Next Article in Journal
Randomized Controlled Evaluation of a Group-Based Training for Parents of Adolescents with Gaming Disorder or Social Network Use Disorder
Next Article in Special Issue
Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Pig Manure and Rice Straw: Optimization of Process Parameters for Enhancing Biogas Production and System Stability
Previous Article in Journal
Meaning in Music Is Intentional, but in Soundscape It Is Not—A Naturalistic Approach to the Qualia of Sounds
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Acid Whey Pretreatment Using Ultrasonic Disintegration on the Removal of Organic Compounds and Anaerobic Digestion Efficiency
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Pharmaceutical Sludge Pre-Treatment with Fenton/Fenton-like Reagents on Toxicity and Anaerobic Digestion Efficiency

by
Joanna Kazimierowicz
1,*,
Marcin Dębowski
2 and
Marcin Zieliński
2
1
Department of Water Supply and Sewage Systems, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Environmental Sciences, Bialystok University of Technology, 15-351 Bialystok, Poland
2
Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Geoengineering, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, 10-720 Olsztyn, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(1), 271; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010271
Submission received: 18 November 2022 / Revised: 12 December 2022 / Accepted: 21 December 2022 / Published: 24 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Microbiology Technology Application in Wastewater Treatment)

Abstract

:
Sewage sludge is successfully used in anaerobic digestion (AD). Although AD is a well-known, universal and widely recognized technology, there are factors that limit its widespread use, such as the presence of substances that are resistant to biodegradation, inhibit the fermentation process or are toxic to anaerobic microorganisms. Sewage sludge generated by the pharmaceutical sector is one such substance. Pharmaceutical sewage sludge (PSS) is characterized by high concentrations of biocides, including antibiotics and other compounds that have a negative effect on the anaerobic environment. The aim of the present research was to determine the feasibility of applying Advanced Oxidation Processes (AOP) harnessing Fenton’s (Fe2+/H2O2) and Fenton-like (Fe3+/H2O2) reaction to PSS pre-treatment prior to AD. The method was analyzed in terms of its impact on limiting PSS toxicity and improving methane fermentation. The use of AOP led to a significant reduction of PSS toxicity from 53.3 ± 5.1% to 35.7 ± 3.2%, which had a direct impact on the taxonomic structure of anaerobic bacteria, and thus influenced biogas production efficiency and methane content. Correlations were found between PSS toxicity and the presence of Archaea and biogas yields in the Fe2+/H2O2 group. CH4 production ranged from 363.2 ± 11.9 cm3 CH4/g VS in the control PSS to approximately 450 cm3/g VS. This was 445.7 ± 21.6 cm3 CH4/g VS (1.5 g Fe2+/dm3 and 6.0 g H2O2/dm3) and 453.6 ± 22.4 cm3 CH4/g VS (2.0 g Fe2+/dm3 and 8.0 g H2O2/dm3). The differences between these variants were not statistically significant. Therefore, due to the economical use of chemical reagents, the optimal tested dose was 1.5 g Fe2+/6.0 g H2O2. The use of a Fenton-like reagent (Fe3+/H2O2) resulted in lower AD efficiency (max. 393.7 ± 12.1 cm3 CH4/g VS), and no strong linear relationships between the analyzed variables were found. It is, therefore, a more difficult method to estimate the final effects. Research has proven that AOP can be used to improve the efficiency of AD of PSS.

1. Introduction

Sludge is widely considered to be one of the organic feedstocks processable using anaerobic digestion (AD) [1]. Both research works and full-scale installations have shown that well-maintained AD can be applied to produce CH4 with high efficiency and partially stabilize sludge via removal of putrescible organics, deodorization, improvement of fertilizing properties, and partial sanitization [2,3]. Although AD is well-known, universal and widely recognized as effective, its widespread deployment has been hamstrung by multiple factors [4,5]. One such barrier is the presence of substances that are resistant to biodegradation, inhibit the fermentation process, or are toxic to anaerobic microorganisms [6,7]. Sewage sludge generated by the pharmaceutical sector and other industries is one such substance. Pharmaceutical sewage sludge (PSS) is characterized by high concentrations of biocides, including antibiotics and other compounds that have a negative effect on the anaerobic environment [8] and thus on fermentative bacteria community, impairment or total cessation of metabolism [9], qualitative and quantitative changes in the anaerobic bacterial community [10], and a significant reduction in enzyme activity [11]. This, in turn, results in lower biogas and CH4 production, decreased biodegradation, and poorer mineralization of organics [12].
The presence of drugs, antibiotics, and hormones has also become increasingly problematic for municipal sewage sludge processing [13]. This is due to the widespread use of medicinals in various industries (crop farming, livestock farming, aquaculture, feed production, etc.) and the use of biocides/antibiotics in households [14,15]. It is estimated that there are approx. 200,000 pharmaceuticals (defined as substances intended to have a therapeutic, preventive, or diagnostic effect) in the world today, though the figure is much smaller for singular countries, ranging from 5000 to 10,000 individual substances [16]. Other sources state that the number of chemically active compounds used in pharmaceuticals is 4000 in Europe alone [17]. The pharmaceutical industry is one of the fastest growing industries, with total global revenues breaking through the 1 trillion USD barrier for the first time in 2014. From 2017 onwards, the market has been growing at 5.8% per annum, with total global revenues reaching 1143 billion USD in 2017 and 1462 billion USD in 2021. The bulk of this income was generated in North America, owing to the dominant position of the American pharmaceutical industry. However, it was the Chinese pharmaceutical industry that recorded the fastest growth among the national markets in recent years [18].
Since the problem of pharmaceuticals in sewage sludge only started to draw attention relatively recently, the popular sludge treatment technologies are not equipped to remove and reduce their negative effects [19]. There are also no legal regulations that could force utilities to implement such solutions [20]. Thus, there is a pressing need to alleviate and remove those properties of PSS that hamper its use as AD feedstock by improving current technologies and exploring new ones. Such technologies should serve to alleviate toxicity, remove digestion inhibitors and improve anaerobic digestibility (thus resulting in better methane yields and stabilization performance). The key criteria for selecting a process should not be limited to the pollutant removal rate and lack of unwanted by-products—economic aspects should be considered as well.
There are processes successfully used in water and sewage treatment that could serve as an alternative and complement to existing methods, such as those based on intensive oxidation [21]. Such advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) include what is known as the Fenton reaction, mediated by H2O2 with Fe ions as the catalyst [22,23]. In the course of the reaction, H2O2 is catalytically degraded in the presence of Fe2+ or Fe3+ ions, producing reactive free hydroxyl radicals (OH) with a very high oxidation potential (2.8 V) [24]. The nature of the Fenton reaction and the research to date hint at this method being a competitive addition to sludge treatment [25]. AOP facilitates the chemical degradation of hard-to-biodegrade pollutants, toxic substances, biocides and antibiotics [26]. The literature data point to the Fenton reaction as useful means of organic removal, deodorization, color removal, and sanitization [27,28]. AOPs tend to be used either in standalone systems for efficient water and sewage treatment or as a part of an integrated process for increased performance [29,30].
The reactivity of (OH) and its high oxidation potential make AOP a suitable method for breaking down biodegradation-resistant substances, including those contained in sewage from the production of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, [31], insecticides [32], colorants [33], explosives [34], leather processing [35], refinery/filling-station waste [36], specialty chemicals (such as plastics production and adhesive products), and timber impregnation [37,38]. Fenton products can oxidize most carbon species, including very complex and hard-to-degrade ones. Oxidizable compounds include phenols, ketones, alcohols, benzene, nitrobenzene, perchloroethylene, toluene, p-toluene, aniline, p-nitrophenol, humic substances, and formaldehyde [39].
The aim of this study was to assess the applicability of AOPs via Fenton/Fenton-like reactions in the pre-treatment of pharmaceutical sewage sludge (PSS) intended for anaerobic digestion. It tested the extent to which the method reduced PSS toxicity and improved AD performance (biogas yields and methane fractions). The results were used to develop optimization methods to estimate AOP methane production as a function of chemical reagent doses and sludge parameters.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Design

The Surplus sewage sludge from a pharmaceutical sewage treatment plant (PSS) was used for the study. The experiment was divided into two phases. In phase 1 (P1), the PSS was pre-treated through the advanced oxidation process (AOP). During phase 2 (P2), the PSS was subjected to anaerobic digestion (AD). Phase 1 was executed in two series with different levels of AOP chemical reagents. The Fenton reagent (Fe2+/H2O2) was tested in series 1 (S1), and a Fenton-like regent (Fe3+/H2O2) in series 2 (S2). A flowchart of the process is given in Figure 1.
Each series was divided into six variants (V) with different doses of chemical reagents applied to the PSS. The experimental design is presented in Table 1.

2.2. Materials

2.2.1. Sourcing of Fe and H2O2 Ions

Ferrous Fe2+ ions were used as FeCl2·4H2O (Sigma-Aldrich, Taufkirchen, Germany), yellowish-white crystalline powder, purity ≥ 99.5%, sulfates ≤ 0.02%, iron (Fe3+) ≤ 0.01%, and arsenic (As) ≤ 2 ppm. Ferric Fe3+ ions were used as FeCl3·4H2O (Sigma-Aldrich, Taufkirchen, Germany), purity ≥ 99.0%, sulfates (SO4) ≤ 0.03%, lead (Pb) ≤ 0.01%, copper (Cu) ≤ 0.01%) and H2O2 as a 30% solution of perhydrol (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany), colorless liquid, faint odor, pH 2–4, density 1.11 g/cm3.

2.2.2. Pharmaceutical Wewage Sludge (PSS) and Anaerobic Sludge (AS)

Gravity-thickened PSS was extracted from the secondary clarifier of an aerobic pharmaceutical wastewater treatment plant (P-WWTP) running a conventional activated sludge process without enhanced nutrient removal. Wastewater directed to P-WWTP was from a pharmaceutical company that produces 42 active substances, including baclofen, aripiprazole, tadalafil, vardenafil, alendronate, risedronate, sildenafil, hydrochlorothiazide, xylometazoline, sildenafil, piracetam, pentoxifylline, metronidazole, hydrochlorothiazide, and ethopyrine. The sewage flow rate averaged 2000 m3/d. The P-WWTP generates approx. 30 tonnes of PSS/day. The anaerobic sludge (AS) inoculum was sourced from the enclosed digesters of the Municipal Water Treatment Plant in Olsztyn (Poland). The digester operating parameters are organic load rate (OLR) approx. 2.4 kg VS/m3·d, hydraulic retention time (HRT) 20 days, and temperature 35ºC. Prior to the experiment, the AS was conditioned and adapted for PSS anaerobic digestion for 60 days (three times hydraulic residence time in the reactor). The characteristics of the PSS and AS used in the study are presented in Table 2.

2.3. Experimental Set-Up

2.3.1. Phase 1—AOP Reactor

At the beginning of the P1 experimental cycle, 200 cm3 PSS was fed into the reactor, after which the chemical reagents were introduced. The PSS was first amended with the target Fe dose, then, after 10 minutes, with the H2O2 at a constant Fe/H2O2 ratio of 1:4 by weight. The sludge was agitated for 20 min at 150 rpm with vertical, 3-blade, mechanical mixers (Nanostar 7.5 Digital, IKA, Poland) to ensure uniform reagent distribution, then at 50 rpm to allow the PSS to react thoroughly with the reagent. The sludge retention time in the reactor was 24 h. The scheme of the experiment organization in this phase is shown in Figure 2. In phase 2, the PSS was subjected to AD.

2.3.2. Phase 2—Anaerobic Reactors

AD performance was tested using the AMPTS II kit (Bioprocess Control, Lund, Sweden). The semi-batch process was run in reactors with a total volume of 2.0 dm3 fitted with vertical, 3-blade mechanical mixers rotating at 100 rpm (3 min ON/10 min OFF regime). Prior to AD, the reactors were inoculated with 1.0 dm3 anaerobic sludge. The organic load rate was 2.5 gVS/dm3 d; the hydraulic retention time was 20 d. Digested sludge was removed once a day, and the reactor was replenished with an equivalent amount of feedstock. In order to ensure anaerobic conditions at the start of the experiment, the inoculum + PSS mixture was purged with pure nitrogen for 3 min. The temperature was kept at a constant 40 °C by placing the reactors in a water bath. Bioreactors were fitted with a nozzle in the carbon dioxide absorption unit. The resultant biogas was fed into a 100 cm3 tank filled with a 3M solution of NaOH (Pol-Aura Ltd., Olsztyn, Poland).

2.4. Analytical Methods

TS, VS and MS were determined gravimetrically. TS levels in the biomass were determined by drying to a constant weight at 105 °C, then burning it at 550 °C (the loss on ignition was the VS, as per PN-EN 15935: 23022-01) [40]. Biomass samples desiccated at 105 °C were assayed for TC, TOC and TN using a Flash 2000 elemental particle analyzer (Thermo Scientific, USA) [41]. The concentrations of dissolved TOC were quantified using a TOC-L (Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) [42]. TP was determined colorimetrically in ammonium metavanadate (V) and ammonium molybdate after sample mineralization in a mixture of sulfuric (VI) and chloric (VII) acids at 390 nm, using a DR 2800 spectrophotometer (HACH Lange, Weilheim, Germany) [43]. Total protein was calculated by multiplying the value of TN by the protein conversion factor of 6.25 [44]. Reducing sugars were determined colorimetrically with anthrone reagent at 600 nm using a DR 2800 spectrophotometer (HACH Lange, Weilheim, Germany) [45]. Lipids were extracted using the Soxhlet method with a Buchi extraction apparatus (Flawil, Switzerland) and then determined by weight difference afterward [46]. The pH value of H2O was determined potentiometrically with an 867 pH Module (Metrohm, Herisau, Switzerland) [47]. The FOS/TAC (the ratio of the buffer capacity of the sample to the VFA levels in the sample) was determined using a TitraLab AT1000 titrator (HACH Lange, Weilheim, Germany) [48]. Unreacted H2O2 was quantified iodometrically and with the use of Quantofix Peroxide strips (Macherey–Nagel, Düren, Germany) (range: 1–100 and 50–1000 mg/dm3) [49]. Acute toxicity of the sludge (aqueous extracts) was measured using Vibrio fischeri bacteria in an M 500 Analyzer (Azur Environmental, Delaware, USA), acc. to PN-ISO 11348-2:2008 [50]. The aqueous extract was prepared by adding four volumes of distilled water on top of one volume of sludge and agitating mechanically for 24 h [51]. The molecular analysis aimed to determine the percentage of AD bacteria in the biomass using the fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) technique [52]. Four molecular probes were used for hybridization: a Bacteria-universal probe EUB338 [53], an Archaea-universal probe ARC915 [54], a Methanosarcinaceae-targeting probe MSMX860, and a Methanosaeta-targeting probe MX825 [55]. The composition of biogas was measured using a gastight syringe (20 mL injection volume) and a gas chromatograph (GC, 7890A Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA) equipped with a thermal conductivity detector (TCD) [56]. The GC was fitted with the two Hayesep Q columns (80/100 mesh), two molecular sieve columns (60/80 mesh), and a Porapak Q column (80/100) operating at a temperature of 70 °C. The temperature of the injection and detector ports were 150 °C and 250 °C, respectively. Helium and argon were used as the carrier gases at a flow of 15 mL/min. Additionally, biogas was analyzed by the GMF 430 Gas Data analyzer. The content of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) was measured. The validated analytical procedure was calibrated against a standard curve. Therefore, the dependence of the analytical signal (peak area) as a function of the concentration of the analyzed component was determined for a series of standard gas mixtures.

2.5. Calculation Methods

The digestion coefficient (portion digested), i.e., the ratio of the organic VS load removed in the reactor to the VS load fed into the reactor, was determined using the following equation:
η F = V S i n · ρ i n · Q i n V S o u t · ρ o u t · Q o u t V S i n · ρ i n · Q i n
where η F —digestion coefficient, %; V S i n —concentration of organic compounds in the influent, g/dm3; V S o u t —concentration of organic compounds in the digestate, g/dm3; ρ i n —influent density, g/cm3; ρ o u t —digestate density, g/cm3; Q i n —daily volume of feedstock (in), cm3/d; Q o u t –daily volume of digestate (out), cm3/d.
Biogas/CH4 production per VS load was calculated as follows:
Y b / C H 4 V S r e m = V b / C H 4 ( V S i n · ρ i n · Q i n V S o u t · ρ o u t · Q o u t ) / 1000
Biogas/CH4 production per VS load in the influent was calculated using the following equation:
Y b / C H 4 V S i n = V b / C H 4 ( V S i n · ρ i n · Q i n ) / 1000
Y b / C H 4 V S r e m —biogas production per VSrem, cm3/gVSrem; Y b / C H 4 V S i n —biogas production per VS in the influent, cm3/gVSin; V b / C H 4 —volume of biogas/CH4 produced per influent load, cm3/d; Q i n —single load of influent (by volume), cm3; Q o u t —specific post-AD digestate out (by volume) cm3.

2.6. Statistical Methods and Optimization

All experimental variants were conducted in triplicate. Statistical analysis of the results was carried out using STATISTICA 13.1 PL package. The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to verify the hypothesis regarding the distribution of every researched variable. ANOVA was performed to establish the significance of differences between variables. The homogeneity of variance was determined using Levene’s test. Significant differences between variants were determined via Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test. A significance level of α = 0.05 was adopted for the tests.
Empirical equations were elaborated using stepwise regression with multiple regression. The equations were then used to estimate the correlation between the amount of methane and the post-AOP PSS parameters. Predictors having a significant impact on the changes in estimated parameters were determined in model systems. In addition, the accuracy of the models’ fit to empirical data was estimated via a coefficient of determination. The significance of multiple regression models was verified by the F-test. A lack-of-fit test was conducted to evaluate whether the proposed models are sufficiently detailed by comparing the proposed models with full models (which included the remaining explanatory variables omitted in the proposed models). The developed models were subjected to estimation. Next, their fit to obtained results was evaluated by analysis of residuals. The assumption of normality of residual distribution was verified, and the models’ accuracy was evaluated by deleting the residual values with respect to predicted values (Statistica 13.1 PL).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Phase 1—Pre-Treatment Efficiency

3.1.1. Organic Compounds

The adopted method of pre-treatment had no significant effect on volatile solid (VS) levels in the PSS, with VS values being similar across all series and variants (p > 0.05). VS in raw PSS was 78.7 ± 1.9 % TS (Table 3). In S1 (Fe2+/H2O2), the VS levels ranged from 77.1 ± 2.7% TS (V1) to 74.4 ± 2.0% TS (V4). In S2 (Fe2+/H2O2), the range was between 78.5 ± 0.4% TS (V1) and 76.3 ± 0.5% TS (V5). Trends in VS in the PSS are presented in Table 3. Atay and Akbal [57] have demonstrated that AOP can be used for efficient stabilization of sludge from municipal wastewater treatment plants, removing 26.8% VS using 0.07/1 Fe2+/H2O2 and 60 g/kgTS H2O2 [57]. Other researchers have reported successful experiments on textile sludge [58] and anaerobically digested sludge [59], among others. The failure to remove VS from the PSS most likely stems from insufficient oxidizing power of the reagents at the doses used [60]. Researchers have suggested that, in cases such as this, free hydroxyl radicals initially react with dissolved substances [61]. This is corroborated by Fontmorin and Sillanpää [59]. However, it is important to note that VS removal from sludge through pre-treatment could negatively affect the biomethane yield if the sludge is to be used as feedstock for AD [62].
Dissolved TOC was 326 ± 10 mg/dm3 in the control group, 296 ± 5 mg/dm3 (the lowest) in S1V5, and 303 ± 8 mg/dm3 in S2V5. The trends in dissolved TOC in the tested PSS are presented in Table 3. The TOC values were significantly different from the raw PSS (p < 0.05). Multiple studies have shown the Fenton and Fenton-like reactions to be highly effective at removing dissolved organics [63,64]. This has been demonstrated in treatments of various sewage and leachates [65,66,67]. There have also been reports of AOP inducing the partial breakdown of complex organics, which did not affect the TOC results but did result in better biodegradation of pollutants and lower toxicity [68]. One example of this phenomenon in practice has been presented by Catalkaya and Kargi [69], who tested the advanced oxidation of diuron in an aqueous solution by Fenton’s reagent. The authors found that only 58% of diuron was mineralized after 240 min under optimal operating conditions, indicating the formation of certain intermediate products. No effect of H2O2 and Fe(II) on TOC removal was found [69]. Similar trends have been reported by Pérez et al. [70] in processing waste from paper pulp treatment effluents.

3.1.2. Toxicity

This study shows that Fenton’s reagent (Fe2+/H2O2) significantly reduced the toxicity of the tested PSS. The toxicity of raw PSS was 53.3 ± 5.1%, but significant changes (p < 0.05) were noted very early into the pre-treatment, with toxicity dropping to S1V2 at 49.6 ± 2.5% (Figure 3a). The lowest statistically comparable levels (p > 0.05) were found in S1V4 and S1V5 at 38.3 ± 4.0% and 35.7 ± 3.2%, respectively (Figure 3a). Accordingly, these were also the series with the highest toxicity removal rates (28.1 ± 2.9% and 33.1 ± 2.8% removal, respectively) (Figure 3b). The use of Fe2+/H2O2 reagents for reducing the toxicity of biodegraded feedstock has also been successfully tested in other studies [71]. Barbusiński and Filipek [72] demonstrated that Fenton’s reagent could completely eliminate the high toxicity of industrial wastewater. Similarly, Gerulová et al. [73] found that preliminary treatment with Fe2+:H2O2 at a 1:10 molar ratio can reduce the toxicity of metalworking wastewater fluids (MWF), improving their biodegradability [73]. Finally, Lin et al. [74] have obtained reduced toxicity in acrylic fiber manufacturing wastewater. The reduced toxicity brought on by the Fenton treatment is explained by its ability to convert refractory organic matter to smaller organic/inorganic molecules [75].
PSS treatment with Fe3+/H2O2 showed highly variable performance in the present study. Significant toxicity reduction (p < 0.05) was achieved only in S2V3 and S2V4 (48.7 ± 1.5% and 46.0 ± 3.0%, respectively) (Figure 3a). The highest tested dose of the reagents (S2V5) resulted in higher toxicity levels at 52 ± 2% (p > 0.05) (Figure 3a). This may be attributable to the two-step nature of OH production in the Fenton-like process [76]. The first step generates OH2 and reduces Fe3+ ions to Fe2+ [77]. It is only in the second stage that the typical Fenton reaction takes over, with a catalytic decomposition of H2O2 to free hydroxyl radicals [78]. Therefore, a Fenton-like reaction may be slower and less effective at removing organics and reducing toxicity [79,80]. Fe2+/H2O2 has been shown to perform better than Fe3+/H2O2 at treating textile dyeing wastewater [81]. The more complex nature of Fenton-like reactions poses a risk of incomplete degradation of H2O2 to OH and the presence of residual H2O2 in the medium [82]. H2O2 has a high oxidation potential, making it harmful to microorganisms [83]. Arslan-Alaton and Gurses tested the Fenton-like oxidation of antibiotic formulation effluent and found high levels of residual H2O2, which they attributed to the relatively slow and poor COD reduction kinetics [84].

3.1.3. Residual (Unreacted) H2O2 and pH Changes in the PSS

No residual H2O2 was detected in the Fe2+/H2O2 variants S1V1–S1V3 (Figure 4a). Some amounts were found in S1V4 (126.7 ± 40 mgH2O2/dm3) and S1V5 (170 ± 40 mgH2O2/dm3) (Figure 4a). In contrast, the Fenton-like reaction produced higher rates of residual H2O2. Traces of unreacted oxidant were found in the PSS quite early into the experiment (S2V3) at 46.7 ± 15.3 mgH2O2/dm3, rising concurrently with the reagent doses in the subsequent variants (Figure 4a). Increases to 263.3 ± 47.2 mgH2O2/dm3 and 403.3 ± 25.2 mgH2O2/dm3 were found in S2V4 and S2V5, respectively (Figure 4a). The presence of residual H2O2 in media processed using AOP (via Fenton or Fenton-like reactions) has been found by other studies as well [85,86,87]. Verma and Haritash [85] used this process to remove amoxicillin (AMX) wastewater and found that treatment with 375 mg/dm3 H2O2 left 34 mg/dm3 residual H2O2. Further increases of H2O2 levels (450 and 600 mg/dm3) reduced the degradation rate [85]. The presence of residual H2O2 may be an indication of reduced oxidation capacity in the Fenton system and a diminished degradation rate, possibly brought on by the removal of free hydroxyl radicals and generation of the HO2 radical [86,87].
The use of salt as an Fe ion donor for radical formation can also lower the pH of the treated media. This has been shown to play a particularly large role when using iron-sulfur compounds such as Fe2(SO4)3, FeClSO4, and FeSO4·7H2O [88,89]. The Fenton reaction is more efficient at low pH, as demonstrated by Alalm et al. [90] and Verma and Haritash [85]. The authors posited that the best performance was achieved at the range of pH from 2 to 4, with pH 3 being the most optimal choice [85]. However, it is important to note that lowering pH of sewage sludge intended to be anaerobically digested can be detrimental to digestion performance [91]. Methanogenic bacteria are sensitive to changes in the environment and require neutral pH for optimal metabolic activity [92]. With this in mind, we used chlorides as Fe ion donors in our study, as they do not produce significant reductions in pH in pre-treated PSS. In the Fenton reaction group, the pH varied across experimental variants—from 7.16 ± 0.15 in S1V1 to 6.90 ± 0.17 in S1V5 (p > 0.05) (Figure 4b). The Fe3+/H2O2 series also showed some variance—from 7.10 ± 0.10 (S2V1) to 6.70 ± 0.10 (S2V5) (p > 0.05) (Figure 4b). By comparison, the raw PSS had a pH of 7.23 ± 0.21 (Figure 4b). There have been reports of highly advanced oxidization performance in near-neutral media. This includes a study by Chen et al. [93], where efficient degradation of wastewater tetracycline was achieved via a Fenton-like reaction at pH between 4 and 8 [93]. Another study [94] showed 100% removal of Rhodamine B (RhB) and 90% removal of tetracycline (TC) by a Fenton-like reaction at neutral pH [94].

3.2. Phase 2—Anaerobic Digestion Performance

3.2.1. Biogas and Methane Production

The total biogas yield from the non-treated PSS was 608.5 ± 11.9 cm3/gVS (Figure 5a). Productivity was boosted by the highest chemical reagent doses in the PSS across all AOP variants. Variants S1V4 and S1V5 in the Fe2+/H2O2 group produced 692.8 ± 21.6 cm3/gVS and 687.3 ± 22.4 cm3/gVS, respectively (Figure 5a). The Fe3+/H2O2 system yielded 682.7 ± 12.1 cm3/gVS (S2V4) and 671.4 ± 9.1 cm3/gVS (S2V5) biogas (Figure 5a). The CH4 production was higher both in terms of fraction in the biogas and nominal production rate. The digestion coefficient η F for the control was 43.15 ± 2.2% (Table 4). The highest coefficients were obtained for variant 4, both in the Fenton group and the Fenton-like group—59.18 ± 2.3% in S1V4 and 49.04 ± 3.4% in S2V4 (Table 4). The CH4 fraction produced in the PSS control group was around 59.7 ± 3.1% (Figure 5b). However, the CH4 fractions in the biogas were significantly higher (p < 0.05) in the Fenton group, with the highest statistically comparable values noted in S1V4 and S1V5 at 64.3 ± 2.3% and 66.0 ± 1.7%, respectively (Figure 5b). Others showed no statistically significant differences from the control (p > 0.05), with CH4 concentrations of 57.7 ± 2.1% (S1V1) to 62.3 ± 1.9% (S1V3) (Figure 5b). In contrast, the Fenton-like reagent did not produce significant changes (p > 0.05) in CH4 levels in the biogas—the fractions were similar across all variants and ranged from 57.0 ± 2.6% (S2V5) to 60.7 ± 2.5% (S2V3) (Figure 5b).
Zawieja and Brzeska also managed to improve biogas yields from the AD of surplus sludge by advanced oxidation of sludge with Fenton’s reagent [95], finding that the optimal process parameters were: Fe ion dose = 0.08 g Fe2+/gTS and Fe2+:H2O2 ratio = 1:5. This configuration produced a biogas yield of 0.53 dm3/gVS (which represents a 35% increase in biogas production against the unprocessed sludge) and a digestion coefficient of 59%. The methane fraction in the biogas was unaffected, however, remaining at 70% [95]. A massive increase in biogas production—75% against the control—was achieved by Dewil et al. [96] by pre-treating surplus sludge with Fenton’s reagent at a dose of 0.07 Fe2+/g H2O2, 50 mg H2O2/kgTS. Methane content in the biogas ranged between 65 and 70%, with its calorific value remaining unaltered [96].
The CH4 yield from raw PSS was around 363.2 ± 11.9 cm3/gVS (Figure 6a). Variants S1V1 and S1V2 failed to perform significantly better (p < 0.05) in terms of anaerobic digestion at 355.7 ± 17.3 cm3/gVS and 352.3 ± 17.7 cm3/mgVS, respectively (Figure 6a). Considerably higher (p < 0.05) CH4 yields of approx. 450 cm3/gVS—the highest in the present study—were obtained in S1V4 and S1V5 (Figure 6a). Conversely, the Fe3+/H2O2 group showed significantly poorer anaerobic digestion performance compared with S1 (p < 0.05). The highest CH4 yields at 393.7 ± 12.1 cm3/gVS were found for S2V4 (Figure 6a). Lower levels of gas metabolites were noted for S2V5, with metabolic bacteria outputting 382.7 ± 9.1 cm3/gVS (Figure 6a). CH4 production in variants S2V1—S2V3 ranged from 352.0 ± 12.6 cm3/gVS to 371.2 ± 9.1 cm3/gVS (Figure 6a). These values are statistically comparable to those determined for non-pretreated PSS (p > 0.05). S1V4 was the best-performing variant in terms of daily CH4 production at 1114.2 ± 54.0 cm3/d (Figure 6b). The effect of Fenton’s reagent dose on AD of surplus sludge was also investigated by Dhar et al. [97]. With Fe2+:H2O2 ratios of 1.5/0.6, 1.5/1.5, 3/0.6, 2.5/1.5, 2.5/2, and 3/2, the experiment yielded 258 ± 1 cm3/gVSSadded, 254 ± 1 cm3/gVSSadded, 253 ± 4 cm3/gVSSadded, 260 ± 1 cm3/gVSSadded, 260 ± 1 cm3/gVSSadded, and 251 ± 6 cm3/gVSSadded methane, respectively, compared with the 226 ± 4 cm3/gVSSadded methane produced by the control. Likewise, Erden and Filibeli [98] found that AD reactors produced more methane when fed with surplus sludge preconditioned with Fenton’s reagent at 0.067 g Fe2+/g of H2O2 and 60 g H2O2/kgTS—whereas the control yielded 400.3 cm3/gVS methane, the Fenton-processed group produced 547.3 cm3/gVS. (1.4 times higher methane output) [98]. Other researchers [99,100] have further demonstrated that a Fenton oxidation process and anaerobic digestion can be an effective combination, as the posited pre-treatment methodology significantly increases the rate of AD, thus boosting feedstock biodegradability and methane production.

3.2.2. Bacterial Community Structure

This study also tested the effect of the PSS pre-treatment variant on the taxonomic structure of anaerobic bacteria communities, as presented in Table 5. Bacteria (EUB338) formed the bulk of the microbes in the bioreactor with non-pretreated PSS, accounting for 69 ± 10% of the community. Methanogenic Archaea (ARC915), Methanosarcinaceae (MSMX860) and Methanosaeta (MX825) accounted for 23 ± 9%, 11 ± 5%, and 6 ± 2%, respectively. The conventional Fenton reaction significantly increased (p < 0.05) the share of methanogenic microbes in the bacterial community. Variants S1V1 to S1V3 had 26 ± 6% Archaea, 11 ± 4 − 13 ± 6% Methanosarcinaceae (MSMX860) and 7 ± 3 − 8 ± 4% Methanosaeta (MX825). In variants S1V4 and S1V5, the proportion of Archaea rose above 30%, Methanosarcinaceae (MSMX860) ranged from 13 ± 5 to 14 ± 6%, and Methanosaeta (MX825) accounted for 10 ± 4%. Pre-treatment with the Fe3+/H2O2 reagent produced no statistically significant effects on the taxonomic structure of the microbes (p > 0.05). The shares of Archaea (ARC915), Methanosarcinaceae (MSMX860), and Methanosaeta (MX825) fell within the narrow ranges of 19 ± 5 − 23 ± 6%, 9 ± 4 − 12 ± 6%, and 6 ± 2 − 9 ± 4%, respectively. Singh et al. [101] have argued that hydroxyl radicals introduced by Fenton’s reagents can trigger direct DNA alterations, as well as other genotoxic effects on cells, with methanogen activity being particularly susceptible.

3.2.3. Organic Compounds

The TOC removal from the dissolved phase was monitored during the anaerobic digestion of PSS (Figure 7a). The Fe2+/H2O2 variants performed significantly better in terms of biodegradation (p < 0.05). Furthermore, as Fenton’s reagent doses increased, so did the biodegradation efficiency. Similar correlations were observed for the anaerobic biodegradation of VS (Figure 7b). Dissolved TOC removal for the non-pretreated sludge was 30.2 ± 0.4% (Figure 7a). In variants S1V1 to S1V3, the removal ranged from 31.6 ± 0.7% to 36.3 ± 0.6% (Figure 7a). The highest statistically comparable performance (p > 0.05) was achieved in variants S1V4 and S1V5 and reached 40.5 ± 1.1% and 41.1 ± 0.8%, respectively (Figure 7a). Dissolved TOC levels were between 227.7 ± 11.1 mg/dm3 in control and 174.3 ± 8.5 mg/dm3 in S1V5 (Figure 8a). The Fenton-like group showed significantly poorer dissolved TOC removal—from 26.2 ± 0.2% (S2V5) to 33.3 ± 0.3% (S2V3) (Figure 7a). Nominal levels ranged from 214.7 ± 5.5 mg/dm3 to 226.3 ± 5.5 mg/dm3 (Figure 8b). For comparison, 41.8 ± 0.6% VS was removed in the control group (Figure 7b). Variant S1V4 (Fenton process) performed the best in terms of VS removal with a removal rate of 58.5 ± 1.0% (Figure 7b). VS levels ranged from 56.2 ± 2.5%TS in control to 48.0 ± 0.9% TS in S1V5 (Figure 9a). The highest performance among the Fenton-like variants was recorded for S2V4 at 47.7 ± 0.4% (Figure 7b). The final (post-AD) VS was between 56.2 ± 2.5% TS in the control and 52.2 ± 1.4%TS in S2V4 (Figure 9b). Other researchers have also noted improved organics removal when combining Fenton pre-treatment with AD [96,102]. For example, Kaynak and Filibeli [102] processed surplus sludge with Fenton’s reagent (0.067 g Fe2+/g of H2O2 and 60 g H2O2/kgTS), then anaerobically digested it in an 8.5 dm3 laboratory digester under mesophilic conditions (5 d retention time). The VS removal was 25.4%, i.e., 1.53 times the rate achieved in the control reactor [102]. Another study [96] pre-treated AD-bound sludge with Fenton’s reagent (0.07 Fe2+/g of H2O2, 50 mg H2O2/kgTS at pH = 3 ), achieving 26.6% VS reduction [96].

3.2.4. pH and FOS/TAC

PSS pre-treatment with Fenton’s reagent was found to have no significant effect in S1 (p > 0.05), with pH falling within the narrow range of 6.90 ± 0.12 to 7.10 ± 0.02 (Figure 10a). Lower pH values in the model digesters were noted for S2. In S2V5, the Fenton-like reagent triggered a pH reduction to a level of 6.88 ± 0.10 (Figure 10a). On the other hand, lower doses of Fe3+/H2O2 did not reduce pH significantly (p > 0.05), with the pH ranging from 7.1 ± 0.10 to 6.98 ± 0.05 (Figure 10a). For comparison, the digester pH was 7.10 ± 0.11 in the control group (Figure 10a). This finding is supported by Zawieja and Brzeska [95], who did not observe any significant reductions in pH during AD of Fenton-oxidized surplus sludge, noting that the sludge pH was 7.74 [95]. However, according to some authors [103], the Fenton reaction converts organic material into organic acids and can lower pH. As such, pH drops during the Fenton reactions should be controlled to optimize treatment efficiency [103]. The FOS/TAC during the digestion of non-pretreated PSS was 0.39 ± 0.03 (Figure 10b). This variable was significantly reduced by AOP, regardless of whether radical formation was mediated by Fe2+ or Fe3+ (p < 0.05). The change was more pronounced in S2, with FOS/TAC ranging from 0.33 ± 0.02 (S2V2) to 0.30 ± 0.03 (S2V3) (Figure 10b). Substantial reductions in FOS/TAC were observed for S2V4 and S2V5 (to 0.28 ± 0.01 and 0.25 ± 0.02, respectively) (Figure 10b). In the conventional Fenton group (Fe2+/H2O2), the FOS/TAC ratio remained close to the optimal level for AD across the entire range of reagent doses tested. The lowest value was recorded for S1V5 at 0.31 ± 0.01, the highest—for S1V2 at 0.35 ± 0.02 (Figure 10b). The FOS/TAC is the ratio of volatile organic acid to alkaline buffer capacity, often used to assess process stability in anaerobic digesters. Literature reports [104,105] state that FOS/TAC needs to be between 0.2 and 0.6 for stable AD, as was the case in the present study. The FOS/TAC ratio exceeding 0.6 indicates suboptimal running parameters for anaerobic microbes and reduced biogas production [104,105].

3.2.5. Empirical Model and Correlations

Empirical equations were elaborated using multiple regression to estimate the methane yields. Methane production was found to correlate significantly with factors such as the dose of Fenton’s reagent, toxicity, and VS after pre-treatment. The methane production model for series 1 (4) had an estimation error of ±0.4933 and accounted for approx. 99.88% of the biogas yield variation (R2 coefficient of determination = 0.9988). The methane estimation model for series 2 (5) accounted for approx. 99.58% of the methane yield variation (R2 coefficient of determination = 0.9958) at an estimation error of ±1.3523. The level of mapping the final methane production in the developed models concerning the results obtained in the experimental work was very high, which indicated that the adopted assumptions and the practical value of the optimization procedure used were correct.
METHANE   S 1 = 57.641 Fe 2 + H 2 O 2 10.231   T 8.995   VS + 1593.34
METHANE   S 2 = 24.3628   Fe 3 + H 2 O 2 4.1331   T 1.9553 + 698.3072
METHANE     methane   production   ( cm 3 / gVS )
Fe 2 + H 2 O 2 dose   of   the   Fe 2 + / H 2 O 2   Fenton s   reagent   ( g / dm 3 )
Fe 3 + H 2 O 2 dose   of   the   Fe 3 + / H 2 O 2   Fenton s   reagent   ( g / dm 3 )
T toxicity (%)
VS—volatile solids after processing (%TS).
Most of the strong correlations found in series 1 pertained to the conventional Fenton reaction (Fe2+/H2O2). No strong and significant relationships were found for the Fe3+/H2O2 reagent used in series 2 (p > 0.05). A very strong negative association (R2 = 0.9329) was noted between toxicity and methane levels in series 1 (Figure 11a). In contrast, this correlation was only moderate in series 1 (R2 = 0.5034) (Figure 11b). Weak negative correlations (R2 < 0.4) were found between FOS/TAC and methane levels in both experimental series (Figure 11c,d). A very strong negative correlation (R2 = 0.9503) was noted between toxicity and the share of Archaea in series 1 (Figure 12a), whereas no such correlation was observed in series 2 (R2 = 0.1345) (Figure 12b). The only strong positive correlation (R2 = 0.8035) in series 1 was found between the share of Archaea and methane levels (Figure 12c), whereas the corresponding association for series 2 was only moderate (R2 = 0.5713) (Figure 12d). The predicted correlated effect of Fenton’s reagent dosage and toxicity on biogas and methane production is presented, respectively, in Figure 13a,b for series 1 and Figure 14a,b for series 2.
In the Fenton reagent (S1) variants, strong linear correlations between the dose of Fe2+/H2O2 and toxicity, presence of Archaea and CH4 production were revealed. In subsequent variants, a tendency to significantly reduce the toxicity of PSS and an increase in the share of Archaea in the anaerobic bacterial community was observed. These phenomena were closely correlated with the increase in the amount of biogas produced and the percentage of CH4 content. Unlike S1, when the like-Fenton reagent (Fe3+/H2O2) was used (S2), the linear relationships between the analyzed variables were disturbed. In S2, the highest chemical doses resulted in an increase in the residual H2O2 concentration in PSS, which probably resulted in an increase in toxicity. This directly affected the decrease in the average number of Archaea in the population of anaerobic bacteria, as well as the decrease in the content of CH4 in biogas. However, the high efficiency of biogas production was maintained. The increase in biogas synthesis efficiency in S1 (V4–V5) despite the increase in toxicity may be explained by the disintegration and destruction of the organic substrate structure as a result of AOP [106]. This could lead to an increase in the susceptibility of PSS biomass to biodegradation under anaerobic conditions [107,108]. Certainly, the process did not cause complete destruction of cellular structures, as the concentration of TOC in the dissolved phase did not reflect this. Nevertheless, the highest doses of chemical reagents tested were able to disrupt cell walls and accelerate biogas production. The positive effect of AOP on anaerobic digestion and biogas production has been proven in the literature [100,109,110]. In variants V1–V3, the toxicity was limited, which directly affected the increase in the share of Archaea in the bacterial community and the increase in the content of CH4 in biogas. Apparently, however, the oxidizing (disintegrating) power was too low in these pre-treatment variants to increase biogas production.
These opposite phenomena (increase in biogas production, decrease in CH4 content) disturbed the linear correlations between the analyzed variables in S2, which were weaker compared to the Fe2+/H2O2 system. The lack of strong linear relationships when the like-Fenton reagent in S2 was used makes it a method in which it is difficult to estimate the achievable final effects. This is another, apart from higher technological efficiency, argument indicating the practical advantage of AOP based on the Fe2+/H2O2 reagent system.

4. Conclusions

AOP pre-treatment of PSS using the conventional Fenton’s reagent (Fe2+/H2O2) and a Fenton-like reagent (Fe3+/H2O2) was successful in reducing dissolved organics by single-digit percentages and, most importantly—in detoxifying this substrate. Considerably better toxicity removal performance was noted for the Fe2+/H2O2 system. The poorer performance of the Fe3+/H2O2 in this regard probably stemmed from the lower oxidation capacity of the Fenton-like reaction and the relatively high levels of H2O2 residues in the PSS at the highest chemical reagent doses. The tested AOPs did not reduce the VS levels in the PSS biomass to a significant degree—a promising finding in terms of its use as an AD substrate.
Sludge pre-treated with Fe2+/H2O2 proved to be a better feedstock for anaerobic digestion, both with regard to biogas/methane yields and the PSS portion digested. Significantly higher values were observed for the two highest reagent doses. This was 445.7 ± 21.6 cm3 CH4/g VS (1.5 g Fe2+/dm3 and 6.0 g H2O2/dm3) and 453.6 ± 22.4 cm3 CH4/g VS (2.0 g Fe2+/dm3 and 8.0 g H2O2/dm3). The differences between these variants were not statistically significant. Therefore, due to the economical use of chemical reagents, the optimal tested dose was 1.5 g Fe2+/6.0 g H2O2. The use of a Fenton-like reagent (Fe3+/H2O2) resulted in lower AD efficiency (max. 393.7 ± 12.1 cm3 CH4/g VS), and no strong linear relationships between the analyzed variables were found. It is, therefore, a more difficult method to estimate the final effects. Research has proven that AOP can be used to improve the efficiency of AD of PSS.
Strong correlations between the tested parameters were found for the conventional Fenton reaction (Fe2+/H2O2). There was also a very strong negative correlation between toxicity and methane production, as well as between PSS toxicity and the share of Archaea in the microbial structure. No strong and significant correlations pertaining to reagent dosage were found for the Fe3+/H2O2 system.
Empirical equations were elaborated using multiple regression to estimate biogas and methane yields. Biogas and methane production was found to correlate significantly with such factors as the dose of Fenton’s reagent, toxicity, and initial VS after PSS processing.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.K. and M.D.; methodology, J.K. and M.D.; validation, M.Z.; formal analysis, M.Z. and M.D.; investigation, J.K., M.D. and M.Z.; resources, J.K., M.D. and M.Z.; data curation, J.K., M.D. and M.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, J.K. and M.D.; writing—review and editing, J.K., M.D. and M.Z.; visualization, J.K. and M.D.; funding acquisition, J.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The manuscript was supported by a project financially supported by the Minister of Education and Science in the range of the program entitled “Regional Initiative of Excellence” for the years 2019–2023, project no. 010/RID/2018/19, amount of funding: 12,000,000 PLN, and the work WZ/WB-IIŚ/3/2022, funded by the Minister of Education and Science.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Khanh Nguyen, V.; Kumar Chaudhary, D.; Hari Dahal, R.; Hoang Trinh, N.; Kim, J.; Chang, S.W.; Hong, Y.; Duc La, D.; Nguyen, X.C.; Hao Ngo, H.; et al. Review on Pretreatment Techniques to Improve Anaerobic Digestion of Sewage Sludge. Fuel 2021, 285, 119105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Jin, H.Y.; He, Z.W.; Ren, Y.X.; Tang, C.C.; Zhou, A.J.; Liu, W.; Liang, B.; Li, Z.H.; Wang, A. Current Advances and Challenges for Direct Interspecies Electron Transfer in Anaerobic Digestion of Waste Activated Sludge. Chem. Eng. J. 2022, 450, 137973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zamri, M.F.M.A.; Hasmady, S.; Akhiar, A.; Ideris, F.; Shamsuddin, A.H.; Mofijur, M.; Fattah, I.M.R.; Mahlia, T.M.I. A Comprehensive Review on Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 137, 110637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Capson-Tojo, G.; Moscoviz, R.; Astals, S.; Robles; Steyer, J.P. Unraveling the Literature Chaos around Free Ammonia Inhibition in Anaerobic Digestion. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 117, 109487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Yao, Y.; Huang, G.; An, C.; Chen, X.; Zhang, P.; Xin, X.; Shen, J.; Agnew, J. Anaerobic Digestion of Livestock Manure in Cold Regions: Technological Advancements and Global Impacts. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 119, 109494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Czatzkowska, M.; Harnisz, M.; Korzeniewska, E.; Koniuszewska, I. Inhibitors of the Methane Fermentation Process with Particular Emphasis on the Microbiological Aspect: A Review. Energy Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 1880–1897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Wu, Q.; Zou, D.; Zheng, X.; Liu, F.; Li, L.; Xiao, Z. Effects of Antibiotics on Anaerobic Digestion of Sewage Sludge: Performance of Anaerobic Digestion and Structure of the Microbial Community. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 845, 157384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Buta, M.; Hubeny, J.; Zieliński, W.; Harnisz, M.; Korzeniewska, E. Sewage Sludge in Agriculture—The Effects of Selected Chemical Pollutants and Emerging Genetic Resistance Determinants on the Quality of Soil and Crops—A Review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 214, 112070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tong, J.; Lu, X.; Zhang, J.; Angelidaki, I.; Wei, Y. Factors Influencing the Fate of Antibiotic Resistance Genes during Thermochemical Pretreatment and Anaerobic Digestion of Pharmaceutical Waste Sludge. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 243, 1403–1413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pei, J.; Yao, H.; Wang, H.; Ren, J.; Yu, X. Comparison of Ozone and Thermal Hydrolysis Combined with Anaerobic Digestion for Municipal and Pharmaceutical Waste Sludge with Tetracycline Resistance Genes. Water Res. 2016, 99, 122–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tong, J.; Lu, X.T.; Zhang, J.Y.; Sui, Q.; Wang, R.; Chen, M.; Wei, Y. Occurrence of Antibiotic Resistance Genes and Mobile Genetic Elements in Enterococci and Genomic DNA during Anaerobic Digestion of Pharmaceutical Waste Sludge with Different Pretreatments. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 235, 316–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Pérez-Lemus, N.; López-Serna, R.; Pérez-Elvira, S.I.; Barrado, E. Sample Pre-Treatment and Analytical Methodology for the Simultaneous Determination of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in Sewage Sludge. Chemosphere 2020, 258, 127273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Alenzi, A.; Hunter, C.; Spencer, J.; Roberts, J.; Craft, J.; Pahl, O.; Escudero, A. Pharmaceuticals Effect and Removal, at Environmentally Relevant Concentrations, from Sewage Sludge during Anaerobic Digestion. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 319, 124102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Arun, S.; Kumar, R.M.; Ruppa, J.; Mukhopadhyay, M.; Ilango, K.; Chakraborty, P. Occurrence, Sources and Risk Assessment of Fluoroquinolones in Dumpsite Soil and Sewage Sludge from Chennai, India. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2020, 79, 103410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gwenzi, W.; Musiyiwa, K.; Mangori, L. Sources, Behaviour and Health Risks of Antimicrobial Resistance Genes in Wastewaters: A Hotspot Reservoir. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2020, 8, 102220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wontorska, K.; Wąsowski, J. The Issue of Pharmaceuticals Disposal in Wastewater Treatment Processes. Gas Water Sanit. Technol. 2018, 1, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Patel, M.; Kumar, R.; Kishor, K.; Mlsna, T.; Pittman, C.U.; Mohan, D. Pharmaceuticals of Emerging Concern in Aquatic Systems: Chemistry, Occurrence, Effects, and Removal Methods. Chem. Rev. 2019, 119, 3510–3673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. González Peña, O.I.; López Zavala, M.Á.; Cabral Ruelas, H. Pharmaceuticals Market, Consumption Trends and Disease Incidence Are Not Driving the Pharmaceutical Research on Water and Wastewater. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Angeles, L.F.; Mullen, R.A.; Huang, I.J.; Wilson, C.; Khunjar, W.; Sirotkin, H.I.; McElroy, A.E.; Aga, D.S. Assessing Pharmaceutical Removal and Reduction in Toxicity Provided by Advanced Wastewater Treatment Systems. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2019, 6, 62–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Giacomo, D.; Romano, G.; Di Giacomo, G.; Romano, P. Evolution and Prospects in Managing Sewage Sludge Resulting from Municipal Wastewater Purification. Energies 2022, 15, 5633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Taoufik, N.; Boumya, W.; Achak, M.; Sillanpää, M.; Barka, N. Comparative Overview of Advanced Oxidation Processes and Biological Approaches for the Removal Pharmaceuticals. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 288, 112404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Krzemieniewski, M.; Dębowski, M.; Dobrzyńska, A.; Zieliński, M. Chemical Oxygen Demand Reduction Of Various Wastewater Types Using Magnetic Field-Assisted Fenton Reaction. Water Environ. Res. 2004, 76, 301–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Tavares, M.G.; da S. Duarte, J.L.; Oliveira, L.M.T.M.; Fonseca, E.J.S.; Tonholo, J.; Ribeiro, A.S.; Zanta, C.L.P.S. Reusable Iron Magnetic Catalyst for Organic Pollutant Removal by Adsorption, Fenton and Photo Fenton Process. J. Photochem. Photobiol. A Chem. 2022, 432, 114089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Yang, B.; Zhou, P.; Cheng, X.; Li, H.; Huo, X.; Zhang, Y. Simultaneous Removal of Methylene Blue and Total Dissolved Copper in Zero-Valent Iron/H2O2 Fenton System: Kinetics, Mechanism and Degradation Pathway. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2019, 555, 383–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Xu, G.; Ou, J.; Wei, H.; Mei, J.; Bai, M.; Fang, B.; Shi, N. Investigation of the SO2 Release Characteristics during Co-Combustion of Fenton/CaO Treated Municipal Sewage Sludge and Rice Husk. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 108475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Khan, N.A.; Khan, A.H.; Tiwari, P.; Zubair, M.; Naushad, M. New Insights into the Integrated Application of Fenton-Based Oxidation Processes for the Treatment of Pharmaceutical Wastewater. J. Water Process Eng. 2021, 44, 102440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Anjum, M.; Al-Makishah, N.H.; Barakat, M.A. Wastewater Sludge Stabilization Using Pre-Treatment Methods. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2016, 102, 615–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wiśniowska, E. Sludge Activation, Conditioning, and Engineering. In Industrial and Municipal Sludge. Emerging Concerns and Scope for Resource Recovery; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2019; pp. 181–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Giwa, A.; Yusuf, A.; Balogun, H.A.; Sambudi, N.S.; Bilad, M.R.; Adeyemi, I.; Chakraborty, S.; Curcio, S. Recent Advances in Advanced Oxidation Processes for Removal of Contaminants from Water: A Comprehensive Review. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2021, 146, 220–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rostam, A.B.; Taghizadeh, M. Advanced Oxidation Processes Integrated by Membrane Reactors and Bioreactors for Various Wastewater Treatments: A Critical Review. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2020, 8, 104566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bartolomeu, M.; Neves, M.G.P.M.S.; Faustino, M.A.F.; Almeida, A. Wastewater Chemical Contaminants: Remediation by Advanced Oxidation Processes. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 2018, 17, 1573–1598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sandoval, M.A.; Vidal, J.; Calzadilla, W.; Salazar, R. Solar (Electrochemical) Advanced Oxidation Processes as Efficient Treatments for Degradation of Pesticides. Curr. Opin. Electrochem. 2022, 36, 101125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Liu, L.; Chen, Z.; Zhang, J.; Shan, D.; Wu, Y.; Bai, L.; Wang, B. Treatment of Industrial Dye Wastewater and Pharmaceutical Residue Wastewater by Advanced Oxidation Processes and Its Combination with Nanocatalysts: A Review. J. Water Process Eng. 2021, 42, 102122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bhanot, P.; Celin, S.M.; Sreekrishnan, T.R.; Kalsi, A.; Sahai, S.K.; Sharma, P. Application of Integrated Treatment Strategies for Explosive Industry Wastewater—A Critical Review. J. Water Process Eng. 2020, 35, 101232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Nigam, M.; Mishra, P.; Kumar, P.; Rajoriya, S.; Pathak, P.; Singh, S.R.; Kumar, S.; Singh, L. Comprehensive Technological Assessment for Different Treatment Methods of Leather Tannery Wastewater. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 1, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mu, H.; Qiu, Q.; Cheng, R.; Qiu, L.; Xie, K.; Gao, M.; Liu, G. Adsorption-Enhanced Ceramic Membrane Filtration Using Fenton Oxidation for Advanced Treatment of Refinery Wastewater: Treatment Efficiency and Membrane-Fouling Control. Membranes 2021, 11, 651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Parvulescu, V.I.; Epron, F.; Garcia, H.; Granger, P. Recent Progress and Prospects in Catalytic Water Treatment. Chem. Rev. 2022, 122, 2981–3121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Yang, J. Waste Treatment and Disposal Technology. In Zero Waste to Material Closed Loo; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 49–101. Available online: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-16-7683-3_7 (accessed on 10 October 2022).
  39. Yang, Z.; Qian, J.; Shan, C.; Li, H.; Yin, Y.; Pan, B. Toward Selective Oxidation of Contaminants in Aqueous Systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 55, 14494–14514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. PN-EN 15935:2022-01; Soil, Waste, Treated Bio-Waste and Sewage Sludge—Determination of Losses on Ignition. Health, Environment and Medicine Sector. Technical Body of Soil Chemistry: Warsaw, Poland, 2022. Available online: https://sklep.pkn.pl/pn-en-15935-2022-01e.html (accessed on 10 October 2022).
  41. Rombolà, A.G.; Torri, C.; Vassura, I.; Venturini, E.; Reggiani, R.; Fabbri, D. Effect of Biochar Amendment on Organic Matter and Dissolved Organic Matter Composition of Agricultural Soils from a Two-Year Field Experiment. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 812, 151422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kazimierowicz, J.; Zieliński, M.; Bartkowska, I.; Dębowski, M. Effect of Acid Whey Pretreatment Using Ultrasonic Disintegration on the Removal of Organic Compounds and Anaerobic Digestion Efficiency. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 11362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zieliński, M.; Dębowski, M.; Kisielewska, M.; Nowicka, A.; Rokicka, M.; Szwarc, K. Comparison of Ultrasonic and Hydrothermal Cavitation Pretreatments of Cattle Manure Mixed with Straw Wheat on Fermentative Biogas Production. Waste Biomass Valorization 2019, 10, 747–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Boulos, S.; Tännler, A.; Nyström, L. Nitrogen-to-Protein Conversion Factors for Edible Insects on the Swiss Market: T. Molitor, A. Domesticus, and L. Migratoria. Front. Nutr. 2020, 7, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Przygocka-Cyna, K.; Barłóg, P.; Spiżewski, T.; Grzebisz, W. Bio-Fertilizers Based on Digestate and Biomass Ash as an Alternative to Commercial Fertilizers—The Case of Tomato. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Cravotto, C.; Fabiano-Tixier, A.S.; Claux, O.; Rapinel, V.; Tomao, V.; Stathopoulos, P.; Skaltsounis, A.L.; Tabasso, S.; Jacques, L.; Chemat, F. Higher Yield and Polyphenol Content in Olive Pomace Extracts Using 2-Methyloxolane as Bio-Based Solvent. Foods 2022, 11, 1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Leukel, S.; Tremel, W. Water-Controlled Crystallization of CaCO3, SrCO3, and MnCO3 from Amorphous Precursors. Cryst. Growth Des. 2018, 18, 4662–4670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Deschamps, L.; Merlet, D.; Lemaire, J.; Imatoukene, N.; Filali, R.; Clément, T.; Lopez, M.; Theoleyre, M.A. Excellent Performance of Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactor in Treatment of Distillery Wastewater at Pilot Scale. J. Water Process Eng. 2021, 41, 102061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Azzena, U.; Carraro, M.; Corrias, M.; Crisafulli, R.; De Luca, L.; Gaspa, S.; Nuvoli, L.; Pintus, S.; Pisano, L.; Polese, R.; et al. Ammonium Salts Catalyzed Acetalization Reactions in Green Ethereal Solvents. Catalysts 2020, 10, 1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. PN-EN ISO 11348-2:2008/A1:2019-03; Water Quality—Determination of the Inhibitory Effect of Water Samples on the Light Emission of Vibrio Fischeri (Luminescent Bacteria Test)—Part 2: Method Using Liquid-Dried Bacteria. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. Available online: https://sklep.pkn.pl/pn-en-iso-11348-2-2008-a1-2019-03e.html (accessed on 10 October 2022).
  51. Wolska, L.; Mędrzycka, K. Assessing the Ecotoxicity of the Bottom Sediments from the Sea Ports of Gdansk and Gdynia. Environ. Pollut. Control 2009, 31, 49–52. Available online: https://www.infona.pl/resource/bwmeta1.element.baztech-article-BPOM-0012-0009?locale=en (accessed on 13 October 2022).
  52. Nielsen, P.H.; Lemmer, H.; Daims, H. Identification and Quantification of Microorganisms in Activated Sludge and Biofilms by FISH: Introduction. In FISH Handbook for Biological Wastewater Treatment; Balint, G., Antala, B., Carty, C., Mabieme, J.-M.A., Amar, I.B., Kaplanova, A., Eds.; IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2009; Volume 7, pp. 1–8. Available online: https://vbn.aau.dk/en/publications/identification-and-quantification-of-microorganisms-in-activated- (accessed on 13 October 2022).
  53. Rajeshwari, K.V.; Balakrishnan, M.; Kansal, A.; Lata, K.; Kishore, V.V.N. State-of-the-Art of Anaerobic Digestion Technology for Industrial Wastewater Treatment. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2000, 4, 135–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Stahl, D.A.; Amann, R.I. Development and Application of Nucleic Acid Probes. In Nucleic Acid Techniques in Bacterial Systematic; Stackbrandt, E., Goodfellow, M., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1991; pp. 205–248. Available online: https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1570009749650622080 (accessed on 13 October 2022).
  55. Raskin, L.; Stromley, J.M.; Rittmann, B.E.; Stahl, D.A. Group-Specific 16S RRNA Hybridization Probes to Describe Natural Communities of Methanogens. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1994, 60, 1232–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Dębowski, M.; Szwaja, S.; Zieliński, M.; Kisielewska, M.; Stańczyk-Mazanek, E. The Influence of Anaerobic Digestion Effluents (ADEs) Used as the Nutrient Sources for Chlorella Sp. Cultivation on Fermentative Biogas Production. Waste Biomass Valorization 2017, 8, 1153–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Atay, Ş.; Akbal, F. Classification and Effects of Sludge Disintegration Technologies Integrated Into Sludge Handling Units: An Overview. Clean–Soil Air Water 2016, 44, 1198–1213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hutagalung, S.S.; Muchlis, I.; Khotimah, K. Textile Wastewater Treatment Using Advanced Oxidation Process (AOP). IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 722, 012032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Fontmorin, J.M.; Sillanpää, M. Dewatering and Removal of Metals from Urban Anaerobically Digested Sludge by Fenton’s Oxidation. Environ. Technol. 2016, 38, 495–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Yu, W.; Yang, J.; Tao, S.; Shi, Y.; Yu, J.; Lv, Y.; Liang, S.; Xiao, K.; Liu, B.; Hou, H.; et al. A Comparatively Optimization of Dosages of Oxidation Agents Based on Volatile Solids and Dry Solids Content in Dewatering of Sewage Sludge. Water Res. 2017, 126, 342–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hu, S.; Hu, J.; Liu, B.; Wang, D.; Wu, L.; Xiao, K.; Liang, S.; Hou, H.; Yang, J. In Situ Generation of Zero Valent Iron for Enhanced Hydroxyl Radical Oxidation in an Electrooxidation System for Sewage Sludge Dewatering. Water Res. 2018, 145, 162–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hallaji, S.M.; Torabian, A.; Aminzadeh, B.; Zahedi, S.; Eshtiaghi, N. Improvement of Anaerobic Digestion of Sewage Mixed Sludge Using Free Nitrous Acid and Fenton Pre-Treatment. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2018, 11, 233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Cheng, Y.; Chen, Y.; Lu, J.; Nie, J.; Liu, Y. Fenton Treatment of Bio-Treated Fermentation-Based Pharmaceutical Wastewater: Removal and Conversion of Organic Pollutants as Well as Estimation of Operational Costs. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 12083–12095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Jain, B.; Singh, A.K.; Kim, H.; Lichtfouse, E.; Sharma, V.K. Treatment of Organic Pollutants by Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Fenton Reaction Processes. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2018, 16, 947–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Lima, V.N.; Rodrigues, C.S.D.; Madeira, L.M. Simultaneous Treatment of Toluene-Containing Gas Waste and Industrial Wastewater by the Fenton Process. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 749, 141497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Taşcı, S.; Özgüven, A.; Yıldız, B. Multi-Response/Multi-Step Optimization of Heterogeneous Fenton Process with Fe3O4 Catalyst for the Treatment of Landfill Leachate. Water. Air. Soil Pollut. 2021, 232, 275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Zhong, Q.; Zhang, Z.; Fu, Q.; Yu, J.; Liao, X.; Zhao, J.; He, D. Molecular Level Insights into HO• and Cl2•−-Mediated Transformation of Dissolved Organic Matter in Landfill Leachate Concentrates during the Fenton Process. Chem. Eng. J. 2022, 446, 137062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ikehata, K.; Li, Y. Ozone-Based Processes. In Advanced Oxidation Processes for Waste Water Treatment. Emerging Green Chemical Technology; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018; pp. 115–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Catalkaya, E.C.; Kargi, F. Effects of Operating Parameters on Advanced Oxidation of Diuron by the Fenton’s Reagent: A Statistical Design Approach. Chemosphere 2007, 69, 485–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Pérez, M.; Torrades, F.; García-Hortal, J.A.; Domènech, X.; Peral, J. Removal of Organic Contaminants in Paper Pulp Treatment Effluents under Fenton and Photo-Fenton Conditions. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 2002, 36, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Affam, A.C.; Ezechi, E.H.; Chaudhuri, M. Classical Fenton and Sequencing Batch Reactor Treatment of Pesticide Wastewater. In Handbook of Research on Resource Management for Pollution and Waste Treatment; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2020; pp. 373–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Barbusiński, K.; Filipek, K. Use of Fenton’s Reagent for Removal of Pesticides from Industrial Wastewater. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2001, 10, 207–212. Available online: http://www.pjoes.com/Use-of-Fenton-s-reagent-for-removal-of-pesticides-from-industrial-wastewater,87375,0,2.html (accessed on 14 October 2022).
  73. Gerulová, K.; Soldán, M.; Kucmanová, A.; Sanny, Z. The effect of fenton’s reagent in combination with ozone to the biodegradability of metalworking fluids wastewaters. J. Chem. Technol. Metall. 2020, 55, 2136–2141. Available online: https://journal.uctm.edu/node/j2020-6/22_19-206_p_2136-2141.pdf (accessed on 14 October 2022).
  74. Lin, Z.; Zhang, C.; Su, P.; Lu, W.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, X.; Hu, W.; Lin, Z.; Zhang, C.; Su, P.; et al. Fenton Process for Treating Acrylic Manufacturing Wastewater: Parameter Optimization, Performance Evaluation, Degradation Mechanism. Water 2022, 14, 2913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Gogate, P.R.; Pandit, A.B. A Review of Imperative Technologies for Wastewater Treatment I: Oxidation Technologies at Ambient Conditions. Adv. Environ. Res. 2004, 8, 501–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Xu, M.; Wu, C.; Zhou, Y. Advanced Oxidation Processes Applications, Trends, and Prospects; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  77. Tang, S.; Wang, Z.; Yuan, D.; Zhang, C.; Rao, Y.; Wang, Z.; Yin, K. Ferrous Ion-Tartaric Acid Chelation Promoted Calcium Peroxide Fenton-like Reactions for Simulated Organic Wastewater Treatment. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 268, 122253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Liu, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, J. Fenton/Fenton-like Processes with in-Situ Production of Hydrogen Peroxide/Hydroxyl Radical for Degradation of Emerging Contaminants: Advances and Prospects. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 404, 124191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Zhao, M.; Xiang, Y.; Jiao, X.; Cao, B.; Tang, S.; Zheng, Z.; Zhang, X.; Jiao, T.; Yuan, D. MoS2 Co-Catalysis Promoted CaO2 Fenton-like Process: Performance and Mechanism. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2021, 276, 119289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Shokri, A.; Bayat, A.; Mahanpoor, K. Employing Fenton-like Process for the Remediation of Petrochemical Wastewater through Box-Behnken Design Method. Desal Water Treat 2019, 166, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Ntampegliotis, K.; Riga, A.; Karayannis, V.; Bontozoglou, V.; Papapolymerou, G. Decolorization Kinetics of Procion H-Exl Dyes from Textile Dyeing Using Fenton-like Reactions. J. Hazard. Mater. 2006, 136, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Chen, M.; Zhang, Z.; Zhu, L.; Wang, N.; Tang, H. Bisulfite-Induced Drastic Enhancement of Bisphenol A Degradation in Fe3+-H2O2 Fenton System. Chem. Eng. J. 2019, 361, 1190–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Spuhler, D.; Andrés Rengifo-Herrera, J.; Pulgarin, C. The Effect of Fe2+, Fe3+, H2O2 and the Photo-Fenton Reagent at near Neutral PH on the Solar Disinfection (SODIS) at Low Temperatures of Water Containing Escherichia Coli K12. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 2010, 96, 126–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Arslan-Alaton, I.; Gurses, F. Photo-Fenton-like and Photo-Fenton-like Oxidation of Procaine Penicillin G Formulation Effluent. J. Photochem. Photobiol. A Chem. 2004, 165, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Verma, M.; Haritash, A.K. Degradation of Amoxicillin by Fenton and Fenton-Integrated Hybrid Oxidation Processes. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 102886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Hashemian, S.; Tabatabaee, M.; Gafari, M. Fenton Oxidation of Methyl Violet in Aqueous Solution. J. Chem. 2013, 2013, 509097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Pak, D.; Chang, W. Oxidation of Aqueous Cyanide Solution Using Hydrogen Peroxide in the Presence of Heterogeneous Catalyst. Environ. Technol. 2010, 18, 557–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Brillas, E.; Sirés, I.; Oturan, M.A. Electro-Fenton Process and Related Electrochemical Technologies Based on Fenton’s Reaction Chemistry. Chem. Rev. 2009, 109, 6570–6631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Krzemieniewski, M.; Dębowski, M.; Sikora, J. Possibility of Fenton’s Reaction Application for Processes of Conditioning and Stabilization of Sludge Coming from Intensive Pisciculture Plants. Annu. Set Environ. Prot. 2005, 7, 99–115. Available online: https://yadda.icm.edu.pl/baztech/element/bwmeta1.element.baztech-article-BPW8-0003-0096 (accessed on 14 October 2022).
  90. Alalm, M.G.; Tawfik, A.; Ookawara, S. Degradation of Four Pharmaceuticals by Solar Photo-Fenton Process: Kinetics and Costs Estimation. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2015, 3, 46–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Merzari, F.; Langone, M.; Andreottola, G.; Fiori, L. Methane Production from Process Water of Sewage Sludge Hydrothermal Carbonization. A Review. Valorising Sludge through Hydrothermal Carbonization. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 49, 947–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Zieliński, M.; Dębowski, M.; Kazimierowicz, J. The Effect of Static Magnetic Field on Methanogenesis in the Anaerobic Digestion of Municipal Sewage Sludge. Energies 2021, 14, 590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Chen, P.; Sun, F.; Wang, W.; Tan, F.; Wang, X.; Qiao, X. Facile One-Pot Fabrication of ZnO2 Particles for the Efficient Fenton-like Degradation of Tetracycline. J. Alloy. Compd. 2020, 834, 155220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Gao, Y.; Zhu, W.; Liu, J.; Lin, P.; Zhang, J.; Huang, T.; Liu, K. Mesoporous Sulfur-Doped CoFe2O4 as a New Fenton Catalyst for the Highly Efficient Pollutants Removal. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 2021, 295, 120273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Zawieja, I.; Brzeska, K. Biogas Production in the Methane Fermentation of Excess Sludge Oxidized with Fenton’s Reagent. E3S Web Conf. 2019, 116, 00104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Dewil, R.; Appels, L.; Baeyens, J.; Degrève, J. Peroxidation Enhances the Biogas Production in the Anaerobic Digestion of Biosolids. J. Hazard. Mater. 2007, 146, 577–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Dhar, B.R.; Youssef, E.; Nakhla, G.; Ray, M.B. Pretreatment of Municipal Waste Activated Sludge for Volatile Sulfur Compounds Control in Anaerobic Digestion. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 3776–3782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Erden, G.; Filibeli, A. Improving Anaerobic Biodegradability of Biological Sludges by Fenton Pre-Treatment: Effects on Single Stage and Two-Stage Anaerobic Digestion. Desalination 2010, 251, 58–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Amor, C.; Lucas, M.S.; García, J.; Dominguez, J.R.; De Heredia, J.B.; Peres, J.A. Combined Treatment of Olive Mill Wastewater by Fenton’s Reagent and Anaerobic Biological Process. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A 2015, 50, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Bampalioutas, K.; Vlysidis, A.; Lyberatos, G.; Vlyssides, A. Detoxification and Methane Production Kinetics from Three-Phase Olive Mill Wastewater Using Fenton’s Reagent Followed by Anaerobic Digestion. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2019, 94, 265–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Singh, R.; Dong, H.; Liu, D.; Zhao, L.; Marts, A.R.; Farquhar, E.; Tierney, D.L.; Almquist, C.B.; Briggs, B.R. Reduction of Hexavalent Chromium by the Thermophilic Methanogen Methanothermobacter Thermautotrophicus. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2015, 148, 442–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Kaynak, G.; Filibeli, A. Assessment of Fenton Process as a Minimization Technique for Biological Sludge: Effects on Anaerobic Sludge Bioprocessing. J. Residuals Sci. Technol. 2008, 5, 343–354. Available online: https://avesis.deu.edu.tr/yayin/b82cacf6-a064-4706-b0b0-6ec7fb5ef775/assessment-of-fenton-process-as-a-minimization-technique-for-biological-sludge-effects-on-anaerobic-sludge-bioprocessing (accessed on 12 October 2022).
  103. Pilli, S.; Yan, S.; Tyagi, R.D.; Surampalli, R.Y. Overview of Fenton Pre-Treatment of Sludge Aiming to Enhance Anaerobic Digestion. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 2015, 14, 453–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Ambrose, H.W.; Philip, L.; Suraishkumar, G.K.; Sen, T. Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Mixed Activated Sewage Sludge and Fruit and Vegetable Waste on Two-Stage Digester Stability. Authorea Prepr. 2020, 1–17. Available online: https://www.authorea.com/doi/full/10.22541/au.158379563.32487452 (accessed on 15 October 2022). [CrossRef]
  105. Nkuna, R.; Roopnarain, A.; Adeleke, R. Effects of Organic Loading Rates on Microbial Communities and Biogas Production from Water Hyacinth: A Case of Mono- and Co-Digestion. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2019, 94, 1294–1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. M’Arimi, M.M.; Kiprop, A.K.; Ramkat, R.C.; Kiriamiti, H.K. Progress in Applications of Advanced Oxidation Processes for Promotion of Biohydrogen Production by Fermentation Processes. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2020, 12, 6033–6057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Del Álamo, A.C.; Pariente, M.I.; Vasiliadou, I.; Padrino, B.; Puyol, D.; Molina, R.; Martínez, F. Removal of Pharmaceutical Compounds from Urban Wastewater by an Advanced Bio-Oxidation Process Based on Fungi Trametes Versicolor Immobilized in a Continuous RBC System. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 34884–34892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Cuerda-Correa, E.M.; Alexandre-Franco, M.F.; Fernández-González, C. Advanced Oxidation Processes for the Removal of Antibiotics from Water. An Overview. Water 2019, 12, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Almomani, F.; Bhosale, R.R.; Khraisheh, M.A.M.; Shawaqfah, M. Enhancement of Biogas Production from Agricultural Wastes via Pre-Treatment with Advanced Oxidation Processes. Fuel 2019, 253, 964–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Malik, S.N.; Madhu, K.; Mhaisalkar, V.A.; Vaidya, A.N.; Mudliar, S.N. Pretreatment of Yard Waste Using Advanced Oxidation Processes for Enhanced Biogas Production. Biomass Bioenergy 2020, 142, 105780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Flowchart of the experiment, tests and calculations.
Figure 1. Flowchart of the experiment, tests and calculations.
Ijerph 20 00271 g001
Figure 2. Scheme of the experiment organization in Phase 1—AOP reactor.
Figure 2. Scheme of the experiment organization in Phase 1—AOP reactor.
Ijerph 20 00271 g002
Figure 3. Toxicity after pre-treatment (a) changes in PSS, (b) removal.
Figure 3. Toxicity after pre-treatment (a) changes in PSS, (b) removal.
Ijerph 20 00271 g003
Figure 4. In the PSS after pre-treatment, (a) residual H2O2 levels and (b) changes in pH.
Figure 4. In the PSS after pre-treatment, (a) residual H2O2 levels and (b) changes in pH.
Ijerph 20 00271 g004
Figure 5. (a) Biogas production from pre-treated PSS, (b) CH4 concentration in the biogas.
Figure 5. (a) Biogas production from pre-treated PSS, (b) CH4 concentration in the biogas.
Ijerph 20 00271 g005
Figure 6. CH4 production (a) from pre-treated PSS, (b) daily.
Figure 6. CH4 production (a) from pre-treated PSS, (b) daily.
Ijerph 20 00271 g006
Figure 7. (a) TOC removal (b) VS removal from the PSS after pre-treatment.
Figure 7. (a) TOC removal (b) VS removal from the PSS after pre-treatment.
Ijerph 20 00271 g007
Figure 8. TOC in the sludge and digested PSS in (a) series 1, and (b) series 2.
Figure 8. TOC in the sludge and digested PSS in (a) series 1, and (b) series 2.
Ijerph 20 00271 g008
Figure 9. VS in the sludge and digested PSS in (a) series 1, (b) series 2.
Figure 9. VS in the sludge and digested PSS in (a) series 1, (b) series 2.
Ijerph 20 00271 g009
Figure 10. (a) The pH, (b) FOS/TAC of the digested PSS after pre-treatment.
Figure 10. (a) The pH, (b) FOS/TAC of the digested PSS after pre-treatment.
Ijerph 20 00271 g010
Figure 11. Correlations between toxicity and methane levels (a) series 1, (b) series 2; FOS/TAC ratio and methane levels (c) series 1, (d) series 2.
Figure 11. Correlations between toxicity and methane levels (a) series 1, (b) series 2; FOS/TAC ratio and methane levels (c) series 1, (d) series 2.
Ijerph 20 00271 g011
Figure 12. Correlations between toxicity and the share of Archaea (a) series 1, (b) series 2; the share of Archaea and methane levels (c) series 1, (d) series 2.
Figure 12. Correlations between toxicity and the share of Archaea (a) series 1, (b) series 2; the share of Archaea and methane levels (c) series 1, (d) series 2.
Ijerph 20 00271 g012
Figure 13. Predicted surface correlation between Fenton’s reagent dosage + toxicity and production of (a) biogas, (b) methane in series 1.
Figure 13. Predicted surface correlation between Fenton’s reagent dosage + toxicity and production of (a) biogas, (b) methane in series 1.
Ijerph 20 00271 g013
Figure 14. Predicted surface correlation between Fenton’s reagent dosage + toxicity and production of (a) biogas and (b) methane in series 2.
Figure 14. Predicted surface correlation between Fenton’s reagent dosage + toxicity and production of (a) biogas and (b) methane in series 2.
Ijerph 20 00271 g014
Table 1. Experimental design.
Table 1. Experimental design.
Phase 1 (P1)—AOP
Variant (V)Series 1 (S1)—Fe2+/H2O2Series 2 (S2)—Fe3+/H2O2
g/dm3
V10.50/2.0 0.50/2.0
V20.75/3.0 0.75/3.0
V31.00/4.0 1.00/4.0
V41.50/6.0 1.50/6.0
V52.00/8.0 2.00/8.0
Phase 2 (P2)
each variant of AOP of PSS was tested with regard to AD performance by means of respirometric measurements in semi-batch reactors. P2 was divided into the same series (S1, S2) and variants (V1–V5) as P1.
Table 2. Characteristics of the PSS and AS used in the study.
Table 2. Characteristics of the PSS and AS used in the study.
IndicatorUnitPSS AS
pH-7.3 ± 0.27.1 ± 0.1
Total solids (TS)%6.4 ± 0.42.2 ± 0.4
Volatile solids (VS) %TS78.7 ± 0.969.9 ± 0.6
Mineral solids (MS) %TS27.3 ± 0.730.1 ± 0.7
Total carbon (TC)mg/gTS430 ± 13277 ± 11
Total organic carbon (TOC)mg/gTS326 ± 10201 ± 12
Total nitrogen (TN)mg/gTS24 ± 320 ± 1.7
Total phosphorus (TP)mg/gTS2.1 ± 0.71.7 ± 0.2
Organic carbon to nitrogen ratio (C/N)-13.5 ± 1.410 ± 1.1
Protein%TS15.4 ± 1.912.2 ± 1.2
Lipids%TS10.1 ± 1.14.1 ± 0.4
Sugars%TS13.7 ± 2.31.6 ± 0.3
Table 3. Changes in concentrations of organic compounds (VS) and dissolved TOC in the PSS after pre-treatment.
Table 3. Changes in concentrations of organic compounds (VS) and dissolved TOC in the PSS after pre-treatment.
FactorUnitSeries (S)–Variant (V)
ControlS1V1S1V2S1V3S1V4S1V5
VSConcentration (%TS)78.7 ± 1.077.1 ± 2.776.7 ± 2.675.0 ± 1.174.4 ± 2.073.3 ± 2.2
Removal
(%)
-2.0 ± 0.072.5 ± 0.074.7 ± 0.035.4 ± 0.086.8 ± 0.1
TOCConcentration (mg/dm3)326.3 ± 10.1324.0 ± 14.7314.0 ± 15.1314.7 ± 9.3302.3 ± 20.2296.1 ± 5.0
Removal
(%)
-0.7 ± 0.033.8 ± 0.043.6 ± 0.027.3 ± 0.059.2 ± 0.02
FactorUnitSeries (S)–Variant (V)
ControlS2V1S2V2S2V3S2V4S2V5
VSConcentration (%TS)78.7 ± 1.078.5 ± 0.478.4 ± 1.277.0 ± 0.377.2 ± 1.176.3 ± 0.6
Removal
(%)
-0.2 ± 0.020.3 ± 0.032.1 ± 0.011.9 ± 0.042.9 ± 0.02
TOCConcentration (mg/dm3)326.3 ± 10.1325.7 ± 8.1318.0 ± 6.6321.7 ± 12.8305.0 ± 10.6303.0 ± 8.5
Removal
(%)
-0.2 ± 0.012.5 ± 0.021.4 ± 0.036.5 ± 0.037.1 ± 0.02
Table 4. Portion digested and biogas/CH4 production in relation to VS load removed.
Table 4. Portion digested and biogas/CH4 production in relation to VS load removed.
FactorUnitSeries (S)–Variant (V)
ControlS1V1S1V2S1V3S1V4S1V5
η F %43.15 ± 2.243.18 ± 4.135.17 ± 4.247.69 ± 3.859.18 ± 2.358.50 ± 3.2
Y b V S r e m . cm3/gVSrem.1455 ± 101480 ± 131708 ± 151309 ± 111184 ± 151182 ± 18
Y C H 4 V S r e m . cm3/gVSrem.869 ± 8854 ± 51047 ± 9816 ± 8762 ± 7780 ± 9
FactorUnitSeries (S)–Variant (V)
ControlS2V1S2V2S2V3S2V4S2V5
η F %43.15 ± 2.238.21 ± 3.140.21 ± 3.048.05 ± 2.249.04 ± 3.445.58 ± 2.1
Y b V S r e m . cm3/gVSrem.1455 ± 101594 ± 181497 ± 131309 ± 171431 ± 151509 ± 19
Y C H 4 V S r e m . cm3/gVSrem.869 ± 8935 ± 9903 ± 5794 ± 7825 ± 8860 ± 8
Table 5. Microbial populations in AS across experimental variants.
Table 5. Microbial populations in AS across experimental variants.
Taxonomic GroupS1–Fe2+/H2O2
ControlV1V2V3V4V6
Bacteria (EUB338)69 ± 1070 ± 1171 ± 1269 ± 1068 ± 1369 ± 11
Archaea (ARC915)23 ± 526 ± 626 ± 626 ± 630 ± 731 ± 7
Methanosarcinaceae (MSMX860)11 ± 411 ± 413 ± 612 ± 513 ± 514 ± 6
Methanosaeta (MX825)6 ± 27 ± 38 ± 38 ± 410 ± 410 ± 4
Taxonomic GroupS2–Fe3+/H2O2
ControlV1V2V3V4V6
Bacteria (EUB338)69 ± 1068 ± 1070 ± 1469 ± 1267 ± 1168 ± 12
Archaea (ARC915)23 ± 523 ± 622 ± 522 ± 520 ± 619 ± 5
Methanosarcinaceae (MSMX860)11 ± 512 ± 610 ± 411 ± 59 ± 49 ± 4
Methanosaeta (MX825)6 ± 28 ± 39 ± 48 ± 36 ± 27 ± 3
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kazimierowicz, J.; Dębowski, M.; Zieliński, M. Effect of Pharmaceutical Sludge Pre-Treatment with Fenton/Fenton-like Reagents on Toxicity and Anaerobic Digestion Efficiency. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 271. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010271

AMA Style

Kazimierowicz J, Dębowski M, Zieliński M. Effect of Pharmaceutical Sludge Pre-Treatment with Fenton/Fenton-like Reagents on Toxicity and Anaerobic Digestion Efficiency. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(1):271. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010271

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kazimierowicz, Joanna, Marcin Dębowski, and Marcin Zieliński. 2023. "Effect of Pharmaceutical Sludge Pre-Treatment with Fenton/Fenton-like Reagents on Toxicity and Anaerobic Digestion Efficiency" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 1: 271. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010271

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop