Improvement of anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge in a wastewater treatment
plant by means of mechanical and thermal pre-treatments: performance, energy
and economical assessment. Bioresour Technol 2015;175:298–308.
[106] Fdz-Polanco F, Velazquez R, Perez-Elvira SI, Casas C, Del Barrio D, Cantero FJ,
et al. Continuous thermal hydrolysis and energy integration in sludge anaerobic
digestion plants. Water Sci Technol 2008;57:1221–6.
[107] Park W-J, Ahn J-H, Hwang S, Lee C-K. Effect of output power, target temperature,
and solid concentration on the solubilization of waste activated sludge using mi-
crowave irradiation. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:S13–6.
[108] Park W-J, Ahn J-H. Effects of microwave pretreatment on mesophilic anaerobic
digestion for mixture of primary and secondary sludges compared with thermal
pretreatment. Environ Eng Res 2011;16:103–9.
[109] Zhou BW, Shin SG, Hwang K, Ahn JH, Hwang S. Effect of microwave irradiation on
cellular disintegration of Gram positive and negative cells. Appl Microbiol
Biotechnol 2010;87:765–70.
[110] Park WJ, Ahn JH, Lee CK. Effect of Temperature-increase rate and terminal
temperature on the solubilization of sewage sludge using microwave irradiation.
Environ Eng Res 2009;14:48–52.
[111] Toreci I, Kennedy KJ, Droste RL. Effect of high-temperature microwave irradiation
on municipal thickened waste activated sludge solubilization. Heat Transf Eng
2010;31:766–73.
[112] Ahn J-H, Shin SG, Hwang S. Effect of microwave irradiation on the disintegration
and acidogenesis of municipal secondary sludge. Chem Eng J 2009;153:145–50.
[113] Coelho NMG, Droste RL, Kennedy KJ. Evaluation of continuous mesophilic, ther-
mophilic and temperature phased anaerobic digestion of microwaved activated
sludge. Water Res 2011;45:2822–34.
[114] Cella MA, Akgul D, Eskicioglu C. Assessment of microbial viability in municipal
sludge following ultrasound and microwave pretreatments and resulting impacts
on the efficiency of anaerobic sludge digestion. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2015.
[115] Hong SM, Park JK, Teeradej N, Lee YO, Cho YK, Park CH. Pretreatment of sludge
443
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 110 (2019) 423–443
with microwaves for pathogen destruction and improved anaerobic digestion
performance. Water Environ Res 2006;78:76–83.
[116] Woo IS, Rhee IK, Park HD. Differential damage in bacterial cells by microwave
radiation on the basis of cell wall structure. Appl Environ Microbiol
2000;66:2243–7.
[117] Wojciechowska E. Application of microwaves for sewage sludge conditioning.
Water Res 2005;39:4749–54.
[118] Yu Q, Lei H, Yu G, Feng X, Li Z, Wu Z. Influence of microwave irradiation on
sludge dewaterability. Chem Eng J 2009;155:88–93.
[119] Eskicioglu C, Droste RL, Kennedy KJ. Performance of anaerobic waste activated
sludge digesters after microwave pretreatment. Water Environ Res
2007;79:2265–73.
[120] Hosseini Koupaie E, Eskicioglu C. Conventional heating vs. microwave sludge
pretreatment comparison under identical heating/cooling profiles for thermo-
philic advanced anaerobic digestion. Waste manage 2016;53:182–95.
[121] Kor-Bicakci G, Ubay-Cokgor E, Eskicioglu C. Effect of dewatered sludge microwave
pretreatment temperature and duration on net energy generation and biosolids
quality from anaerobic digestion. Energy 2019;168:782–95.
[122] Hosseini Koupaie E, Eskicioglu C. Below and above boiling point comparison of
microwave irradiation and conductive heating for municipal sludge digestion
under identical heating/cooling profiles. Bioresour Technol 2015;187:235–45.
[123] Park B, Ahn JH, Kim J, Hwang S. Use of microwave pretreatment for enhanced
anaerobiosis of secondary sludge. Water Sci Technol 2004;50:17–23.
[124] Appels L, Houtmeyers S, Degrève J, Van Impe J, Dewil R. Influence of microwave
pre-treatment on sludge solubilization and pilot scale semi-continuous anaerobic
digestion. Bioresour Technol 2013;128:598–603.
[125] Toreci I, Kennedy KJ, Droste RL. Effect of high temperature microwave thickened
waste-activated sludge pretreatment on distribution and digestion of soluble or-
ganic matter. Environ Eng Sci 2009;26:981–91.
[126] Eskicioglu C, Kennedy KJ, Droste RL. Enhanced disinfection and methane pro-
duction from sewage sludge by microwave irradiation. Desalination
2009;248:279–85.
[127] Toreci I, Droste RL, Kennedy KJ. Mesophilic anaerobic digestion with high-tem-
perature microwave pretreatment and importance of inoculum acclimation. Water
Environ Res 2011;83:549–59.
[128] Bobowski J, Johnson T, Eskicioglu C. Permittivity of waste-activated sludge by an
open-ended coaxial line. Prog Electromagn Res Lett 2012;29:139–49.
[129] Gu Y, Li Y, Li X, Luo P, Wang H, Robinson ZP, et al. The feasibility and challenges
of energy self-sufficient wastewater treatment plants. Appl Energy
2017;204:1463–75.
[130] Jenicek P, Kutil J, Benes O, Todt V, Zabranska J, Dohanyos M. Energy self-suffi-
cient sewage wastewater treatment plants: is optimized anaerobic sludge digestion
the key? Water Sci Technol 2013;68:1739–44.
[131] Hao X, Liu R, Huang X. Evaluation of the potential for operating carbon neutral
WWTPs in China. Water Res 2015;87:424–31.
[132] Mo W, Zhang Q. Can municipal wastewater treatment systems be carbon neutral?
J Environ Manag 2012;112:360–7.
[133] Shen Y, Linville JL, Urgun-Demirtas M, Mintz MM, Snyder SW. An overview of
biogas production and utilization at full-scale wastewater treatment plants
(WWTPs) in the United States: challenges and opportunities towards energy-
neutral WWTPs. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;50:346–62.
[134] Belshaw D, Edgington RM, Jolly M. Commissioning of united utilities thermal
hydrolysis digestion plant at Davyhulme wastewater treatment works. 18th eur-
opean biosolids and organic resources conference, manchester, UK, november 18-
20. 2013.
[135] Jolly M, Belshaw D, Telfer J. The biochemical relationships in anaerobic digestion
after thermal hydrolysis at Davyhulme. 2014;28:459–72.
[136] Parry D, Loomis P. DC Water biosolids and energy process. Blue plains advanced
wastewater treatment plant in: 18th european biosolids & organic resources con-
ference, manchester, UK, november 18-20. 2013.
[137] Perez-Elvira SI, Fdz-Polanco M, Fdz-Polanco F. Increasing the performance of
anaerobic digestion: pilot scale experimental study for thermal hydrolysis of mixed
sludge. Front Environ Sci Eng 2010;4:135–41.