Erratum: Daneshgar, S., et al. Simulations and Laboratory Tests for Assessing Phosphorus Recovery Efficiency from Sewage Sludge, Resources 2018, 7, 54

The authors wish to make the following corrections to this paper [1]: On pages 6 and 7, Section 4, one paragraph in the manuscript contains some imprecise descriptions. It is refined as follows:

The paragraph “For this study, sludge samples were collected from the Nosedo (Milan, Italy) wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), the largest in northern Italy, and the main one among those serving the city of Milan, with capacity of 1 million p.e. and an annual sludge production of 50,000 tons/year. The estimated phosphorus content of this sludge is at least 240 tons/year. The Nosedo facility has suffered from a chronic organic underloading condition since the beginning of its operation, due to excessive dilution of the incoming wastewater, originated by infiltration/inflow phenomena of ground (high piezometric levels) and surface (sewage collectors undercross in several points local streams) waters in the combined sewer collectors. This makes its operational control difficult at times, and as a consequence one of the four parallel process lines in which the process is divided is kept, in rotation, out of service. The facility does not have a sludge treatment line but relies on an extended aeration process to limit its production. Aerated sludge is normally disposed to local agricultural land.” should be amended as “For this study, sludge samples were collected from the Nosedo (Milan, Italy) wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), the main one among those serving the city of Milan, with capacity of 1.25 million p.e. and an annual dewatered sludge production of about 50,000 tons/year. The estimated phosphorus content of this sludge is at least 240 tons/year. The facility does not have a traditional anaerobic digestion phase for sludge treatment, but relies on an extended aeration process, followed by dewatering and thermal drying to limit disposable volume. A large part of dewatered sludge is normally disposed to agricultural land, while a smaller part is thermally dried and then used as solid recovered fuel into cement kilns.”

The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused to the readers by this change. The change does not affect the scientific results. The manuscript will be updated and the original will remain online on the article’s webpage.