See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/348131759

Sludge management in water treatment plants: literature review

Article in International Journal of Environment and Waste Management · January 2021

DOI: 10.1504/IJEWM.2021.111909

CITATIONS READS

4 8,334

2 authors:

Luay Qrenawi Fahid Rabah

University College of Applied Sciences Islamic University of Gaza
35 PUBLICATIONS 85 CITATIONS 21 PUBLICATIONS 17 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Luay Qrenawi on 20 March 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int. J. Environment and Waste Management, Vol. 27, No. 1, 2021 93

Sludge management in water treatment plants:

literature review

Luay I. Qrenawi
Engineering Department,
University College of Applied Sciences,
P.O. Box 1415, Palestine
Email: [email protected]
*Corresponding author

Fahid K.J. Rabah

Civil Engineering Department,
Islamic University – Gaza,
P.O. Box 108, Palestine
Email: [email protected]

Abstract: Due to the increased environmental concern; there is a considerable

pressure on the water authorities for the safe treatment and disposal of sludge.
It is very important to choose a suitable sludge treatment and disposal system,
which is both economical and technically feasible. In this article, sludge
characteristics, quantities and sources will be outlined. A detailed sludge
management and treatment methods will be presented. Sludge reuse,
incineration, landfilling and disposal were also considered. The study
concluded that sludge management should be considered when designing and
operating WTPs, adopting beneficial reuse options of sludge will become very
essential and it is necessary to investigate the appropriate options for
formulating long term sludge management plans under strict environmental
regulations. The study recommended that sludge must be treated and disposed
of in a safe and effective manner. Great emphasis is to be enforced to minimise
the quantity of generated sludge, more studies should be conducted to develop
suitable sludge management plans, when applying sludge reuse in agricultural
purposes it is highly recommended to investigate the long term effects of
sludge reuse, and finally the environmental impacts of different of sludge
disposal methods should be evaluated.

Keywords: sludge; management; treatment plants; environmental; disposal;

characteristics; quantities; sources; regulations; reuse; long-term effects.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Qrenawi, L.I. and

Rabah, F.K.J. (2021) ‘Sludge management in water treatment plants: literature
review’, Int. J. Environment and Waste Management, Vol. 27, No. 1,
pp.93–125.

Biographical notes: Luay I. Qrenawi has more than 15 years in both the
academic and professional fields related to civil engineering. He has a strong
experience in the field of environmental and water resources engineering, with
a focus on solid waste, wastewater and water sectors. He occupied the position
of Wastewater Reuse Expert at the Palestinian Water Authority. He also was
the Project Coordinator at the Islamic University of Gaza on a project

Copyright © 2021 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

94 L.I. Qrenawi and F.K.J. Rabah

concerning the improvement of drinking water quality in elementary schools

using reverse osmosis technique. He effectively worked on many local and
regional projects concerning solid waste management, solid waste reuse,
recycling and recovery, as well as assessing the impacts and risks associated
with landfilling practices. He participated in a comprehensive study about solid
waste dumpsites in Gaza Strip. During many research and environmentally
oriented projects, he mastered the concepts and techniques of compost
production from agricultural and municipal solid wastes.

Fahid K.J. Rabah holds a PhD in Environmental Engineering, he is a

Professional Engineer in Water and Environmental Engineering and Associate
Professor at the Civil Engineering Department, Islamic University of Gaza. He
has experience of more than 25 years in the field of water, wastewater,
environment and pump stations. His expertise includes: water and wastewater
treatment (chemical, physical and biological), environmental studies (EIA,
feasibility studies), water supply distribution systems, wastewater collection
systems, water and wastewater pumping stations, and storm water management.

1 Introduction

Raw water abstracted from surface water sources (reservoirs and rivers) and groundwater
sources may contain a wide variety of contaminants; including microorganisms,
inorganic and organic contaminants. These contaminants incorporate dissolved solids,
turbidity-causing solids, organic and inorganic material, algae, microscopic organisms,
colloids, precipitated solids from the original water and those added in chemical
treatment (Anjithan, 2016; Crittenden et al., 2012; USEPA, 2011). Most of the surface
Water Treatment Plants – employ the conventional treatment process such as coagulation,
flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, aeration and disinfection – produce large quantities
of sludge by removing impurities from raw water and from the various water treatment
chemicals used for relevant water treatment processes (Anjithan, 2016).
Water treatment processes utilised to produce safe drinking water, generate a wide
variety of residual products (consist of the liquid, solid, semisolid, and gaseous phase
by-products). These residuals depend on the raw water source, chemicals used for
treatment, and types of unit operations used. Due to the increased environmental concern;
there is a considerable pressure on the water authorities for the safe treatment and
disposal of sludge. It is very important to choose a suitable sludge treatment and disposal
system, which is both economical and technically feasible (Anjithan, 2016; Crittenden
et al., 2012; Ippolito et al., 2011).
Water treatment plants (WTPs) usually utilise innovations and modern management
strategies to enhance treatment, disposal, and prevention/controlling the release of source
water treatment sludge into the environment. Adoption of certain innovation and modern
management strategies may significantly help WTPs to meet the acceptable limits. Many
advantages of innovations and modern management strategies in water treatment include
better water quality, less operational expenses, and lower energy consumption (USEPA,
2011). Water treatment sludge management is important in terms of quantities, handling
expenses, composition, and the environmental and regulatory requirements that any
treatment system must comply with (Crittenden et al., 2012).
 Sludge management in water treatment plants: literature review 95

2 Characteristics of sludge in WTP

Recognising the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the sludge generated
from water treatment processes is a necessity to determine the proper management
procedures and to design facilities to execute these processes. The volume, properties and
characteristics of the sludge rely on the source and type of raw water, production rate of
water being treated, contamination level of source water treatment, type of coagulant
added and the dosage applied during the water treatment and plant operating conditions
(Anjithan, 2016; Crittenden et al., 2012; USEPA, 2011).
Sludge, in particulate of gelatinous form, is formed during the processes of chemical
coagulation and softening at drinking water treatment plants. Most of the sludge has
common characteristics; including high water content (usually >95% by weight
(Anjithan, 2016). One important parameter which influences the sludge characteristics is
the WTP system configuration. There are many WTP system configurations; each
configuration produces its own characteristic sludge. The expected floc characteristics of
different water treatment configuration can be as shown in Table 1 (Dharmappa et al.,
1997)
Table 1 Expected floc characteristics for different configurations

System configuration
Floc Conventional Direct filtration Contact filtration
treatment treatment treatment
Floc volume High Medium Low
Floc density Low Medium High
Macro floc High Medium Low
Micro floc Low Medium High

WTPs sludge may contain a variety of microorganisms, according to: the source and the
quality of the source water, the treatment method being utilised, and the period of
treatment during the year. Coagulation sludge will include microorganisms, protozoan
blisters and oocysts, and infections evacuated during the treatment process. In the case of
water treatment (WT) sludge treatment and management, the physical and chemical
characteristics are the most important ones (Anjum et al., 2016; Crittenden et al., 2012;
Dharmappa et al., 1997; Ippolito et al., 2011; Mowla et al., 2013).
The variations in the physical characteristics among sludge of various compositions
are urged to the variation in the physical structure of the sludge. A coagulation sludge is
comprised of the suspended material in the source water, coagulants added, and a large
amount of the entrapped water. In the coagulation–flocculation process, the suspended
solids and the coagulant are united to compose the flocs, after that they settle down and
make sludge. The suspended solids contain clay and sediment particles, colour-causing
colloids, algae, and other dirt materials. Clays and sediments are solid and have a density
of about 2,600 kg/m3; the alternate materials are agglomerations of coagulants with other
ions and water molecules all loosely held together by electrostatic bonds (Crittenden
et al., 2012).
Sludge chemical characteristics are generally related to the chemical content of the
source water and the type of chemical coagulants. The constituents of sludge are highly
complex, and they mainly include water and different species of solids. Typically
96 L.I. Qrenawi and F.K.J. Rabah

hydrated alumina oxides and iron oxides are present. Chemical components of WT
sludge include aluminium and iron hydrous metal. Alum [Al2(SO4)3.14H2O] is the most
common coagulant in use; iron salts FeCl3 and Fe2(SO4)3 are also used.
The physio-chemical characteristics of the sludge can be broadly classified into two
categories: micro-properties and macro-properties. The micro-properties define the
influent conditions of the sludge, and can be treated as suspension characteristics.
Whereas, the macro-properties describe the sludge characteristics which are dependent on
the micro-properties of the sludge and they directly determine the treatability of the
sludge. Establishing appropriate relationships between micro- and macro-properties is
needed to aid the design of a thickening and dewatering processes. Once this is achieved,
designing of the process could be readily done by selecting a relevant set of
macro-properties and using the corresponding relationships with the micro-properties
(Dharmappa et al., 1997).

3 Sludge quantities generated by during WT processes

The amount of solid, semisolid, and liquid residuals that exits the conventional water
treatment plant can be as much as 3 to 5% of the volume of the water entering the plant.
The great part of that volume will be the filter waste wash-water, which regularly
contains <10% of the expelled solids in the treatment process within the plant. Typical
reported values for the sludge quantities generated by different treatment methods are
given in Table 2 (Crittenden et al., 2012).
Table 2 Typical production of sludge in WTP

Portion of plant flow

Sludge type
Range Typical
Alum coagulation 0.08–0.3% 0.1%
Flotation (at reactor surface) 0.01–0.1% 0.06%
Flotation (at reactor bottom) 0.001–0.04%
Iron coagulation 0.08–0.3% 0.1%
Lime-softening 0.3–6% 4%
Source: Crittenden et al. (2012)

4 Environmental constraints of sludge in WTP

Sludge disposal is a basic portion of water treatment framework. Sludge disposal

techniques are facing difficulties and opportunities at the same time, and persistently still
need modifications. Before, treatment plant residuals were frequently released to the
close-by streams, put in lagoons for a certain time, or spread on land with the least or no
treatment, which resulted in both negative aesthetic and adverse ecological impacts.
Aesthetic impacts incorporate the discolouration or rising up the turbidity in accepting
water bodies and development of sludge deposition in waterways and occupying large
land areas with lagoons (Crittenden et al., 2012; Wei et al., 2018).
 Sludge management in water treatment plants: literature review 97

Direct release of water treatment sludge to water bodies adversely affects the water
quality of downstream and aquatic biota and it is not acceptable in accordance with
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. According to the environmental
regulations, sludge disposal will be a licensable activity in the near future. Large
quantities of sludge are disposed of by landfilling also. The openly dumped sludge
washed away with rain water affects the surface water quality. Groundwater quality may
also be affected due to leaching of sludge in to soil (Anjithan, 2016). The vast majority of
sludge, whenever spread on land to any depth, will anticipate or restrain plant growth;
however, if well blended with the soil, sludge may have practically no effect on plant
growth. Lime sludge may have positive impacts on the soil, whenever utilised in suitable
quantities (Crittenden et al., 2012).

5 Regulatory constraints of sludge in WTP

Handling and discharging the sludge generated from WT process have critical concerns
in the WT process. Recently, the issue of where and how to discard this sludge has gotten
expanded consideration. Stricter water quality standards for drinking water, and for water
bodies accepting sludge and groundwater underlying surface waste disposal sites, have
made the process of sludge disposal more troublesome. Combined with these stricter
regulations, the land available for the final disposal of sludge has been diminished.
Sludge release and disposal is a common challenge for any WTP for drinking purposes
(Cornwall and Koppers, 1990). In this manner, it is important to identify appropriate
methodologies and technologies for sludge management in the WTP that guarantee
accomplishing the required ecological and technological results. The choice of an option
should depend upon financial as well as regulatory considerations. The type and
characteristics of sludge are considered as important criteria to be followed when
developing sludge disposal and transfer options. In that capacity, they are currently
required to meet standards for best practicable technology (BPT) and the best available
technology (BAT) monetarily attainable. Such regulatory constraints, while securing
public and environmental health, can seriously restrict the available sludge management
options and increase the expenses of its disposal (Anjithan, 2016; Crittenden et al., 2012).

6 Sources of sludge in WTP

The conventional water treatment process is well established, adopted and strong. In the
conventional coagulation-filtration treatment process, suspended solids and natural
organic matter are expelled from the source water by adding iron and aluminium salts as
chemical coagulants, bringing out the formation of WT sludge. In addition to the
chemical coagulant added, WT sludge also includes the mineral and other components
from the raw water. Sludge of water treatment work remains an inescapable by-product
of WT process. The WT sludge is a mixture of liquid and solid and can be treated as a
waste. Though it can be considered as a natural resource in some cases, often, it is
economically and environmentally an unwanted burden. The quantities of sludge
produced from WTPs in our modem society are staggering and are continuously
increasing. The sources of this sludge and a brief description of them are presented in
98 L.I. Qrenawi and F.K.J. Rabah

Table 3 (Anjithan, 2016; Crittenden et al., 2012; Dharmappa et al., 1997). Detailed
description of sludge sources will be presented in the following subsections.
Table 3 Sources of sludge from WT plants

Source of sludge Description

Alum and iron Sludge resulting from the alum and iron precipitation of surface waters
precipitation containing clay, silt, colloids, and microorganisms with coagulant
chemicals and polymers.
Coarse screening Coarse screening inhibits the passage of debris and fish into the intake
structure.
Coarse sludge accumulated on screens includes: rags, viscous matter, and
big sized wooden pieces.
Floatation Floatation, sometimes referred to as a sludge thickening technique, results
in the formation of float sludge. Sludge is collected uniformly in small
plants and continuously in large plants.
Pre-sedimentation Pre sedimentation occurred prior to conventional treatment, and will
result in the removal of gross amounts of sludge.
Slow sand filter The scraping of the slow sand filters surface, sometimes will result in the
scrapings accumulation of semisolid materials
Spent sorbents Solid materials utilised to remove constituents including: hardness, As, F,
P, and some organic matters from water by sorption, and have lost their
significant adsorptive capacity or they cannot be reactivated again
effectively.
Travelling screens Travelling screens are mainly utilised to inhibit grit, sand, and small
gravel from continuing travel into the treatment facility. Retained
materials usually include grit, sand, and small gravel.
Water softening Removal of Ca+2 and Mg+2 ions from hard water during precipitation
softening will result in the formation of lime sludge.
Source: Crittenden et al. (2012)

6.1 Coarse and micro-screening

Screens are used in surface water intakes to prevent the entrance of materials which
might damage or clog pumps or other mechanical equipment in the plant. It is utilised to
remove sticks, rags, and other large debris from raw water by straining on screens. Fish
protection is of great importance when treating water from a river or a lake. The screen
may be cleaned manually on a time basis, or automatically. Inclined or vertical flat plate
screens are mounted on a framework submerged in flowing waters. Coarse screening is
the passage of raw water through coarse screen to remove large particles from 2 to 15 cm
in diameter and larger. Coarse screenings are usually disposed in landfills or other waste
disposal site. Micro-screens, which come after the coarse-screens, keep out material that
can clog pipework at the WT plant. Micro-screening is the passage of water through
stainless steel or polyester media for removal of small particles from 0.025–1.5 mm in
diameter from raw water by straining on screens. It is used for the removal of filamentous
algae. Fine screenings (in the form of slurry) may be discharged to a wastewater network
or sent to landfills. Note that the volumes of the collected screenings are quite
considerable, and amount about 50 L/1,000 capita/day (Crittenden et al., 2012; Hammer
and Hammer, 2008; McGhee, 1991; De Kreuk, 2013).
 Sludge management in water treatment plants: literature review 99

6.2 Pre-sedimentation
In WTPs, sometimes primary settling is done in the unit of pre-sedimentation tank (PST)
in entrance (upstream) of source water to the plant. Water streams may contain high
concentrations of suspended sediment; therefore, preliminary treatment processes are
employed for the removal of debris and part of the sediment load. When treating the raw
water of high turbidity – especially during storm season, flood conditions, high coliform
counts and highly polluted rivers – solids loadings including bigger particles will
diminish substantially with the use of pre-sedimentation in the WTP. Pre-sedimentation is
performed physically without the application of chemical coagulants. Contaminants from
source water could be expelled by consecutive treatment methods. The choice and
arrangement of various treatment processes are of extraordinary significance for attaining
high contaminant removal efficiency. Pre-sedimentation affects water treatment plant
operation, and the treated water characteristics depend upon source water quality
(Jahanshahi and Taghizadeh, 2018; Reynolds and Richards, 1996; Departments of the
Army and the Air Force, 1985). The amount of sludge separated from pre-sedimentation
tanks depends upon the quality of the raw water being treated.

6.3 Coagulation sludge

Coagulation sludge is generated by the coagulation and settling of natural turbidity by
added coagulant chemicals. Sludge that is formed in the coagulation process is usually
collected in the sedimentation tanks or on filters. The characteristics and quality of the
collected sludge (either from the sedimentation tanks or from the filters) is a function of
the source water quality, type and amount of coagulant added, operation efficiency and
design of plant. The coagulation sludge contains microbial, organic, and inorganic
contaminates derived from water, and metallic or polymeric coagulants (Crittenden et al.,
2012; McGhee, 1991).
The solids content of this sludge averages from 8–10%. For typical WTPs utilising
alum for coagulation process, somewhere in the range of 60 and 90% of the total sludge
formed will be collected in the sedimentation tanks with the remaining in the filters. The
sludge accumulated on the filters is expelled from the filters during the backwashing
process and are removed from the waste wash water by plain (gravity) sedimentation.
Sludge from the sedimentation tanks can be removed continuously or on a discontinuous
manner. If the cleaning method of tanks is performed manually, the time between
cleaning intervals will be 3 months or even more. Automatic cleaning equipment is
typically intended to work between once per week and once at regular interval of hours or
continuously (Crittenden et al., 2012; Hammer and Hammer, 2008; McGhee, 1991).

6.3.1 Estimating quantities of coagulation sludge

Estimating the amount of sludge is unfortunately very complex since it depends on
several factors such as; the source water quality and the type of chemical treatment,
chemical dosage and the point at which the chemicals are added in the treatment process.
Amounts of the sludge produced during the coagulation process were previously
100 L.I. Qrenawi and F.K.J. Rabah

presented in Table 2. The quantity of sludge expected to be collected at the WTP is

generally estimated to help in the plant design. The suspended solids portion of the
sludge may be securely assumed to be equivalent to the suspended solids of the source
water. On the chance that the information regarding the total suspended solids (TSS) are
not available, it may be roughly calculated based upon the correlation with turbidity. It is
worth to note, however, that there is a dramatic change in the TSS/turbidity proportion
depending on the organic content of the raw water source. The proportion for most water
sources will change somewhere from 1 to 2, with a typical value of about 1.4. For
turbidities under 10 nephlometric turbidity unit (NTU) the proportion is ≈1 (Crittenden
et al., 2012; Snurer, 2008).

6.3.2 Coagulation reactions

When alum or iron is being utilised as the coagulant agent, the reactions will be as:
Al2 ( SO 4 )3 ⋅14H 2 O → 2Al(OH)3↓ + 6H + + 3SO 24 − + 8H 2 O (1)

FeCl3 + 3H 2 O → Fe(OH)3↓ + 3H + + 3Cl− (2)

Fe 2 ( SO 4 )3 ⋅ 9H 2 O → 2Fe(OH)3↓ + 6H + + 3SO 24 − + 3H 2 O (3)

The expected precipitates will be iron hydroxide when utilising iron as the coagulant
agent, on the other hand the precipitate will be aluminium hydroxide when using alum as
the coagulant. The expected amount of sludge can be estimated from the stoichiometry.
To estimate the amount of sludge resulting from iron or alum addition, one can use the
values presented in Table 4.
If polymers are used to enhance coagulation process, the amount of polymer utilised
is to be added to the total quantity of the generated sludge. Also, if chemicals including
activated carbon or activated silica or other emulsifying materials (such as bentonite) are
used to aid the coagulation process, they should be taken into account when estimating
sludge quantity at sedimentation tanks or filters (Crittenden et al., 2012).
Table 4 Typical values for coagulation sludge quantities

Coagulant Unit Range Typical value

Alum: Al2 (SO4)3 . 14H2O kg dry sludge/kg coagulant 0.2–0.33a 0.26
Ferric sulphate: Fe2(SO4)3 kg dry sludge/kg coagulant 0.5–0.53a 0.53
Ferric chloride: FeCl3 kg dry sludge/kg coagulant 0.6–0.66a 0.66
Polymer addition kg dry sludge/kg coagulant 1 1
Turbidity removal mg TSS/NTU removed 1.0–2 1.4
Note: aValuewithout bound water.
Source: Crittenden et al. (2012)
 Sludge management in water treatment plants: literature review 101

6.4 Sedimentation sludge

Sedimentation is a treatment method that permits the suspended particle in water (like
flocs, sand and clay) to settle out of the suspension under the influence of their own
weight. Particles that settle out from the water become sediment and, in water treatment,
is named as sludge. Sedimentation can take place naturally in reservoirs or in compact
settling installations. In water treatment process, sedimentation is utilised to lower the
portion of particles in the suspension prior to coagulation – to reduce the dose of
chemical coagulants required – or after coagulation and sometimes even flocculation. At
the point when sedimentation is following the coagulation, its intended goal is normally
to diminish the solids concentration in water with the purpose that the consequent
filtration process can work more successfully. Examples of settling installations are the
horizontal flow settling tanks, the tilted plate settlers and the floc blanket installations.
There are many strategies for applying sedimentation including: horizontal flow, radial
flow, inclined plate, ballasted floc and floc blanket sedimentation (IWA, 2010; TU Delft,
2007). Depending on their concentration and morphology, particles can be classified into
four groups, as shown in Figure 1.
• Type I particles are not united and do not interfere with each another when settling.
Type I settling occurs generally in grit removal chambers, pre-sedimentation tanks
for sand expulsion before coagulation, and settling of sand particles during
backwashing of rapid sand filters.
• Type II settling zone comprises of particles that are fit for flocculating. As particles
agglomerate and develop in size, they can settle down quicker. Type II settlings are
observed when settling happens after iron and alum coagulation and in the majority
of conventional sedimentation tanks.
• Type III, or hindered settling happens at concentrations of more than types I and II
settling, where a blanket of sludge is formed. The blanket traps particles under it as it
settles; thus, a clear interface is found over the formed blanket. Type III settling
zones are found in thickeners (sludge disposal) and the lower portions of some
sedimentation tanks (e.g., lime-softening sedimentation).
• At concentrations much higher than that found in type III settling, the suspension
starts to consolidate gradually. This type of consolidation is referred to as type IV
settling or compression settling. For type IV settling zones, the particles may not
settle by any means, and water flows or drains out of a mat of particles very slowly.
Type IV settling zones are found in dewatering operations, and once they are
dewatered, the suspension may become a paste or cake (Crittenden et al., 2012).
102 L.I. Qrenawi and F.K.J. Rabah

Figure 1 Types of settling

Source: Crittenden et al. (2012)

6.4.1 Sedimentation sludge quantity estimation

6.4.1.1 Type I settling (Crittenden et al., 2012)
Any particle in the inlet zone with a settling velocity (vs) ≥ the overflow rate (vc) will be
removed regardless of its starting position. Depending upon the position of particle at the
inlet of the sedimentation tank, the removal may also take place once the settling velocity
is less than the overflow rate. The % of particles removal will be:
% of removed particles = ( vs ÷ vc ) × 100%, ( vs < vc ) (4)

6.4.1.2 Type II settling (Davis, 2010)

There is no adequate mathematical relationship that describes type II settling. Settling
columns tests conducted at laboratories can help to model the behaviour of flocculants
settling. A settling column is filled with the water sample to be tested. The water sample
containing solids is left and allowed to settle. Samples are taken from the suspension at
different depths and at specified time periods. The concentration of suspended solids is
then calculated for each sample and the percentage of solids removed is obtained from:

 C 
R (%) = 1 − t  × 100 (5)
 C0 
 Sludge management in water treatment plants: literature review 103

where
R% percent solids removal at certain depth and time (%)
Ct concentration at time, t, and certain depth (mg/L)
C0 concentration at the beginning of the test (mg/L).

6.4.1.3 Types III and IV sedimentation (Crittenden et al., 2012; Davis, 2010)
When water contains high concentration of particles (more than 1,000 mg/L), both
type III settling (occurs in lime-softening sedimentation) and type IV settling will happen
alongside with discrete and flocculants settling. The solids flux in a sedimentation basin
or solids thickener describing types III and IV settling is shown in Figure 2. It includes
the downward particles movement from plain settling and the downward movement of
particles due to water flow towards the underdrain, and is given by the expression:
J T = J s + J u = ( vs + vu ) × C (6)

where
JT total solids flux toward the bottom of the basin, kg/m2 · h
Js solids flux due to particle settling, kg/m2 · h
Ju solids flux due to fluid flow from the underflow, kg/m2 · h
vs settling velocity for particle concentration m/h
vu bulk downward fluid velocity, m/h
C suspended solids concentration, kg/m3.

Figure 2 The solids flux in a sedimentation basin

Source: Crittenden et al. (2012)

104 L.I. Qrenawi and F.K.J. Rabah

6.5 Dissolved air floatation

The presence of low density particles in water sources, for example: algae will result in
problems during the sedimentation process. This is mainly due to their low density. An
alternative to sedimentation process will be used, dissolved air floatation (DAF) which is
considered as an effective separation technique to deal with such type of solids. This
technique has been utilised successfully for the treatment of waters containing algae,
waters having low turbidity, as well as highly coloured waters. In FAD, floc particles are
allowed to move up to the water surface and finally form a solids layer named as float.
The formed flocs have been produced when waters being treated have low settling
velocity. The layer of floating materials is collected at the effluent of the tank, and then is
expelled into a collection channel named a trough. The removal process of the collected
floats can be either performed by a mechanical skimming apparatus or by solids overflow
into the collection channel (Crittenden et al., 2012; Zabel, 1985, 1992).
Floatation can produce water of better quality than sedimentation, so, the solids
portion of the produced sludge by floatation is higher than the solids portion of the sludge
produced by sedimentation. Of the flotation advantages, one can list the following: it can
be performed at high surface loadings (hence leading to the construction of small and
shallow WTPs), can be initially operated with a stable water quality being obtained
within a short period of time; 45 min (Zabel, 1985, 1992).

6.6 Filter scarping

The treatment process that incorporates the removal of solids particles from water by the
passage of water that includes contaminating particles through a porous medium is
termed as filtration. For the case of granular infiltration, the porous material is usually
composed of a granular material, for example; sand. Rapid filtration, is the most
commonly filtration method utilised in the water treatment train. Rapid filtration is
usually used to describe a filtration rate of 50–100 times higher than that of the older
filtration method or commonly known as slow sand filtration (Crittenden et al., 2012).
Amid the filtration process, water moves downward and percolating through the filter
medium, hence solid particles are collected on the bed of the filter. The process of
filtration continues typically for a period ranging from 1 to 4 days. To ensure effective
infiltration, the water flow is to be maintained at a rate ranging from 0.1 to 0.3 m/hr. This
flow will provide stability of nutrients and oxygen supply for the micro-organisms, and
provides sufficient time for the water treatment process. Following half a month to a few
of months of filter operation; the number of micro-organisms increases excessively and
begins to fill in the filter pores. In the event that flow rates are very small, the filter must
be decanted and the upper sand layer (20–30 mm) is scratched off, washed, left to fry in
the sun, and put aside as a means of storage. After a few scrapings times, the washed and
dried sand is added back to the filter, together with fresh sand, so that to compensate the
lost sand when filter backwashing takes place. The sand can be scratched for a few
filtration cycles, yet in the end it must be totally replaced. This procedure is usually
known as re-sanding (Crittenden et al., 2012; Pizzi, 2011; Bruni and Spuhler, 2011).
 Sludge management in water treatment plants: literature review 105

6.7 Precipitation (softening) sludge

Softening process by using chemical precipitation utilises lime (CaO) and soda ash
(Na2CO3). The aim of this softening process is to expel calcium and magnesium ions
from the source water. Moreover, treatment by lime will add indistinguishable
advantages of bactericidal activity, evacuation of iron and help in the removal of turbidity
from surface water sources. The chemical precipitation process that aims to remove
calcium carbonate and magnesium hydroxide from water is known as lime-soda softening
and will formulate a precipitate named lime sludge. Lime sludge might be basically a
chemically pure sludge or it may contain suspended solids from the source water if
turbidity removal is joined with softening. Similar sludge will be obtained when
magnesium carbonate softening process takes place (Crittenden et al., 2012; Hammer and
Hammer, 2008).

6.7.1 Estimating quantities of lime (softening) sludge

The typically adopted amounts of the sludge resulting from the water softening process
are presented in Table 2. The quantity of sludge that may be produced from a certain
softening process can be obtained based upon the chemical treatment used and the quality
of the water being treated. The obtained amounts of sludge can be used for design
purposes. The composition of sludge mainly contains the calcium carbonate being
precipitated, magnesium hydroxide, turbidity or colloidal solids that have been settled
during the softening process. Any insoluble materials already exist in the water treatment
chemicals will also be precipitated (lime grit is an example of such materials). Turbidity
can be correlated to suspended solids, and hence the expected contribution of suspended
solids to the sludge quantity can be also estimated (Crittenden et al., 2012).
The quantities of calcium carbonate and magnesium hydroxide being precipitated can
be calculated from the anticipated calcium and magnesium removals. The total amount of
lime sludge can be calculated from:

M total = ( 2.0Ca 2 + + 2.58Mg 2 + ) + TSS + X  (10−3 kg/g ) . (7)

where
Mtotal total amount of produced sludge, kg/m3
Ca2+ calcium removed, g/m3 as CaCO3
Mg2+ magnesium removed, g/m3 as CaCO3
TSS total suspended solids concentration, g/m3
X coagulant aids used to improve the precipitation, g/m3.
It can now be recognised that, to remove 1.0 mg of calcium (expressed as CaCO3) will
result in the formation of 2.0 mg sludge of CaCO3. By the same convention, to remove
1.0 mg of magnesium (expressed as CaCO3) one can expect the formation of 2.58 mg of
sludge [CaCO3 + Mg(OH)2]. The amount of sludge produced as a function of the total
hardness removed can be estimated graphically as shown in Figure 3.
106 L.I. Qrenawi and F.K.J. Rabah

Figure 3 Sludge production rate vs. hardness removed

Source: Crittenden et al. (2012)

Table 5 Spent sorbents solids management methods

Sorbent Reuse or disposal method

GAC Spent GAC can only be reactivated in WT applications once the quantities
used are >150,000 kg/yr. If the used quantity is <150,000 kg/yr, the spent
amount is transferred to a central reactivation facility. The reactivated
GAC can be applied in industrial wastewater treatment plants, and cannot
be utilised for the purpose of drinking water treatment. If the quantity of
the available reactivated GAC > the required amount, the extra quantity is
transferred to a sanitary landfill for disposal.
PAC The coagulation sludge will contain PAC. This type of spent sorbent solids
cannot be reactivated again, therefore, it is disposed of with sludge.
Ion exchange Once the operational life of resins has been finished, the optimum option
resins, mixed bed for their disposal is transfer to a sanitary solid waste or hazardous waste
resins landfill. Other option is to transfer them to a suitable processing facility.
Based upon the resins used, certain types of them can be eradicated via
pyrolysis or incineration.
AA If sorbents lose a great of their ability to adsorb and become unable to be
reactivated efficiently, they have to be transferred to a sanitary municipal
or hazardous waste landfills or hazardous waste processing facilities. The
final destination of such spent depends on the composition of the sorbed
and local laws.
GFO, GFH If sorbents become unable to be reactivated efficiently, they have to be
transferred to a sanitary municipal or hazardous waste landfills or
hazardous waste processing facilities. The final destination of such spent
depends on the composition of the sorbed and local laws.
Source: Crittenden et al. (2012)

6.8 Spent sorbents solids

The spent sorbent solids may include the following constituents: granular activated
carbon (GAC), powdered activated carbon (PAC), ion exchange resins, blended bed
resins, activated alumina (AA), granular ferric oxide (GFO), and granular ferric
hydroxide (GFH). Except the activated carbon, the majority of the solid sorbents
 Sludge management in water treatment plants: literature review 107

including AA and GFH are utilised one time only. Likewise the granular activated
carbon, recovery of these sorbents is only of economic benefit for large treatment units.
The most widely recognised reuse and disposal process for the spent solid sorbents are
shown in Table 5. On the off chance that the spent solid sorbent can successfully pass the
toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) test, ordinary landfilling in a sanitary
landfill is the most financially savvy strategy for disposal. If it is not the case, the solid
sorbents must be discarded of in a hazardous waste disposal site (Crittenden et al., 2012).

7 Need of sludge management in WTP

The method that describe the water treatment solids disposal and reuse infrastructures,
their operation, design and planning of are usually referred to as sludge management.
Technically, the main aim of sludge management is to reduce its amounts; especially that
to be disposed of. Sludge has to be handled, transferred and finally disposed in
conformity with the guidelines put by the responsible agencies. Reduction of the water
content of the sludge and increasing the solids content is also an important objective of
the sludge management process (Anjithan, 2016; Crittenden et al., 2012).
Sludge management will have a significant effect on the design and the activity of
numerous WTPs. For the already operating WTPs, solids management systems may
inhibit the whole plant capacity if its design and operation conditions were not
appropriate. As often as possible, sludge is temporarily put aside before sending for
treatment, reuse, as well as transfer for disposal. Sludge expulsion and management must
be controlled and performed according to the designed sludge management system to
ensure a reasonable water quality.
Historically, WTP sludge used to be discharged into the nearest water courses or
sewer systems with little or no treatment. Now, this sludge cannot be disposed of in
sanitary sewers as this would have many adverse effects. Moreover, due to stringent
effluent discharge standards, it can’t be disposed of into the natural water bodies.
Recently, the sludge is usually dumped into a lagoon system located at and around the
plants (Anjithan, 2016; Dharmappa et al., 1997; USEPA, 2011).
In general, the expense of transporting and final disposal of sludge compromises the
largest portion of sludge management expenses, therefore, the most feasible option in
sludge management is to minimise its quantity being finally disposed. Different options
incorporate reducing the environmental effects and complying disposal regulations
established by responsible agencies. Hence, it is worth to investigate appropriate choices
for developing sustainable sludge management strategies under strict environmental
standards (Ahmad et al., 2016; Crittenden et al., 2012).

8 Sludge treatment and management methods

The essential step in water treatment sludge processing is the decline in its moisture
content. Being this step is not achieved, it would be troublesome and extensively
unfeasible to deal with and treat the sludge. The techniques and expenses for dealing with
treatment, transfer and final disposal of sludge are affected by the quantity and properties
of the sludge. Therefore, development of a complete sludge process treatment train for a
108 L.I. Qrenawi and F.K.J. Rabah

certain type of sludge needs a good knowledge of the suitable and available techniques
for processing that type of sludge. The amount and properties of the sludge are influenced
by the source water quality and the chemical reagents utilised in the treatment process.
Despite still being little to be done for changing the quality of the source water, it is still
possible in some occasions to alter the water treatment technique. This alteration will be
in the favour of reducing the amount of the produced sludge. The decrease in the sludge
amount will result in reducing the plant operational costs (Anjithan, 2016; Crittenden
et al., 2012). In order to achieve economic management of the sludge, it is important to
reduce the quantity of sludge by increasing the solids concentration. This can be achieved
by an appropriate treatment method. The sludge treatment and disposal system can be
broadly classified into the following categories:
• thickening
• conditioning (chemical, physical)
• dewatering (non-mechanical, mechanical)
• solids minimisation
• solids recovery
• final disposal/landfilling.
A general process chart demonstrating the different methods and techniques used in in
sludge management and the order in which they may be arranged and grouped to
formulate a comprehensive treatment system is outlined in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Unit operations and processes for management of WTP sludge

Source: Crittenden et al. (2012)

 Sludge management in water treatment plants: literature review 109

To formulate an integral sludge management system, it is required to utilise one-unit

process or more of the steps shown in Figure 4; for example, thickening/dewatering and
conditioning. Any sludge management system must also contain a unit process from the
final reuse and/or disposal step (Anjithan, 2016; Crittenden et al., 2012; Dharmappa
et al., 1997). The following subsections will present the main unit operations and
processes utilised for sludge management.

8.1 Collection processes

By sludge collection processes, we consider the methods utilised to collect or gather the
sludge expelled from the water in the treatment plants. During the water treatment, sludge
is expelled by a variety of methods. Screens existing at the WTPs inlet capture the large
segments of debris (normally >1 in) from the water to be treated. Grit basins collect the
coarsest, heaviest substances from the source water preceding the process of
pre-sedimentation. Pre-sedimentation tanks collect the heavier particles that do not need
coagulation and flocculation for solids separation. Sedimentation tanks encourage settling
by gravity for solids particles to the bottom of a water column where the collected solids
are then evacuated. There are many techniques can be utilised in the sedimentation
process, such as chain and flight, suction, and circular collector units. In the conventional
treatment plant, filtration is commonly the last step used for suspended solids removal
from water. Solids are expelled by a bed of granular media (sand, anthracite and/or
garnet) by the means of straining, impingement, gravitational settling, or adsorption.
Backwash procedures are adopted in filter reactivation, and solids can also be expelled
during this process (USEPA, 1996).

8.2 Thickening
Thickening is a well-established technique, utilised to minimise the sludge volume and to
enhance its dewatering characteristics via sludge densification at the bottom of thickener.
The main goal of thickening is to maximise solids portion of the sludge by settling and
expelling a part of the water by decanting. Thickening will produce sludge with a solids
concentration <10%. Such a sludge is still pumpable by conventional means and has most
of the characteristics of liquid. Sludge thickening process can take many trains, however,
the final result is the removal of a portion of the influent water and to increase the solids
concentration resource recovery. Having higher solids content in the subsequent
treatment phases will benefit by lowering capital and operating expenses of the treatment
process. The main process utilised for coagulation or softening sludge is the sludge
compaction. Coagulation sludge can be thickened by gravity, and will result in solids
content of 2–10%. Sludge formed due to lime-softening, can be thickened and result in
2–30% solids (AWWA, 1981; Westerhoff and Cline, 1980; Dharmappa et al., 1997;
USEPA, 2011).
Although thickening can lower the costs for sludge transfer, it is indicated in literature
that most WTPs dedicate less efforts to reduce sludge quantities. Thickening happens
firstly by gravity settling and is enhanced by the compression applied on sludge
(Anjithan, 2016).
110 L.I. Qrenawi and F.K.J. Rabah

8.3 Conditioning
Conditioning is a process joint into many sludge handling systems to enhance the
adequacy of the dewatering process. Conditioning of WTP sludge is commonly
performed by either chemical or physical conditioning (USEPA, 1996).

8.3.1 Chemical conditioning

Chemical conditioning of sludge can be attained by a reasonable utilisation of organic
polyelectrolytes, inorganic chemicals, and acidification. This process is incorporated in
the majority of mechanical thickening or dewatering processes. It involves the application
of ferric chloride, lime, or polymer. Chemical conditioner type and dose vary greatly
depending on the source water quality, coagulants used, pretreatment, required solids
concentration, and thickening/dewatering technique being applied.
Polymers with different specifications are currently obtainable for use in the
dewatering processes. Anionic polymers (hydrolysed polyacrylamides) have proved to be
very efficient conditioning agents for coagulating sludge before dewatering by gravity of
suction.
Ferric chloride, lime or fly ash is perhaps appropriate for specific sludge conditioning
process. The utilisation of chemicals, independently or in combination, should be
assessed for a specific type of sludge. Chemical providers are required to provide the
chemical’s rating adopted by National Sanitation Foundation (NSF1) if the by-product
water of the process is planned to be returned to the treatment plant stream. Another
effective conditioning technique, especially with the recovery of alum is the acidification
of sludge. The sludge that is being acidified must be neutralised before its final disposal
(Anjithan, 2016; USEPA, 1996).

8.3.2 Physical conditioning

To optimise the effectiveness of thickening/dewatering, many physical conditioning
processes can be utilised. These processes include:
• Pre-coat or non-reactive added substances: some dewatering systems, mainly
vacuum filtration and pressure filters, utilise a pre-coat added substance in the
process, commonly diatomaceous earth.
• Freeze-thaw conditioning: this process can be complemented by an open-air process
in chilly climates or through mechanical equipment.
• Thermal conditioning at high temperatures (175°C to 205°C) and high pressure (1.72
to 2.75 MPa): This process is very efficient when the organic content in the sludge is
at high portions (USEPA, 1996; Cornwall and Koppers, 1990).

8.4 Non-mechanical dewatering

After the collection and thickening steps, the sludge can be additionally concentrated or
dewatered by disposal in conjunction with sewage sludge or by mechanical or
non-mechanical dewatering techniques. This step is performed for extra volume lowering
and more solids content. Dewatering of sludge is a very important process in sludge
disposal, as well as it is essential for the efficient decrease of the overall processing
 Sludge management in water treatment plants: literature review 111

expenses. Examples of non-mechanical dewatering techniques are; lagooning, drying on

sand beds, natural or artificial freezing and thawing (Anjithan, 2016; USEPA, 2011; Wei
et al., 2018).

8.4.1 Lagooning
WTPs can gather and keep treatment sludge in settling ponds, tanks, or lagoons to isolate
solids from water. What’s more, lagoons and ponds can also be used as long-term waste
disposal that need cyclic emptying, cleaning, and maintenance. The utilisation of lagoons,
ponds, and settling basins is considered as a non-mechanical dewatering process, this is
due to the fact that the isolation of solids happens only by physical processes. Lagooning
is the cheapest but may be the least efficient method for alum sludge, it usually results in
5% solids. Utilisation of this technique relies upon the availability of land, rates of
evaporation, and groundwater pollution concerns. Lagoons can also work as a flow
balance, solids isolator, sludge thickener, and sludge storage zone. Lagoons generally
provide adequate surface area and volume for treatment. They are usually equipped with
under drain channels and decant facilities for sludge water expelling (Anjithan, 2016;
USEPA, 2011).
Lagoons design guidelines and rules can vary according to every specific plant
circumstances, according to the liquid being received. In most cases, a minimum of two
lagoons are needed. Liquid can be discharged by an under drain channel or through an
overflow. The lagoon may be operated in a fill-and-draw mode or in a continuous pattern.
Recovered water can be reused again and back-flow to the treatment plant. Sludge may
be expelled by earth-moving device after it has been drained. Sludge can be withdrawn
without draining by means of hydraulic equipment. It should be noted that once the alum
sludge is settled; it is not well pumpable even when it is wet (Anjithan, 2016; AWWA,
1981).

8.4.2 Sand drying beds

The sand drying beds are historically the first method of dewatering the sludge from
various sources and have been widely used in many countries. The sand drying bed is an
improvement over the sludge lagoon, that provides an economical method of producing a
dry sludge cake, and have the added advantage of requiring little mechanical equipment,
little operator skill or attention, and are less sensitive to influent solids concentration. In
spite of these advantages, this type of sludge dewatering has been yielding ground to
mechanical processes for a variety of reasons, mainly due to the requirement of large area
of land and high capital costs. Thus any study aimed at reducing the land area
requirement by sand drying beds will be useful. By drying, a more sludge concentration
will be obtained, which results in almost solid material with 30–60% solids concentration
(Dharmappa et al., 1997). Sand drying beds are usually utilised to dewater the sludge of
coagulation process, and it may be used – to a less extent – to dewater the sludge
produced from lime softening process. Utilisation of sand drying beds is an effective
method to dewater a sludge mixture resulted from both the coagulation and softening
processes (Anjithan, 2016).
One of the most important factors affecting the sand drying beds is precipitation. In
rainy seasons and cold regions, one may expect a bad dewatering efficiency of the sludge.
On the occasion of unavailability of suitable mechanical equipment, the sludge from
112 L.I. Qrenawi and F.K.J. Rabah

drying beds can be manually removed after being dewatered. The manual removal of
dewatered sludge is unfeasible due to the difficulty of sludge removal in some cases and
the large labour effort required (Anjithan, 2016). The entrance of sludge in the sand
pores, especially at the first time of sludge application, is an obstacle that renders the
sand layer to be replaced frequently. Sludge entrance to the sand can be prevented by
raising the rate of gravity drainage and improving the evaporation; this can be
accomplished by polymer conditioning. The prevention of cake crust formation can also
be another advantage (AWWA, 1981).
The sand drying bed is composed of a sand layer (15–30 cm) of size up to 0.5 mm,
which is being placed above graded gravel and drainage pipes, as shown in Figure 5.
Sludge is layered in 12 to 24 in layers and left to drain water. The beds can be covered or
uncovered (Anjithan, 2016; Faber, 1969). Design and operation parameters of the sand
drying beds are: sludge application depth, polymer type, polymer dose, media depth,
media size, number of applications, application frequency, and mixing conditions
(Dharmappa et al., 1997).

Figure 5 Cross section in sand drying bed

Source: USEPA (1996)

8.4.3 Freezing and thawing

Freezing and thawing process usually includes two 45 minutes freezing cycles and one
45 minutes thawing cycle. Sludge is put on the bed in repetitive layers to enhance the
freezing. Due to the cycles of freezing and then thawing, the sludge become more
compacted, more granular, and easy to dewater. WTPs utilise this process to dewater
alum sludge that has a gelatinous nature. This gelatinous nature makes it hard to dewater
in the lack of the freezing step. Changing the properties of sludge and forming small
granular particles that settle easily can be achieved by the freezing and thawing
technique. At the end of the process, the volume of the sludge can be lowered to 1/6 of
the original volume. It has been recognised in literature that freezing and thawing has no
specific advantage for the sludge produced during lime-softening. The capital and
running expenses of freezing and thawing are generally high. When the land is available,
 Sludge management in water treatment plants: literature review 113

coupled with the cold climate conditions, natural freezing is economic to dewater
coagulation sludge. A storage facility of adequate volume to keep the sludge accumulated
in the non-freezing periods is needed (Anjithan, 2016; USEPA, 2011).

8.5 Mechanical dewatering

Mechanical dewatering has offered itself a part solution to the problem of WTP sludge
disposal. It is essential to lower the sludge volume prior to any treatment or disposal
option. It is worth to mention that, direct mechanical dewatering of sludge with no
pretreatment cannot accomplish the perfect dewatering result (Dharmappa et al., 1997;
Wei et al., 2018).
The mechanical dewatering processes, while advantageous in some respects, have
some inherent disadvantages, such as, high maintenance costs, energy requirements, need
for greater operator skills and attention, and lastly low cake solids concentration. Thus
drying process would normally follow the mechanical dewatering in most of the cases.
Dewatering results in a sludge with a solids concentration between 10–30% and this
sludge generally behaves as a semi-solid material (Dharmappa et al., 1997).
Common mechanical dewatering technologies that are utilised to dewater WTP
sludge are centrifugation, vacuum filtration, and pressure filtration. Belt filtration and
dual cell gravity solids concentrators have been installed to a lesser degree. Pellet
flocculation is moderately new and is utilised less regularly to dewater sludge.
Pre-conditioning is usually needed in almost all mechanical dewatering systems
(Anjithan, 2016; USEPA, 2011). The performance of the dewatering process is measured
by the kilograms of dry solids filtered per hour per square metre of the filter area, and
also by the percent dry solids in the filter cake (Reynolds and Richards, 1996).

8.5.1 Centrifugation
Centrifugal separators utilise centrifugal force to remove suspended solids from water.
The force applied to the sludge relies upon the rotational speed of the centrifuge. The
efficiency of the separation process is a function of the applied force and the time of the
centrifuging. The operational obstacles and power expenses get higher as the centrifuges
become more industrialised and larger in size. Centrifuges perform better in the case of
the application of a conditioning agent, thus they are always operated with the application
of a polymer to the sludge before dewatering (USEPA, 2011).
The concentration of solids put in the centrifuge usually ranges from 2–6%, however
a successful dewatering process of alum sludge being fed to the centrifuge with a
concentration of 0.4–1.0% has been reported (Westerhoff and Cline, 1980). The predicted
cake dryness is influenced by the centrifugal force, feed rate, polymer dosage rate, source
water quality, density and size of floc and retention time. The expelled water may be
recycled again to the plant or discarded in a suitable manner (Anjithan, 2016).

8.5.2 Vacuum filtration

A negative (suction) pressure is applied in this system, thus promoting the percolation of
water into the filter bed, and hence the drying process is speeded up. The mostly used
type in the mechanical dewatering systems is the rotary vacuum filter. This process
utilises a rotating drum with a cloth or a stretched medium along the surface as shown in
114 L.I. Qrenawi and F.K.J. Rabah

Figure 6. The media used in the filter may be a moving cloth or a pre-coated filter drum.
The choice of a suitable filter media is a key factor in determining the efficiency of the
process. The pressure in the tank where sludge is placed for dewatering is negative
(vacuum), therefore the drum will be also under vacuum.
The pre-coated filter drum revolves gently (5–12 rpm), the permeability of the
deposited cake and the grade of pre-coat medium affecting the drum revolving rate. The
average pre-coat layer of 5–7.5 cm is applied and its peeling is allowed in a very small
increments. The time required for the pre-coating a vacuum filter is about 50–60 minutes.
Three main phases are usually encountered in the vacuum filtration process, they are:
cake forming, cake drying, and cake discharging.
When studying the vacuum filter performance, it is important to investigate the
distribution of floc size. The sludge cake will be formed at the external surface of the
medium, it will be scraped later on, and finally it will be disposed of (Anjithan, 2016;
USEPA, 2011; Reynolds and Richards, 1996).
There is a limit for the success of the vacuum filtration when utilised for sludge
resulting from the coagulation process. If the source water has a turbidity ranging from
4 to 10 NTU, the alum sludge dewatering will be a hard task. Vacuum filters registered
success when they are utilised for dewatering the sludge resulting from lime softening
process. Dewatering of lime sludge by vacuum filter will produce cake solids of final
concentrations ranging from 45–65% SS, and the produced filtrate is of acceptable
quality (Anjithan, 2016).

Figure 6 Rotary vacuum drum type filter (see online version for colours)

Source: Komline-Sanderson (2018)

8.5.3 Pressure filtration

In pressure filtration technique, a high pressure is applied to a solid/liquid suspension and
obliges the water out while keeping solids. The pressure filter is mainly composed of
many porous filter plates including depressions, kept vertically in a supporting frame.
The face of every plate is coated with a suitable filter cloth enabling water seep while
keeping the solids. The plates may contain a common feed hole or many holes for the
sludge entrance. When the pressure is applied mechanically or hydraulically, the sludge is
pumped into the filter through the feed holes to the chambers located between the plates.
 Sludge management in water treatment plants: literature review 115

The liquid then passes through the filter medium, leaving the solids in the area between
the plates. With continuous pumping, sludge cakes are formed and ultimately fill the
chamber. The process will continue to the point when the pressure drop across the filter
equals the pumping pressure, at this stage the unit is shut down. After the filtration
process, the plates are isolated and the dewatered solids fall directly to a discharge
conveyance. When the filter is out of service, it can be cleaned manually and returned
again to operation (Anjithan, 2016; USEPA, 2011).

8.5.4 Belt filtration

Belt filter utilises pressure to oblige water out of the sludge through the porous belt while
keeping the solids on the belt. It is composed of two infinite filtration fabric belts kept in
tight contact with each other by parallel rollers. The belt located below is made of coarse
mesh fabric media and usually composed of twisted metal, plastic, or mixed fibres, while
that located above is solid (Anjithan, 2016; USEPA, 2011).
Figure 7 shows a schematic diagram design of a belt filter. Sludge to be treated is put
in the feed hopper and drained in the free drainage zone. The remaining solids/water are
sandwiched between the two porous belts and travelled over/under a series of various
diameter rollers. The different rollers produce low and high pressure on the belts,
resulting in extra water squeezing from the solids. The extended belt travel will result in a
drier filter cake. Belt filtration is suitable for softening sludge, due to its granular
structure which can bear high pressure. Plants using this process reported a lime filter
cake of solids content of 50–60% (Campbell, 2018; USEPA, 2011).

Figure 7 Schematic diagram of the belt filter (see online version for colours)

Source: Campbell (2018)

8.5.5 Pellet flocculation

Pellet flocculation is a technique that has been advanced in Japan, where a few plants
utilised it. It is a specific kind of flocculation through which the macroscopic energy
exerted from outside the system obliges the liquid out of a solid, which gradually turns
into compact. The system is flocculated by addition of a synthetic organic matter or a
second liquid, then mechanical or macroscopic energy is applied from outside the system.
The pellet flocs are compact and have various preferable characteristics not exist in
ordinary flocs; they can settle rapidly and are effectively isolated and decanted from
water (Lin and Green, 1987; Yusa et al., 1975).
116 L.I. Qrenawi and F.K.J. Rabah

In the case that the pressure distribution surrounding the floc is equal, the pressure
will be the same within the liquid, and the floc will not be removed. However, if the
pressure distribution is uneven, and the solids cohere to each other strongly so they resist
the applied pressure, the liquid is exuded at points where the external forces are weak;
then the floc will be compact. Two methods are accomplished for the formation of floc:
rolling the floc along a plane or bended surface, and to impose the collision of flocs with
each other or with a plane or the bended surface (Yusa et al., 1975).
The system is mainly composed of a gently rotating horizontal drum and a three parts
divided reactor. The first part of the reactor receives the conditioned sludge, where the
rotating action enhances the formation of sludge pellets. The liquid is then drained off in
the nest part. The sludge is compacted and then dehydrated by the effects of both piling
up and rotation in the third part. The pellet flocculation technique is a continuous
dewatering operation, and the low rotating speed of the pellet flocculation results in a
lower operational and maintenance expenses (Lin and Green, 1987).

8.6 Thermal drying

This technique is not widely utilised due to its high cost; which is estimated to be more
than the savings that could be achieved from the reduced volumes of sludge. Water
treatment plants generally utilise this method to achieve solids-water separation and to
overcome the problems of pathogens control, odour problems, and storage problems.
Thermal drying technology includes direct fired systems (rotary kiln, fluidised bed, low
temperature desorption), indirect fired systems (heated coils), and infrared radiation
(USEPA, 2011).

8.7 Solids minimisation

As the population grows up, stricter potable water standards and regulations will be
imposed; hence, more WT sludge generation is expected to be produced and will
continue to increase. On the hierarchy of waste management sludge minimisation is at the
top of the pyramid, followed by selecting beneficial sludge reuse options. This will
become essential since environmental and economic pressures have limited sludge
disposal options (Ippolito et al., 2011). The amount of the generated sludge can be
reduced by removing water and hence reducing the sludge volume, minimising the solids
content of the sludge or combination of both. Techniques used to minimise the produced
sludge include: reducing the amount of applied chemical dosages (alum or lime), water
direct filtration, filter wash water recycling, substitution of coagulant and softening
material, and chemical recovery (AWWA, 1981; Westerhoff and Cline, 1980).

8.8 Chemical recovery of sludge

Chemical recovery of sludge is actually attainable for the recovery of alum, iron, and
magnesium carbonate and for the re-calcination of softening sludge. For each situation;
the treated water quality, side stream discharge, and gases emitted should be considered.
Chemical recovery from WTP sludge can give the advantages of the recoverable
chemicals themselves, reduce the quantity of the produced sludge, reduce the expenses of
disposing of sludge, and/or improve the sludge treatment process (Anjithan, 2016).
 Sludge management in water treatment plants: literature review 117

8.8.1 Alum recovery

Aluminium and iron solubility diagrams outline that these species will reach their
smallest solubility at pH value from 6 to 8. Since this range pf pH is the common running
condition for almost all WTPs, the majority of the insoluble coagulants utilised are
predicted to present in the precipitated sludge, hence it can be recovered. From the
solubility diagrams of the previously mentioned metals, it can be recognised that the
solubility will be increased in acidic environments, i.e., when the pH is below 6
(Tchobanoglus et al., 2003; USEPA, 2011). Acid extraction is the most common concept
utilised for the recovery of alum, during which alum is converted to a soluble form then
is decanted and finally recycled. When adding sulphuric acid to the thickened sludge;
aluminium hydroxide will rapidly react with the sulphuric acid, resulting in the formation
of aluminium sulphate (alum) solution. At a pH value of 3, it has been reported that the
rate of alum recovery ranges from 60–80% (USEPA, 2011; Fulton, 1976).

8.8.2 Re-calcining (lime recovery)

Re-calcination of lime is an old technique practiced at water treatment plants. The
technique incorporates the softening sludge combustion at high temperature reaching
about 1,010°C. This technique is indicated in the following chemical reaction (AWWA,
1981):
heat(1,700 − 2,000°F)
CaCO3 ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ → CaO + CO 2 (8)
The technique incorporates sludge thickening from original solids concentration of
3–10% to finally reach a solids concentration of 18–30%. Re-calcination is also
successful in recovering higher amounts of lime than amounts that has been utilised in
softening process, while lowering the weight of sludge to reach 20% of the original value.
Simultaneously, the emitted carbon dioxide during the re-calcining can also be utilised
for the of re-carbonation process (Westerhoff and Cline, 1980).
The lime that has been recovered can be utilised to adjust the pH of the soil, or it can
be reused at the water treatment plants. It is worth to mention that light metal hydroxides
including Mg(OH)2, Fe(OH)2, Fe(OH)3 and Al(OH)3 are unfortunate compounds in the
re-calcining process of lime. Additionally, the high expenses of fresh lime alongside that
of the energy required renders the re-calcining process excessively costly, making it hard
to embrace (Anjithan, 2016).

8.8.3 Magnesium recovery

On the occasion of utilising magnesium carbonate (MgCO3.3H2O) as a coagulant in
water treatment, the pH reaches about 11 and magnesium hydroxide (Mg(OH)2) is
precipitated. The formed precipitate is then carbonated to alter Mg(OH)2 to a soluble
form as magnesium bicarbonate Mg(HCO3)2, then a thickener is utilised to isolate
Mg(HCO3)2. The solid part is sent for disposal, while the magnesium existed in the water
filtrate is recycled back to the flocculation tank for reuse. The release of carbon dioxide
during re-calcination encourages the use of magnesium carbonate as a coagulant in
conjunction with the re-calcination of lime (Anjithan, 2016).
118 L.I. Qrenawi and F.K.J. Rabah

8.9 Sludge recycling options

Sludge is considered as a simple type of waste as appeared, it is an inexpensive
by-product of water treatment process and that can be utilised to obtain an extra revenue
source. Once the sludge treatment process is completed, it can also be bought by farmers
and applied as a fertiliser as well as soil conditioner. Sludge with a plenty of phosphorus
and nitrogen is an ideal means for the recovery of nutrients. These nutrients can also be
obtained from the returned liquid sludge and combusted sludge ash. Due to the depletion
phosphorus mine, its restoration from water treatment sludge has become more charming
option. Sludge and sludge ash can likely be utilised as a crude material when
manufacturing the construction products, for example; cement, mine filler and building
bricks. The fundamental advantage in this regard is the capability to lower the disposal
expenses while displaying an environmental friend concept for sludge management to the
general society (Anjithan, 2016).
Reuse of WT sludge is a sustainable end point solution and it is a favoured option to
disposal. Depending on the properties and strength of the produced water treatment
sludge, more than eleven reuse options were globally specified and are categorised into
three main groups. A short detailing of each will be presented in the next sections.

8.9.1 Use WT sludge in wastewater treatment process

WT solids, specifically alum, have been utilised to improve the wastewater treatment
process performance. Such utilisation aims to raise the plant efficiency, to improve
sludge conditioning and to promote the phosphorous removal when treating wastewater.
Sludge can be utilised in wastewater treatment process as follows:

• recovery and reuse of coagulants

• enhancing the coagulation process itself

• absorbing pollutants and metals

• combined conditioning and dewatering with sewage sludge

• constructed wetland substrate (Anjithan, 2016; Lai and Liu, 2004).

8.9.2 Use water treatment sludge as building and construction materials

Even though the water treatment sludge has been preliminary investigated and utilised as
building and construction materials, its use is still admitted. Efforts made so far for using
water treatment sludge into the construction are as follows:

• brick manufacturing

• hollow block manufacturing

• geotechnical and pavement applications

• manufacture of cement and cementious materials (Anjithan, 2016).

 Sludge management in water treatment plants: literature review 119

8.9.3 Use water treatment sludge in land application

Next to the solids separation process from water and the recovery of the usable portion of
them, sludge can basically be managed by land application or it is transported to landfills
for disposal. Land application of WT sludge is referred to the process of the managed
utilisation of the solids or their spreading on the upper layer of the soil. The benefits can
be gained from sludge land application are the stabilisation, the degradation and
immobilisation of the solids components. The crops being implanted, the soil chemistry
and sludge characteristics; affect the utilisation of sludge onto the soil. It was reported
that, sludge resulting from the lime softening can be the most eminent sludge for land
application. This type of sludge is suitable as a substitute for agricultural limestone. Right
now, land application of water treatment sludge is getting more considerations, since it is
considered as a suitable option other than disposal. It is worth to mention that sludge land
application is presumably relied on the physical, chemical and biological characteristics
of soils. In normal operating conditions, soil will imbibe the applied sludge without
unfavourable impacts on its quality and with the possibility of improving its quality
(Basta, 2000; Elliott and Dempsey, 1991; Roy and Couillard, 1998; USEPA, 2011).
When compared with landfilling, land application is more advantageous despite
requiring a large area of land; this is due to the lower expenses and no need for regulatory
declarations. Throughout the years, the aims of land applications are typically to: dispose
water treatment sludge, enhance or improve specific soil qualities and be utilised as a
growing environment for plants (Anjithan, 2016).
Land application may have some limitations depending on the characteristics of the
sludge. Land application may conclude the increase of metals’ content in soil and
probably contaminate the groundwater. In the case of coagulation sludge application, the
adsorption of phosphorus from the soil to the applied sludge will occur, resulting in
possible harmful impacts on the soil and the planted crop. Regarding the disposal of
water treatment sludge, probable toxicity to the nearby environment is of a major interest
for both public community and the environmental agencies. Thus, when utilised in land
applications, soil conditions, plant growth and nutrient uptake, and anionic species should
be closely monitored (Anjithan, 2016; Ippolito et al., 2011; USEPA, 2011).

8.10 Incineration
Incineration of water treatment sludge includes the dry combustion of solids to form
non-reactive ash that is usually disposed of in landfills. The amount of fuel required relies
on the fuel heat content and the solids moisture content. Two types of incinerators are
used for this purpose; the multiple heart type and the fluidised bed incinerators.
The multiple heart incinerator consists of a heart type furnace, in which the dewatered
sludge is fed to the first heart at the top. In the incinerator, sludge moves downward by
the raking action of the rabble arms. In the upper heart, the water content is vaporised and
the sludge is dried at a temperature ranging from 480°C to 650°C. In the middle heart, the
sludge is ignited and burned at a temperature of 650°C to 815°C, while in the lower heart,
the slow burning material is burnt and the ash undergoes cooling at a temperature of
315°C. The ash that is produced leaves from the bottom of the incinerator. The efficiency
of the multiple heart furnaces incinerator is about 55%.
The fluidised bed incinerator consists of a combustion reactor containing a bed of
sand above a grid as shown in Figure 8. To start the incineration, a preheater is ignited
120 L.I. Qrenawi and F.K.J. Rabah

and the fluidising air is passed upward through the bed to suspend the sand. Once the
sand temperature reached about 760°C to 815°C, the sludge feed to the incinerator began.
The water is vaporised, and sludge solids are burned in the fluidised sand bed. The ash
created is carried from the reactor by the exit combustion gases and is subsequently
removed by a cyclone or a scrubber (Reynolds and Richards, 1996).

Figure 8 Fluidised bed incinerator

Source: Reynolds and Richards (1996)

8.11 Final disposal/landfilling

Sanitary landfilling, requiring a dewatered sludge of 20–40% solids content, is
considered as the most acceptable method for sludge disposal. Landfills for sludge
disposal can be mono-fills (containing one type of waste) or municipal sanitary landfills
(containing various types of waste). Disposal expenses are estimated according to the
mass of the sludge being presented for disposal, and it will also vary according to the
distance from the treatment plant and the landfill (Dharmappa et al., 1997; USEPA,
2011). Several alternatives are available for the disposal of WTP sludge. The selection of
any available option should be done with respect to economic and regulatory
considerations. Sludge type and characteristics are of great importance, and should be
considered when the disposal alternatives are being developed (Anjithan, 2016).

8.12 Comparison between sludge treatment and management methods

In the previous sections, the different techniques and methods used for sludge
management and treatment were covered. The selection and adoption of a certain
technology for sludge treatment and management within a water treatment plant is
dependent on many factors including: cost of reuse versus disposal, equipment, energy
needs, land area, equipment, operation and maintenance cost, scale, type of sludge,
environmental considerations, local regulations and standards, required degree of
treatment, final destination of sludge and other factors. The final selection of a certain
technology should take these factors in consideration. Table 6 outlines a comparison
between the requirements of sludge treatment and management methods.
Treatment Advanced Skilled
Cost Energy needs Land area Solids content Technique Scale/applicability Need chemicals
method equipment personnel Table 6
Thickening Inexpensive, low Low Thickener or Not required Typical: 2–10% Settling and expelling Not required Sludge Not required
operation cost lagoon area is Softening sludge: water by decanting pre-treatment,
required (according 15–30% coagulation and lime
to site conditions) softening sludge
Conditioning High cost High, for thermal - Required 19–40% Chemical, physical Required Required for all Required for
(chemicals, conditioning conditioning mechanical chemical
pressure and dewatering systems conditioning
energy)
Lagooning The cheapest and Not required Large surface area Not required 5% Physical, non-mechanical Not required - Not required
least efficient is required process
Sand drying High capital cost Not required Large land area is Not required 30–60% Physical, non-mechanical Required (to Coagulation and lime Polymers are
beds required process. some extent) softening sludge sometimes
treatment required
Centrifugation Low cost High power Not required - Lime softening: Utilisation of centrifugal Not required Alum sludge Polymers are
expenses for 55–70% force to remove solids (easy to treatment used as
industrialised and Coagulation from water operate) conditioning
larger centrifuges sludge: 12–20% agents
Freezing and High capital and High for artificial Large land area is Required for Up to 25% Natural or artificial Required (to Coagulation Chemicals are
thawing running cost for technique required for natural artificial freezing and thawing some extent) (gelatinous required for
artificial technique technique cycles consistency) sludge freezing
technique treatment
Vacuum - High to produce - Required 45–65% Negative pressure by Required Lime softening and Not required
filtration the negative rotary vacuum filter coagulation sludge
pressure promotes water treatment
percolation into the filter
bed
Pressure High maintenance Energy is Not required - 30–35% Positive pressure is - Limited applicability Addition of
filtration cost required for applied mechanically or for lime softening lime, polymer
pressure hydraulically to pump the sludge or fly ash
application sludge through filter holes
Sludge management in water treatment plants: literature review

Belt filtration Low capital cost - Small space is Up to 20% Utilisation of pressure to - coagulation sludge Not Required
required oblige water out of the treatment
sludge through the porous
belt while keeping solids
on the belt
Source: Anjithan (2016), AWWA (1981), Cornwall and Koppers (1990), Crittenden et al. (2012), Dharmappa et al. (1997), Lin and Green (1987), USEPA (1996, 2011),
Westerhoff and Cline (1980) and Campbell (2018)
Comparison between the requirements of sludge treatment and management methods
121
122 L.I. Qrenawi and F.K.J. Rabah

9 Conclusions

• Sludge management is a very important aspect that should be taken into account
when designing and operating WTPs.
• As the world’s population grows up, more WT sludge generation is expected to be
produced and will continue to increase, therefore, adopting beneficial reuse options
of sludge will become essential since environmental and economic pressures have
limited sludge disposal options.
• Recognising the different characteristics of the sludge is a key element in selecting
and designing the most suitable sludge management, treatment and disposal options.
• It is necessary to investigate the appropriate options for formulating long term sludge
management plans under strict environmental regulations.
• Sludge management and disposal is a part and parcel of any water treatment system,
and still face problems, gain opportunities and need improvements.
• Agricultural sludge application is an economical solution. However, this solution is
acceptable only when the content of valuable substances is high and if the
concentrations of hazardous substances are as low as possible.
• Sludge examination and testing should be continuous during the sludge management;
to ensure a minimum level of adverse impacts associated to its reuse and disposal
options.
• In WTP design, it is important to take into account the optimisation of treatment unit
operations and processes as well as the sludge disposal and management.

10 Recommendations

• The sludge accumulated in water treatment process must be treated and disposed of
in a safe and effective manner.
• Great emphasis is to be enforced to minimise the quantity of the produced sludge and
to maximise its solids content.
• To achieve an effective disposal practice it is important to have data on the sludge
generation process, quantities, properties, composition, disposal options and the legal
requirements that are applicable of the plant.
• It is still required to conduct more studies to develop suitable sludge management
plans for long term development under restrict environmental regulations.
• New water treatment plants should include provisions for sludge treatment, however,
sludge should be characterised and well defined prior to constructing a treatment
plant.
• In the case of sludge reuse in land applications (agricultural purposes), it is highly
recommended to investigate the long term effects of sludge reuse.
 Sludge management in water treatment plants: literature review 123

• The environmental impacts of different of sludge disposal methods should be

evaluated.
• Capacity building of WTPs’ operators, municipalities’ staff, governmental officials,
and the public, must be utilised to overcome the obstacles hindering the widespread
of WT sludge reuse and recovery.

Acknowledgements

This work has been performed during the study at PhD Program in Water Technology,
Civil Engineering Department at The Islamic University of Gaza. Special thanks are
directed to the Middle East Desalination Research Centre (MEDRC) for their fellowship
and financial support.

References
Ahmad, T., Ahmad, K. and Alam, M. (2016) ‘Characterization of water treatment plant’s sludge
and its safe disposal options’, Procedia Environmental Sciences, Vol. 35, pp.950–955.
Anjithan, K. (2016) Management Practices of Water Treatment Sludge in Sri Lanka and Re-use
Potential of Sludge Material, Master, University of Moratuwa.
Anjum, M., Al-Makishah, N.H. and Barakat, M. (2016) ‘Wastewater sludge stabilization using
pre-treatment methods’, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, Vol. 102, pp.615–632.
AWWA (1981) ‘Lime softening sludge treatment and disposal’, Journal (American Water Works
Association), Vol. 73, No. 11, pp.600–608.
Basta, N.T. (2000) ‘Examples and case studies of beneficial reuse of municipal by-products’, Land
Application of Agricultural, Industrial, and Municipal By-products, pp.481–504, Soil Science
Society of America Inc, Madison, USA.
Bruni, M.A. and Spuhler, D. (2011) Slow Sand Filtration [online] http://archive.sswm.info/
category/implementation-tools/water-purification/hardware/semi-centralised-drinking-water-
treatmen-2 (accessed 8 November 2018).
Campbell, P. (2018) Horizontal Belt Filters Market 2018-2023: Analysed by Business Growth,
Development Factors, Applications, and Future Prospects [online] https://altertimes.com/
horizontal-belt-filters-market-2018-2023-analysed-by-business-growth-development-factors-
applications-and-future-prospects/ (accessed 30 October 2018).
Cornwall, D.A. and Koppers, H.M. (1990) Slib, Schlamm, Sludge, American Water Research
Association, USA.
Crittenden, J.C., Trussell, R.R., Hand, D.W., Howe, K.J. and Tchobanoglous, G. (2012) MWH’s
Water Treatment: Principles and Design, John Wiley & Sons Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
Davis, M.L. (2010) Water and Wastewater Engineering, McGraw-Hill, New York.
De Kreuk, M. (2013) CTB3365x – Introduction to Water Treatment, TUDelft, Netherlands.
Departments of the Army and the Air Force (1985) Water Supply, Water Treatment, Departments
of the Army and the Air Force, Washington, USA.
Dharmappa, H., Hasia, A. and Hagare, P. (1997) ‘Water treatment plant residuals management’,
Water Science and Technology, Vol. 35, No. 8, pp.45–56.
Elliott, H.A. and Dempsey, B.A. (1991) ‘Agronomic effects of land application of water treatment
sludges’, Journal – American Water Works Association, Vol. 83, No. 4, pp.126–131.
124 L.I. Qrenawi and F.K.J. Rabah

Faber, H.A. (1969) ‘Disposal of wastes from water treatment plants – Part 1’, Journal – American
Water Works Association, Vol. 61, No. 10, pp.541–566.
Fulton, G. (1976) ‘Water plant waste treatment: state of the art, Part II’, Public Works, February,
Vol. 107, No. 2, pp.57–60, 96.
Hammer, M. and Hammer, M. (2008) Water and Wastewater Technology, Pearson Prentice Hall,
Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.
Ippolito, J., Barbarick, K. and Elliott, H. (2011) ‘Drinking water treatment residuals: a review of
recent uses’, Journal of Environmental Quality, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp.1–12.
IWA (2010) Sedimentation & Flotation, AWWA, McGraw-Hill, International Water Association
[online] https://www.iwapublishing.com/news/sedimentation-processes (accessed 7 November
2018).
Jahanshahi, M. and Taghizadeh, M.M. (2018) ‘Pre-sedimentation tank effects on water treatment
unit operation’, EQA-International Journal of Environmental Quality, Vol. 28, pp.35–42.
Komline-Sanderson (2018) Rotary Drum Vacuum Filters, New Jersey, 07977, USA [online]
http://www.komline.com/products/rotary_drum_vacuum_filter.html (accessed 16 November
2018).
Lai, J. and Liu, J. (2004) ‘Co-conditioning and dewatering of alum sludge and waste activated
sludge’, Water Science and Technology, Vol. 50, No. 9, pp.41–48.
Lin, S.D. and Green, C.D. (1987) Wastes from Water Treatment Plants: Literature Review, Results
of an Illinois Survey, and Effects of Alum Sludge Application to Cropland, Illinois State Water
Survey.
McGhee, T. (1991) Water Supply and Sewarage, McGraw Hill, Inc., Singapore.
Mowla, D., Tran, H. and Allen, D.G. (2013) ‘A review of the properties of biosludge and its
relevance to enhanced dewatering processes’, Biomass and Bioenergy, Vol. 58, pp.365–378.
Pizzi, N.G. (2011) Water Treatment Operator Handbook, American Water Works Association,
USA.
Reynolds, T.D. and Richards, P. (1996) Unit Operations and Processes in Environmental
Engineering, Cengage Learning US, USA.
Roy, M. and Couillard, D. (1998) ‘Metal leaching following sludge application to a deciduous
forest soil’, Water Research, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp.1642–1652.
Snurer, H. (2008) Sludge Production from Chemical Precipitation, Department of Chemical
Engineering, Lund Institute of Technology.
Tchobanoglus, G., Burton, F. and Stensel, H.D. (2003) ‘Wastewater engineering: treatment and
reuse’, American Water Works Association Journal, Vol. 95, No. 5, p.201.
TU Delft (2007) Water Treatment – Sedimentation, TU Delft.
USEPA (1996) Technology Transfer Handbook – Management of Water Treatment Plant
Residuals, Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection
Agency.
USEPA (2011) Drinking Water Treatment Plant Residuals Management: Summary of Residuals
Generation, Treatment, and Disposal at Large Community Water Systems, Drinking Water
Industry Report.
Wei, H., Gao, B., Ren, J., Li, A. and Yang, H. (2018) ‘Coagulation/flocculation in dewatering of
sludge: a review’, Water Research, Vol. 143, pp.608–631.
Westerhoff, G.P. and Cline, G.C. (1980) ‘Planned processing beats back water-plant sludge
disposal problems’, Water and Sewage Works, Vol. 127, No. 10, pp.32–59.
Yusa, M., Suzuki, H. and Tanaka, S. (1975) ‘Separating liquids from solids by pellet flocculation’,
Journal – American Water Works Association, Vol. 67, No. 7, pp.397–402.
 Sludge management in water treatment plants: literature review 125

Zabel, T. (1985) ‘The advantages of dissolved‐air flotation for water treatment’, Journal –
American Water Works Association, Vol. 77, pp.42–46.
Zabel, T.F. (1992) ‘Flotation in water treatment’, Innovations in Flotation Technology, Springer,
Marlow, UK.

Notes
1 NSF ensures that dangerous toxins are not leached.

View publication stats