Waste Management 34 (2014) 411–420

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Comparative assessment of municipal sewage sludge incineration,

gasification and pyrolysis for a sustainable sludge-to-energy
management in Greece
M.C. Samolada b, A.A. Zabaniotou a,⇑
a
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Dept. of Chemical Engineering, University Box 455, University Campus, 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece
b
Dept. Secretariat of Environmental and Urban Planning – Decentralized Area Macedonian Thrace, Taki Oikonomidi 1, 54008 Thessaloniki, Greece

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: For a sustainable municipal sewage sludge management, not only the available technology, but also other
Received 14 February 2013 parameters, such as policy regulations and socio-economic issues should be taken in account. In this
Accepted 4 November 2013 study, the current status of both European and Greek Legislation on waste management, with a special
Available online 27 November 2013
insight in municipal sewage sludge, is presented. A SWOT analysis was further developed for comparison
of pyrolysis with incineration and gasification and results are presented. Pyrolysis seems to be the opti-
Keywords: mal thermochemical treatment option compared to incineration and gasification. Sewage sludge pyroly-
Municipal sewage sludge
sis is favorable for energy savings, material recovery and high added materials production, providing a
Pyrolysis
Gasification
‘zero waste’ solution. Finally, identification of challenges and barriers for sewage sludge pyrolysis deploy-
Incineration ment in Greece was investigated.
SWOT Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Legislation
Sustainable management

1. Introduction et al., 2008; O’Connor, 1996). However, use of sludge on land in

Municipal sewage sludge (MSS) disposal faces significant envi-
ronmental problems related to air emissions, threat to public
health and contamination of soil and water resources, requiring
therefore an appropriate treatment and careful management
(Aggelakis et al., 2005). While world’s sludge production is on a
relentless growth curve, environmental quality requirements for
sludge are becoming increasingly stringent, disposal outlets are
decreasing and economic pressures require low-cost solutions
(EU, 2012). The amount of MSS production in the EU27 was esti-
mated at 11.5 million tons of dry solids for 2010 and it is expected
to rise to 13.0 million tons in 2020 (EC, 2008).
Disposing sewage sludge to landfills is considered a beneficial
use only when such disposal includes methane recovery for energy
production. However, methane operations are relatively rare in
most existing WWTPs (Waste Water Treatment Plants). However,
due to o the limited capacity of available landfills, alternative ben-
eficial uses are receiving greater attention. Valorisation of the
nutrient components of MSS by considering the soil conditioning
and fertilization is a beneficial use of sludge, especially in the case
of forests and energy crops (Meeroff and Bloetscher, 1999; Wang
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 2310 99 62 74; fax: +30 2310 996209.
E-mail address: azampani@auth.gr (A.A. Zabaniotou).
the EU will not change dramatically in the future due to legislative
restrictions. The proportion of recycled sludge to agriculture will
remain almost constant across EU (42% in 2010) expecting to reach
44% in 2020 (Kelessidis and Stasinakis, 2012) as shown in Table 1.
Looking forward to adoption of an efficient municipal sewage
sludge management, to energy recovery should be considered by
thermal routes. Although, high cost of power generated from
sludge is a major barrier for the implementation of thermal routes,
however, investments for sludge to power can become attractive if
one considers the increase of energy prices in the international
market by 20%. Thermal treatment methods include combus-
tion/incineration and the ‘advanced’ or ‘emerging’ pyrolysis and
gasification methods. The incineration share will raise slightly,
(EC, 2008). Dewatered MSS has been successfully used for produc-
ing building materials (e.g. concrete, bituminous mixtures) and
also in road construction (Aziz and Koe, 1990; Tay and Show,
1991; Anderson et al., 1996). Incineration ash residues can be used
to produce road construction materials or concrete aggregates
(Takeda et al., 1989; Lisk, 1989). MSS can be extensively used in ce-
ment manufacturing as a cheap alternative energy resource (Fytili
and Zabaniotou, 2008) with substantial energy and environmental
savings due to reduced CO2 emissions.
However, selection of a particular, stand-alone sludge thermal
treatment system should not be based primarily on technical
insight, but it should also integrate all related social and

0956-053X/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.11.003
412 M.C. Samolada, A.A. Zabaniotou / Waste Management 34 (2014) 411–420

Table 1
Annual MSS production, disposal routes in EU27 countries (EC, 2008).

Member state Sludgea (Ktds/a) Recyclea (%) Incin/a (%) Landfilla (%) Othera (%) Sludgeb (tds/a) Recycleb (%) Incinb (%) Landfillb (%) Otherb (%)
Greece 260 5 0 95 260 5 40 55 10
Bulgaria 47 50 0 30 20 151 60 10 10 20
Ireland 135 75 0 15 10 135 75 10 5 10
Cyprus 10 50 0 40 10 17.62 50 10 30 10
Latvia 30 30 0 40 30 50 30 10 30 30
Estonia 33 15 0 – 85 33 15 0 – 85
Lithuania 80 30 0 5 65 80 55 15 5 25
Finland 155 5 0 – 95 155 5 0 – 95
Malta 10 0 0 100 – 10 10 0 –0 –
Luxemburg 10 90 5 – 5 10 80 20 – –
Hungary 175 75 5 10 5 200 60 30 5 5
Poland 520 40 5 45 10 950 25 10 20 45
Romania 165 0 5 95 – 520 20 10 30 40
Slovakia 55 50 5 5 40 135 50 40 5 5
Spain 1,280 65 10 20 5 1,280 70 25 5 –
France 1,300 65 15 5 15 1,400 75 15 5 5
Italy 1,500 25 20 25 30 1,500 35 30 5 30
UK 1,640 70 20 – 10 1,640 65 25 – 10
Chech Rep. 260 55 25 10 25 260 75 20 5 5
Slovenia 25 5 25 40 30 50 15 70 10 5
Portugal 420 50 30 20 – 750 50 40 5
Austria 273 15 40 >1 45 280 5 85 >1 10
Denmark 140 50 45 – 5 140 50 45 – 5
Germany 2,000 30 50 0 20 2,000 25 50 25
Belgium 170 10 90 – – 170 10 90 – –
Netherlands 560 0 100 – – 560 – 100 – –
EU27 total 11,564 42 27 14 16 13,047 44 32 7 16
a
Reflects statistical data for 2010.
b
Reflects to predictions for 2020.

environmental activities. The ‘‘sludge-to-energy’’ approach is feasi-
ble with substantial benefits similar of those that any renewable
energy source presents: decreasing the energy dependency of the
WWTP and greenhouse gas emissions. Sludge-to-energy is techni-
cally feasible if the recovered energy could be directly used for
operating the WWTP, resulting in reduction of conventional
electricity consumption (Manara and Zabaniotou, 2012). Another
approach called ‘‘sludge-to-fuel’’ (STF) involves a process that
converts the organic matter of sludge into a combustion oil using
a solvent, under atmospheric pressure and mild temperatures in
the range of 200–300 °C (Millot et al., 1989) or alternatively, at
high pressures (10 MPa) combined with high temperatures (Itoh
et al., 1994). The produced oil is characterised by a high heating
value (90% of common diesel fuel) and can be sold to offsite users
or refineries (Hun, 1998).
In Greece, according to recent statistical data (YPEKA, 2010), the
current use of sludge in agriculture is very limited (0.15%) and esti-
mations predict an increase up to 5% by 2020, as shown in Table 1.
Due to the absence of established limits concerning water and
pathogens content of MSS, local farmers are opposed and skeptical
about the extensive use of sludge in agriculture. (Aggelakis et al.,
2005). MSS use in agriculture is limited due to another important
reason which is related to the use of CaO for the destruction of
the pathogens which in addition to the destruction has a parallel
negative impact on soil composition and fertility. In Greece, MSS
is mostly used as an alternative fuel in existing cement kilns. Com-
posting is particularly encouraged in Greece, reaching the share of
45.78% (YPEKA, 2010) as it is shown in Table 1.
In this study, the selection of the most promising sewage
sludge-to-energy method, that meets the goal for a ‘‘sustainable
development’’, was attempted. The aim of the present study was
the comparative assessment of 3 energy recovery options (inciner-
ation, pyrolysis, gasification) for municipal sewage sludge (MSS) in
Greece through SWOT analysis, taking into account their current
status of development. SWOT analysis tool, initially invented by
Albert S. Humphrey, designed to be used in the preliminary stages
of decision-making; technologies and methods are compared in
the base of economic, environmental and social metrics (Siomkos,
2004; Samolada and Zabaniotou, 2012). It was selected for applica-
tion, since it has been proved to be a useful planning tool to under-
stand the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats of
both processes and plans (UNEP 2009; Siomkos, 2004).
2. Legislation and sustainable integrated MSS management
Municipal sewage sludge (MSS) is defined as the final solid residue
produced during municipal waste water treatment. It is classified as
a solid waste with the code of 19 08 05 according to the European
Catalogue of Wastes (EEL 47/16-2-2001; Directive 2000/532/EK).
MSS is also considered as a ‘‘specific stream’’ of non-dangerous solid
wastes, which has to be treated according to a National Strategic
Approach [Ministerial Order 50910/2003] with the objective of
landfills minimization. MSS environmental management has to
meet all the basic principles of the Wastes Framework Directive
applied since December 12th 2010 [EU, Directive 2008/98/EC].
The European Catalogue of Wastes was introduced in the Greek
law by the Ministerial Order 50910/2003 along with the Producers
Responsibility (PR) principle according to which the ‘‘waste pro-
ducer’’ is responsible for its effective and environmental discharge.
[Presidential Decree 148/2009]. The Sewage Sludge Directive 86/
278/EEC which was adopted with the Ministerial Order 80568/
4225/1991 in the Greek law, seeks to encourage the use of sewage
sludge in agriculture and to regulate its use in such a way as to pre-
vent harmful effects on soil, vegetation, animals and man. To this
end, it prohibits the use of untreated sludge on agricultural land
unless it is injected or incorporated into the soil.
MSS has been utilized in agricultural applications for several
years, while it is restricted to prevent health risks to humans and
livestock due to potentially toxic components, heavy metals,
pathogens, and persistent organic pollutants and to the high
amounts of soluble salts, which may affect the soil properties neg-
atively. The presence of human pathogens in sewage sludge has led
 M.C. Samolada, A.A. Zabaniotou / Waste Management 34 (2014) 411–420 413

to a considerable amount of research to assess the health risks in account for the selection of the appropriate technology. A
associated with the land applications of sludge. Significant envi- plausible solution in wastewater management should include
ronmental or health risks linked to the use of sewage sludge on collective management of sewage sludge and implementation of
land in the EU have not been widely demonstrated in the recent the 3R (Reduce, Reuse and Recycle) policies and strategies. In
scientific literature since the 86/278/EEC Directive has taken effect, Fig. 1, the ISSM system is depicted (UNEP, 2009). Both European
although there continue to be authoritative studies that identify and Greek policy promotes including energy recovery from
and assess concerns. It is difficult to establish if the lack of evidence non-dangerous solid wastes and MSS as well.
for adverse effects is because the provisions of the Directive are Integrated sewage sludge management (ISSM) refers to a strate-
sufficient or is due to the more stringent national requirements gic initiative for the sustained management of MSS through the use
in most Member States and Greece as well (EC, 2008). Epidemio- of comprehensive integrated format generated through sustained
logical and risk assessment studies on the risks to health from preventive approach to the complementary use of a variety of prac-
microbial pathogens in sewage sludge for workers and populations tices to handle sewage sludge in a safe and effective manner
in the vicinity of sludge operations have not generally found the (UNEP, 2009). ISSM is based on the concept that all aspects of
risks to be significantly greater than background risks (Tanner, the sludge management systems (technical and non-technical)
2008; Kanakari, 2009). Overall health risks from the indirect expo- should be analyzed together, since they are in fact interrelated
sure to pathogens have also been found to be low, with no clearly and developments in one area frequently affect practices or activ-
identified public infections from the use of food grown on land ities in another area. ISSM proposes to take a comprehensive
where sludge was applied in accordance with the provisions in approach across all types of sewage sludge streams and involves
the Directive (Gale et al., 2003). the use of a range of different options.
Environmental issues related to the recycling of sewage sludge
on land include the risk of nutrient leaching, impact on soil biodi-
versity and greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. CH4 and N2O). In global 3. Materials and methods
warming potential (GWP) assessments of the different treatment,
recycling or disposal routes, efficient treatment and recycling to 3.1. Sludge composition and important characteristics
agricultural land can usually be demonstrated to have a lower
GWP effect compared to other disposal processes. There are some Sewage sludge is a complex heterogeneous mixture of microor-
local circumstances, such as the location of the land or the nature ganisms, undigested organics such as paper, plant residues, oils, or
of the sludge, in which the overall environmental impacts, either in
terms of greenhouse gas emissions alone or in conjunction with Cities are facing an
other environmental factors, result in assessments that suggest increasing growth in
non-agricultural routes may be more beneficial (EC, 2008).
population resulting in
Treated sludge is defined as having undergone biological, chem-
increased amounts of
ical or heat treatment, long-term storage or any other appropriate
process so as significantly to reduce its fermentability and the wastewater and MSS
health hazards resulting from its use. The Directive also requires production
that sludge should be used in such a way that account is taken of
the plants’ nutrient requirements of and that the quality of the soil
and of the surface and groundwater is not impaired. It sets out
requirements for keeping detailed records of the quantities of
sludge produced, the quantities used in agriculture, the composi-
Complexity, costs and
tion and properties of the sludge, the type of treatment and the Industrialization
coordination of
sites where the sludge is used. Limits for heavy metals concentra- and economic
tions in both MSS and sludge-treated soils are introduced. wastewater
growth has
Availability of land is an important issue to be taken in account management NEED
generated increased
for the selection of the appropriate strategy in sludge management. multi stakeholder FOR amounts of
However, taken in account that lack of the available land space in involvement in every
combination with increasingly stringent regulations governing the ISSM wastewater
stage of the waste
design and operation of new landfills (EU Landfill Directive 99/31), stream
have caused the construction and operating cost of new landfills to
rise sharply. In addition, the increasingly restrictive targets for the
continuous reduction of biodegradable wastes sent to landfills
make land application of MSS an unattractive disposal option.
The current global climate change drives societies to think
Local Governments are now
about more sustainable ways of using resources and waste man- Wastewater treatment
agement (Zaman, 2009). MSS management should be greatly re- looking at wastewater as a
towards environmental
lated to economic, environmental and social aspects in order to protection and
business opportunity
meet the goal of sustainable management (WCED, 1987). Decision
sustainability
makers should combine in an optimum way the available alterna-
tive MSS handling routes considering all available information on
technical, economic and environmental issues.
The selection of the most appropriate sludge treatment technol-
ogy is a key factor in the application of integrated sewage sludge
management (ISSM) system. In combination with economic and
social considerations, this approach would help sludge managers
to design more sustainable management systems (UNEP, 2009).
MSS characteristics are the most important parameter to be taken Fig. 1. Scheme of sludge integrated management (ISSM).
414 M.C. Samolada, A.A. Zabaniotou / Waste Management 34 (2014) 411–420

fecal material, inorganic materials and moisture. The undigested and the production of an inert residue (ash). Recent extensive re-
organic materials contain a highly complex mixture of molecules views (Fytili and Zabaniotou, 2008; Manara and Zabaniotou,
coming from proteins and peptides, lipids, polysaccharides, plant 2012) of the current literature on the effective sludge valorisation
macromolecules with phenolic structures (e.g. lignins or tannins) considered various available technologies including: anaerobic
or aliphatic structures (e.g. cutins or suberins), along with organic digestion, incineration, pyrolysis, gasification and wet oxidation.
micropollutants such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or dib- Thermochemical technologies found to be promising alternative
enzofurans (Fonts et al., 2012). The inorganic materials present in valorisation routes of sewage sludge considering the decreasing
the liquids come mainly from soil but also from synthetic polymers availability and the increasing price of land for landfills.
of anthropogenic origin. Sewage sludge has considerably higher The principal goal of thermal processing of sewage sludge is the
nitrogen content. The nitrogen in sewage sludge comes mainly utilization of its energy content with minimizing the related
from the protein fraction of this material, which has its origin in environmental impact to meet the now increasingly stringent stan-
the microorganisms used for water purification. Typical composi- dards. It is well known that MSS is characterized by considerably
tion of untreated and digested sludge is reported in Table 2. The high water (P50 wt%) content, thus consuming most of the ther-
amount of sludge produced is affected in a limited scale by the mal process energy (Aggelakis et al., 2005; Dennis et al., 2005;
treatment efficiency, while the sludge quality is strongly depen- Fytili and Zabaniotou, 2008; Werle and Wilk, 2010; Manara and
dent on the original pollution load of the treated effluent and also, Zabaniotou, 2012). Thus, dewatered/dried prior to thermal pro-
on the technical and design features of the WWTP process (Fytili cessing is needed. However, the consequence of dewatering/drying
and Zabaniotou, 2008; UNEP, 2009). prior to thermal processing is on energy balances and increasing
An important issue in sludge treatment is the accumulation of the costs although, thermal valorisation processes are generally
most heavy metals of the original wastewater. Their high concen- considered to be as energy self-sufficient (Khiari et al., 2004; Fytili
tration may inhibit MSS’ use in agriculture without further treat- and Zabaniotou, 2008; Manara and Zabaniotou, 2012).
ment (Hsiau and Lo, 1998; EU, 2012). The ash from sewage
sludge contains mainly minerals such as quartz, calcite or micro- 3.2.1. Combustion/incineration
line. These minerals are formed by elements such as Fe, Ca, K Combustion is the currently used thermal treatment method for
and Mg that can catalyze some pyrolysis reactions. Furthermore, sludge energetic valorisation. The amount of sludge being inciner-
some heavy metals can also be found in the sludge (Cr, Ni, Cu, ated in Denmark has already reached the percentage of 24% of the
Zn, Pb, Cd, Hg).Heavy metals such as zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), nickel sludge produced, France the 20%, Belgium the 15%, Germany the
(Ni), cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg) and chromium (Cr) are 14% while in the USA and Japan the percentage has reached the
mostly met in MSS. Their potential accumulation in human tissues 25% and 55% respectively (Lundin et al., 2004).
and biomagnifications through the food-chain create both human Wet or dry sludge combustion (with a 41–65 wt% content of dry
health and environmental concerns (Krogmann et al., 1999; Kanak- material) can be effectively introduced in fluid bed combustion
ari, 2009). The concentration of heavy metals in Greek MSS is be- reactors (Fytili and Zabaniotou, 2008). In most MSS thermal pro-
low the limits that were set by EU and Greek legislation (Table 3). cesses, a partial dehydration (85% dry matter) or a total dehydra-
tion (>85% dry matter) takes usually place (Oleszkiewicz and
Reimers, 1998). Dry sewage sludge is characterized by a calorific
3.2. Sludge-to-energy processes value of 12–20 MJ/kg, lower than that of coal (14.6–26.7 MJ/kg)
(Manara and Zabaniotou, 2012) but equivalent to that of lignite
Potential advantages of thermal processes include reduction of (11.7–15.8) MJ/kg (Samolada and Zabaniotou, 2012). Incineration
volume and weight, destruction of toxic organic compounds, and technology is the controlled combustion of waste with the recov-
recovery of energy, but economics need to be carefully evaluated. ery of heat to produce steam that in turn produces power through
Incineration involves the complete oxidation of the volatile matter steam turbines
Table 2 Combustion/incineration still remains the most attractive dis-
Typical characteristics of sludge originating from various treatment methods (Manara posal method for MSS in Europe (EC, 2008), especially in most
and Zabaniotou, 2012). industrialized countries (Table 1). Having in mind the strict limita-
Characteristic A B1 B2 C D tions concerning both sludge landfilling and agricultural reuse,
Dry matter (DM), % g/l 12 9 7 10 30
combustion/incineration is expected to play a key role in the long
Volatile matte (VM), % DM 65 67 77 72 50 term (Malerius and Werther, 2003). Modern fluidized bed inciner-
pH 6 7 7 6.5 7 ators have become more and more attractive both in terms of cap-
C, % VM 51.5 52.5 53 51 49 ital as well as operating costs, in comparison to the conventional
H, % VM 7 6 6.7 7.4 7.7
multiple hearth type (Bartolo et al., 1997). The advantages of incin-
O, % VM 35.5 33 33 33 35
N, % VM 4.5 7.5 6.3 7.1 6.2 eration can be summarized as:
S, % VM 1.5 1 1 1.5 2.1
C/N 11.4 7 8.7 7.2 7.9  Large reduction of sludge volume.
P, % DM 2 2 2 2 2  Thermal destruction of pathogens and odors minimization.
Cl, % DM 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
 Recovery of renewable energy.
K, % DM 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Al, % DM 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Ca, % DM 10 10 10 10 10 The drawback of incineration is that it is the route used for
Fe, % DM 2 2 2 2 2 sludge minimization rather than for a complete disposal, since
Mg, % DM 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
30 wt% of the dry solids remain finally as ash. Combustion ash is
Fat, % DM 18 8 10 14 10
Protein, % DM 24 36 34 30 18
a potential hazardous waste due to its content of heavy metals.
Fibres, % DM 16 17 10 13 10 Additional expenses are thus required for ash handling and dis-
Calorific value, kW h/t DM 4200 4100 4800 4600 3000 posal (Barbosa et al., 2009), although there are opportunities for
A: primary sludge, primary sludge with physical/chemical treatment or high pol-
ash utilization in the production of construction materials (Maleri-
lution load; B1: biological sludge (low load); B2: biological sludge from clarified us and Werther, 2003).
water (low and middle load); C: mixed sludge (mix A and B2 types); D: digested Another major constraint in the widespread use of incineration
sludge. is the public concern about possible harmful emissions. However,
 M.C. Samolada, A.A. Zabaniotou / Waste Management 34 (2014) 411–420
Table 3
Greek MSS characteristics and limits for use in agriculture.
Greek MSSa
Physicochemical characteristics
N (% TS) 2.4–11.0
P (% TS) 0.9–8.8
TS (%) 14.0–49.9-
VS (% TS) 30.0–69.9
Pathogens (CFU/g dry solid) 47.0–11,997.0
Heavy metals (mg/kg dry solids)
Ni 20–228
Zn 618–4140
Cr 21–981
Cd 0.8–4.1
Cu 76–580
Pb 83–450
Hg No limit value
a
Data from Aggelakis et al. (2005).
b
Ministerial order.
c
Available at: <www.ypeka.gr>.
new technologies for controlling gaseous emissions can minimize
the adverse effects mentioned beforehand. Further reduction of
the combustion gas cleaning costs would give incineration consid-
erable advantages in future (BREF, 2006). Co-combustion of MSS in
existing coal/lignite combustion units towards electricity
production can improve the resulted GHG emissions and public
acceptability thereof (Gutierrez et al., 2005; Morais et al., 2011).
Incineration of MSS, as an alternative fuel in existing cement
production facilities and incorporation of ash into the final product,
seems the most promising outlet comparing to stand-alone incin-
erators (Galvez et al., 2007; Fytili and Zabaniotou, 2008).
3.2.2. Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis is the thermal decomposition of materials in an inert
atmosphere producing vapors, which are formed by condensable
and non-condensable gases, liquids and a solid product namely
char. Thermal cracking and condensation reactions take place in
the pyrolysis process. Pyrolysis products can be grouped in pyroly-
sis gas (containing the un-condensable low molecular gases), pyro-
lysis liquid or oil (containing the condensable volatile compounds)
and char (the obtained solid residue) (Fytili and Zabaniotou, 2008;
Manara and Zabaniotou, 2012). Compared to the incineration pro-
cess, which is highly exothermic, pyrolysis is rather endothermic,
of the order of 100 kJ kg 1 (Khiari et al., 2004).
Pyrolysis product yields are affected by the process conditions
including temperature, reactor residence time and pressure as well
as the original MSS characteristics. A pyrolysis carried out at high
heating rates, moderate temperatures (500 °C), short gas residence
times (<2 s), and rapid quenching of the vapors is known as fast
pyrolysis. The major product obtained in this process is the pyroly-
sis liquid, also called bio-oil or pyrolysis oil, which can be applied
as a fuel and also as a source of valuable chemical products. In con-
trary, slow pyrolysis is generally characterized by relative mild
temperatures (350–600 °C) and heating rates and takes place in
an inert (oxygen-free) atmosphere. Extensive research was focused
on MSS pyrolysis in fixed – fluid bed and rotary kiln reactors (Shen
and Zhang, 2002; Fytili and Zabaniotou, 2008; Manara and Zaba-
niotou, 2012; Shinogi and Kanri, 2003). It is less pollutant than
incineration due to the lower operating temperatures and to the
absence of oxygen, being the primary precursors for the generation
of furans and dioxins (Conesa et al., 2009). The low operating pyro-
lysis temperature is mostly responsible for the absence of heavy
metals in the pyrolysis gas, which remain trapped in the resulting
solid carbonaceous char (Menendez et al., 2002).
The barrier to pyrolysis application is the economic viability of
the system and the relative complexity of the processing
415
Dir 86/278/EOK MOb 80568/4225/91 Update of MO 80568/4225/91c
– –
– –
– – 18.0
– –
– – <500
300–400 300–400 200
2500–4000 2500–4000 2500
No limit value No limit value 500
20–40 20–40 5
1000–1750 1000–1750 800
750–1200 750–1200 500
No limit value No limit value 5
equipment. However, the economic viability of pyrolysis could be
substantially improved if the yields of oil could be further en-
hanced if high value-added products could be effectively produced
from pyrolysis chars (Birdle, 2004). Pyrolysis gas can be used as a
fuel, char also, while pyrolysis oil can be used as a raw material
for chemicals production or even as a fuel (Fytili and Zabaniotou,
2008; Manara and Zabaniotou, 2012). Pyrolysis flue gases will need
less treatment to meet emission limits than incineration.
The liquid from sewage sludge pyrolysis is a dark brown organic
fluid with high water content. If pyrolysis has as final product the
liquid production, then it requires knowing not only the liquid
yield, but also the liquid characteristics in order to be able to pro-
pose appropriate liquid applications or recommending upgrading
treatments. Most authors propose energetic applications for the
pyrolysis liquid and for this reason the properties which are impor-
tant for its use as a fuel have been the most extensively analyzed.
While pyrolysis of sewage sludge for the production of oils has
been of interest, full scale implementation of the technology has
been limited.
Char is usually the main byproduct of sewage sludge pyrolysis for
liquid production. The higher heating value of the chars is low, near
to 5 MJ kg 1, making it generally unattractive for incineration or any
other energetic valorisation. Moreover, the high heavy metal con-
tent of chars may require costly treatments for the flue gas. Possibil-
ity of char landfilling is limited by legal constraints. However, the use
of sewage sludge chars for adsorbent production, potentially suit-
able for the removal of pollutants such as H2S or NOx in gaseous
streams, is a great feature. Adopters of pyrolysis systems will still
face the challenge of finding value-added uses for the solid and liquid
products, while the process can be effectively characterised as ener-
getically self sufficient (Hossain et al., 2009).
Feedstock drying requirements limits also pyrolysis from wide-
spread application. However in the case of dried sludge and when
recovery of phosphorus and potassium can be made, opportunities
for pyrolysis large application are increased.
3.2.3. Gasification
It is important to distinguish pyrolysis from gasification. Gasifica-
tion is the thermal process during which the carbonaceous content
of MSS is converted to a combustible gas and ash in the presence
of a reactive atmosphere, air or steam. Gasification mainly trans-
forms organic materials to combustible gas or syngas, using between
20% and 40% of the oxygen required for total combustion, whereas
pyrolysis is a thermochemical reaction carried out at elevated tem-
peratures (500–1000 oC) and theoretically in an inert atmosphere.
416 M.C. Samolada, A.A. Zabaniotou / Waste Management 34 (2014) 411–420
The gasification process uses heat, pressure and steam to con-
vert solids into a synthesis gas called syngas, which is a mixture
of CO, H2 and other gases, with byproducts the char or slag, oils,
and water. The heating value of the syngas from sewage sludge
is around 4 MJ/m3. This process can avoid problems commonly
faced in incineration process, like the need for supplementary fuel,
emissions of SOx and NOx, heavy metals, fly ash, and potential pro-
duction of chlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans. This
process works best if the sludge can be dried over 90% dry solids
content, but it can also be used with dewatered sludge (20–40%
DS) (Spinosa et al., 2011).
Waste gasification process is similar to the gasification of solid
fossil fuels. Under high temperatures (650–900 °C), the organic
fractions of wastes are broken down producing a gas containing
H2, CO and CH4. The obtained gaseous product can be also used
in fuel cells for electricity production (Vierrath and Greil, 2001).
A typical gasification gas is characterized by a high hydrogen con-
tent of 8.89–11.17 (vol%). It contains also other combustible com-
pounds, including CO (6.28–10.77 vol%), CH4 (1.26–2.09), C2s
(0.75–1.2 vol%), carbon dioxide and the gasification medium (Fytili
and Zabaniotou, 2008).
Gasification consists of a series of complex sequential chemi-
cal and thermal decomposition reactions. The total process is
actually energy self-sustaining and no energy input is necessary
in steady state operation. During the gasification process, sludge
undergoes a series of complex physical and chemical changes,
starting with water removal. Dried MSS is then pyrolysed. The
resulting volatile pyrolysis products (condensable and non-con-
densable vapors) and char undergo further gasification reactions
for the production of permanent gases. In the drying zone, sew-
age sludge descends into the gasifier and moisture is evaporated
using the heat generated in the zones below. The rate of drying
depends on the surface area of the fuel, the recirculation velocity,
the relative humidity of these gases and temperature differences
between the feed and hot gases as well as internal diffusivity of
moisture within the fuel. Characteristically, sludge with less than
15% moisture loses all moisture in this zone (Dogru et al., 2002).
One could state that the optimum targets of sewage sludge gasi-
fication is the production of a clean-combustible gas at high effi-
ciency (McAuley et al., 2001). Compared to the conventional
gasification process of wastes for electricity production, inte-
grated gasification fuel cell systems seem to be preferable. An
electrical efficiency of 30% can be thus effectively attained
(Maniatis, 1999).
Steam gasification enhances H2 production in the gas and thus
higher heativing value of the gas. The use of steam as a gasification
medium leads to syngas (mixture of H2/CO) production through
the reforming reaction of CH4. The yield of hydrogen is further in-
creased due to the shift reaction of CO. Researchers are working in
the development of promising processes for the effective produc-
tion of hydrogen from sustainable resources, including MSS
(Maniatis, 1999). Researchers have investigated the hydrogen pro-
duction potential from sewage sludge, by applying the downdraft
gasification technique. In this case dewatering or drying prior to
gasification neither is nor needed since wet sewage sludge pro-
vides the steam to the process. Sludge can be considered as one
of the most promising gasification feedstocks for hydrogen produc-
tion worldwide (Dogru et al., 2002).
4. Comparative assessment through SWOT analysis
4.1. Methodology
Obtaining and classifying international up-to-date economic
data on the most widely used technologies for sewage treatment
is crucial. Experience shows that decision-makers pay particular
attention to the financial feasibility of the suggested technological
solutions. In same case either as for example in developing coun-
tries, financial feasibility often rates above the environmental
benefits.
In this study, only technologies fulfilling the environmental
criteria were categorized according to the capital cost, mainte-
nance – operational cost and the possibility of generating income
on an annual basis (Aggelakis et al., 2005). The sustainable solu-
tions for a unified disposal route for the sludge produced in the
major WWTPs, needs to face the wider social consensus. For that
reason, stakeholders should be sincerely informed on impacts
and emissions, as well as on their rights and obligations of stake-
holders, in order to ensure social acceptance (Aggelakis et al.,
2005).
SWOT analysis was used in this study aiming to contribute to
the field of wastewater sustainable management with the
objective the easier formulation of a strategic plan for ISSM. The
SWOT was performed by evaluating the methods for sewage
sludge utilization with an insight on the emerging techniques of
pyrolysis and gasification. The study however faced some
limitations:
– It is usually difficult to subject the information to critical and
impartial scrutiny, since the information is often sketchy,
assumptions unclear and the design basis unknown.
– The scarcity of quality data is at least partly due to the scarcity
of operating plants.
– Much of the information available on these technologies is
based on sales and published results provided by technology
suppliers or interest groups.
– The methodology adopted in this study was based on data on
sludge thermal treatment technologies which were often
incomplete and based on various assumptions, thus the
comparison between the selected technologies on a consistent
and common basis was difficult and thus based mostly on qual-
itative data.
– In order to remediate the lack of data, qualitative evaluation of
the treatment methods was then followed on the basis of the
following selected criteria incorporating financial, social and
environmental aspects (Aggelakis et al., 2005; UNEP, 2009):
A: Does the method resolve the problem?
B: Does the method decrease GHG emissions?
C: Is the technology mature?
D: Does the legislation support the method?
The answers to the questions A, C, D were weighed from 1 to 4
stars (*), (1* for low and 4**** for high impact). Since GHG emissions
should be minimized as much as possible, the process with low
emissions was evaluated as high (Table 4).
5. Results and discussion
SWOT analysis for the 3 methods is presented in Tables 5–7 and
the criteria used are depicted in Table 4. The comparison results
are shown in Table 8.
Investment in incineration of sludge for energy may face uncer-
tainties regarding air permits. Sludge incineration treatment plants
need advanced emission control technologies as in all wastes com-
bustion facilities (BREF, 2006). Sludge co-combustion with lignite
or biomass is encouraging.
Pyrolysis of sludge is a more complex technology than inciner-
ation. Whereas incineration produces only heat/electricity and
ashes, pyrolysis produces bio-oil, combustible gas and char. How-
ever, these products have not very well established markets. Pyro-
lysis char may be useful for certain livestock operations in
 M.C. Samolada, A.A. Zabaniotou / Waste Management 34 (2014) 411–420 417

Table 4 The heating value of an ordinary MSS gasification gas prod-

Evaluation criteria used in the present study for selecting the appropriate technology. uct reaches 4 MJ/m3 (Pokorna et al., 2009). It can be effectively
Criterion Weight used for the production of electricity and/or heat needed for
A: Solution to the problem Very poor () drying original MSS (Hamilton, 2002; Manara and Zabaniotou,
Poor () 2012). However, application of currently available sludge gasifi-
Good () cation technologies requires large scale operations. An impor-
Very good () tant limitation of gasification application is the still the
B: GHG emissions Low () undeveloped syngas market. The syngas world market is re-
Moderate () stricted in the ammonia industry. Refineries also have a signif-
High ()
icant share in present syngas applications related to methanol
C: Technology maturity Lab scale () production. What is needed is the further deployment for elec-
Pilot scale ()
Large pilot scale ()
tricity production. Local authorities should promote sludge gas-
Advanced/mature level () ification in order to enhance their efforts for independence from
D: Legislation Inadequate ()
petroleum oil.
Acceptable () The comparison made revealed pyrolysis as the most featured
Advanced () method for sludge valorisation (Table 8).

Table 5
SWOT analysis for sludge combustion/incineration.
6. Potential deployment sludge pyrolysis in Greece
Internal
Strengths Weaknesses From the assessment via SWOT performed in this study, Pyroly-
A: Solution to the problem sis is considered as the most suitable method. The main reasons for
1. Partial solution 1. Incineration process can be energy are:
deficient  It is a zero waste method.
2. High reduction of sludge 2. Air pollution problems (NOx and SO2
 It can produce energy, fuel and materials leading to eco-
volume by about 90% emissions)
3. Nearly complete 3. Dewatering/thickening of the sludge is nomic benefits.
elimination of the organic required  It is characterised by the lowest gas emissions.
materials  It can be effectively applied as an integrated approach to
4. Possible utilization for the 4. Low energy efficiency solve the wastewater treatment problem, since it does not
ashes obtained
produce further wastes.
5. Far from Zero Waste method
There are few plants of pyrolysis technology in commercial
B: GHG emissions
operation or under construction in Europe and none in Greece.
1. Existing emissions control 1. Production of GHG (CO2) emissions
systems Nowadays, pyrolysis applications are mostly at various stages of
2. Emission of chlorinated compounds research, development and demonstration. However, if they are
3. Strict and expensive emission control proved technically and commercially successful, they may ulti-
4. High cost due to the increasing demand
mately offer substantial benefits.
on the flue gas cleaning Ash disposal
problems (heavy metals)
The deployment of sludge pyrolysis in Greece faces the folowing
impediments to its development:
C: Technology maturity
1. Established technology 1. Subsidiary Technology  A mismatch between the risk bearing capabilities of suppliers,
2. Existing infrastructure of 2. Large scale applications for attractive
energy kilns economics
consumers and lenders. The parties involved are generally
3. Feedstock quality not 3. Low energy balance unable or unwilling to accept an adequate portion of the risks
essential in a project if the technology involved is unproven.
4. Raw material availability  Difficulties in securing funding for those technologies with
5. Energy savings
limited operating experience and track record.
6. No need for extensive raw
material storage  Low gate fees for sludge treatment and disposal is a deterrent
7. Potential in existing cement for all types of waste projects but more so for those utilizing
kilns capital intensive plant and equipment.
D: Legislation  Expenditure of scarce resources and effort on perceived bene-
1. Well developed legislative fits that do not exist rather than focusing on developments
frame that may result in real benefits.
External
1. Opportunities Threats Although there are many barriers to the general implementa-
Co firing with other 1. Strong Public’s opposition tion of pyrolysis for treatment of sludge in Greece, there are also
conventional fuels strong incentives to encourage further efforts to bring about its
2. High Emissions of environmental concern
deployment. The potential benefits by applying pyrolysis are re-
3. Ash disposal
4. Unstable economic environment lated to lower costs, lower environmental impact, and lower
5. Price of competitive fuels dependency on ever decreasing fossil fuel reserves. Taking under
consideration all the environmental boundaries but also the mini-
mization of operating cost, the pyrolysis technology can be charac-
management nutrients and pathogens issues or for high added va- terized viable when valorising all pyrolysis products effectively
lue secondary absorptive materials production What is needed is (gas, liquid and solid). The milestone for sludge pyrolysis plant is
the regulatory approval of char use as a fertilizer or soil amend- the possible increase of its viability by valorising the pyrolytic char
ment or its use in absorbent production. Another issue concerning in addition to gas and oil utilization.
legislation is that pyrolysis should not be considered as incinera- Thus, the recommendations derived from the study, for a
tion by legislation in order to deploy it. successful application of pyrolysis in Greece, are:
418 M.C. Samolada, A.A. Zabaniotou / Waste Management 34 (2014) 411–420

Table 6
SWOT analysis of sludge pyrolysis.

Internal
Strengths Weaknesses
A: Solution to the problem
1. Zero waste process 1. Dewatering/thickening of the sludge is required
2. Non-burning process
3. Production of a mixture of gaseous and liquid fuels and a solid inert residue
4. Conversion of all sludge biomass fraction into useful energy
5. Volume reduction by as much as 90% and production of a sterile carbon char high
efficiency and energy self sufficient
B: GHG emissions
2. Reduced GHG air emissions
C: Technology maturity
1. Potential marketable products 1. New technology, few commercial applications
2. Raw material availability 2. Lack in product standardisation
3. Typical pyrolysis plants are more compact, compared to incineration plants
D: Legislation
1. Existing legislation 3. High investment cost
4. Viability is proven only in large scale plants (>20,000 tons/yr)
External
Opportunities Threats
1. Extensive expertise 1. Permitting may be an issue due to unclear legislative frame (pyrolysis is
considered as incineration)
2. Turn a waste into a valuable raw material – high added value products 2. Unstable economic environment
3. Funding opportunities (green activity) 3. Lack in environmental standards and BATs (Best Available Technologies)
4. Zero national competition – niche market
5. Increase energy independence

Table 7
SWOT analysis of sludge gasification.

Internal
Strengths Weaknesses
A: Solution to the problem
1. Integrated technology 1. Ash disposal problems (heavy metals)
2. Higher efficiency of energy recovery 2. Dewatering and drying of sludge is needed
3. Reduced environmental emissions 3. Not commercially developed for pulp and paper sludge treatment
4. Ability to handle most inorganic compounds found in sludge 4. Complexity of technology
5. Production of an inert solid waste
B: GHG emissions
1. Heavy organic pollutant compounds in the exhaust stream
C: Technology maturity
1. Demonstrated technology 1. Feedstock water content (<50 wt%)
2. High energy efficiency and carbon balance 2. Few commercial applications
3. High raw material availability 3. Extensive gas cleaning for syngas applications
4. Potential of co-feeding with biomass
5. Syngas can be used for CHP or as a second generation fuel
6. Marketable products
D: Legislation
1. Existing legislation 1. High investment and operation cost
2. Economies of scale and automation favour large scale operations
External
Opportunities Threats
1. Extensive expertise 1. Unstable economic environment.
2. Production of a renewable syngas or a chemical feedstock 2. Permitting may be an issue due to unclear legislative frame (pyrolysis is considered as incineration
3. Turn a waste into energy 3. Lack in environmental standards and BATs (Best Available Technologies)
4. Funding availability (green activity) 4. Price of fossil fuels
5. Zero national competition – niche market
6. Increase energy independence
7. Sustainable development
8. Green Entrepreneurship

 Use of the pyrolysis gas product as a fossil fuel substitute in
power stations, industrial processes or CHP schemes.
 Quality requirements of the gas produced for use in a com-
bined cycle gas turbine plant to give higher net electrical
efficiencies.
 Further processing of the gas for use in producing valuable
transport fuels. Use of the gas as a chemical feedstock.
 The solid product from pyrolysis of sludge has many poten-
tial applications, including the production of activated car-
bon or carbon black. The process is carbon negative and
sequesters CO2. Pyrolysis char can be steam-activated in
the activation furnace. Steam is produced in a heat exchan-
ger heated by off-gas after treatment to a DeNOx system.
 M.C. Samolada, A.A. Zabaniotou / Waste Management 34 (2014) 411–420 419

Table 8
Comparative assessment of the thermal methods.
Method/Criterion A1 B2 C3 D4
Incineration    
Gasification    
Pyrolysis    
1 EU 2012, Technology and innovative options related to sludge management.
Solution to the problem.
2 <http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/sludge/pdf/workshoppart4.pdf>.
GHG emissions.
3 Fonts, I., Geab, G., Azuarab, M., Ábregoc, J., Arauzob, J., 2012. Sewage sludge
Technology maturity.
4
Legislation.
7. Conclusions
The high output of sewage sludge, which is increasing during
recent years, and the limitations of the existing means of disposing
sewage sludge, highlights the need to find alternative routes to
manage this waste. Energy recovery from sewage sludge offers
an opportunity for sustainable management. In the present study
evaluation of 3 thermal technologies as potential sludge-to-energy
valorisation methods, was made. SWOT analysis was applied for
evaluation on the basis of four criteria: (a) Solution obtained to
the problem, (b) GHG emissions decrease, (c) Technology maturity,
(d) Legislation.
Pyrolysis was identified to be a promising sludge treatment
method. One of the main reasons supporting this conclusion is that
pyrolysis is a zero waste method having a greater potential in the
solution of the wastewater problem, compared to other methods
and is characterized by lower and acceptable gas emission. Sludge
pyrolysis is an innovative process that can convert both raw and
digested sludge into useful bioenergy in the form of oil and gas,
forming biochar as a byproduct that is environmentally resistant
and holds potential for carbon sequestration and soil conditioning
and also absorbent production.
Concerning pyrolysis deployment in Greece, many barriers are
indentified. Difficulties in securing funding for technologies with
limited operating experience and track record is one of the serious
constrains. Moreover, adopters of pyrolysis systems will still face
the challenge of finding markets for the solid and liquid products.
Regulatory approval of char for use as a fertilizer/soil amendment
or absorbent would help improve the economics of these systems.
Unless some of these issues are addressed, commercially successful
standalone plants based on pyrolysis technology for the thermal
treatment of sludge will be difficult to deliver in Greece in the near
future.
References
Aggelakis, A., Vourvaxi, K., Diavatis, I., Efmorfopoulou, A., Kartsonas, N., Mamais, D.,
Bosdogianni, A., Stamou, A., 2005. Alternative Management Methods of
Wastewater Treatment Plants Byproducts. Technical Chamber of Greece,
Athens 2005.
Anderson, M., Skerratt, R.G., Thomas, J.P., Clay, S.D., 1996. Case study involving
fluidised bed incinerator sludge ash as a partial clay substitute in brick
manufacture. Water Science and Technology 34, 507–515.
Aziz, M.A., Koe, L.C.C., 1990. Potential utilization of sewage sludge. Water Science
and Technology 22, 277–285.
Bartolo, M.G., Zuccarello, R.Di., Lotito, V., Spinosa, L., DiPinto, A.C., 1997. A design
model of sewage sludge incineration plants with energy recovery. Water
Science and Technology 36, 211–218.
Barbosa, R., Lapa, N., Boavida, D., Lopew, H., Gulyurtlu, I., Mendes, B., 2009. Co-
combustion of coal and sewage sludge: chemical and ecotoxicological
properties of ashes. Journal of Hazardous Materials 170, 90–909.
BREF doc on ‘‘Incineration of Wastes’’, adopted on August 2006. <http://
eippcb.jrc.es>.
Bridle, T., Skrypski-Mantele, S., 2004. Experience and lessons learned from sewage
sludge pyrolysis in Australia. Water Science and Technology 49, 217–223.
Conesa, J.A., Font, R., Fullana, A., Martin-Gullon, I., Aracil, I., Galvez, A., Molto, J.,
Gomez-Rico, M.F., 2009. Comparison between emissions from the pyrolysis and
combustion of different wastes. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 84,
95–102.
Dennis, J.S., Lambert, R.J., Milne, A.J., Scott, S.A., Hayhurst, A.N., 2005. The kinetics of
combustion of chars derived from sewage sludge. Fuel 84, 117–126.
Dogru, M., Midilli, A., Howarth, C.R., 2002. Gasification of sewage sludge using a
Score throated downdraft gasifier and uncertainty analysis. Fuel Process Technology
75, 55–82.
9
EC (European Commission), 2008, Environmental, Economic and Social Impacts of
10
the Use of Sewage Sludge on Land, Final Report, Part I <http://ec.europa.eu/
14 environment/waste/sludge/pdf/part_i_report.pdf>.
pyrolysis for liquid production: a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 16 (5), 2781–2805.
Fytili, D., Zabaniotou, A., 2008. Utilization of sewage sludge in EU application of old
and new methods-a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 12,
116–140.
Gale, P., Pike, E.B.P., Stanfield, G., 2003, Pathogens in biosolids. Microbiological Risk
Assessment, UKWIR, London, UK, ISBN: 1-84057-294-9.
Galvez, A., Conesa, J.A., Gullon, I.M., Font, R., 2007. Interaction between pollutants
produced in sewage sludge combustion and cement raw material. Chemosphere
69, 387–394.
Gutierrez, M.J.F., Baxter, D., Hunter, C., Svoboda, K., 2005. Nitrous oxide emissions
from waste and biomass to energy plans. Waste Management and Research 25,
133–147.
Hamilton, C.J., 2002. Gasification as an innovative method of sewage sludge
disposal. Water Environmental Management 14, 89–93.
Hossain, M., Strezov, V., Nelson, P., 2009. Thermal characterisation of the products
of wastewater sludge pyrolysis. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 85,
442–446.
Hsiau, P., Lo, S., 1998. Extractabilities of heavy metals in chemically-fixed sewage
sludges. Journal of Hazardous Materials 58, 73–82.
Hun, T., 1998. Compact solids-to-oil process cuts costs. Water Environment and
Technology 10, 22–24.
Itoh, S., Suzuki, A., Nakamura, T., Yokoyama, S., 1994. Production of heavy oil from
sewage sludge by direct thermochemical liquefaction. Desalination 98, 127–
133.
Khiari, B., Marias, F., Zagrouba, F., Vaxelaire, J., 2004. Analytical study of the
pyrolysis process in a wastewater treatment pilot station. Desalination 167, 39–
47.
Kanakari, N., 2009, Valorization of treated wastewaters and municipal sewage
sludge: potential environmental constraints with emphasis on the
microbiological sludge characteristics. Diploma Thesis, Harokopion
Universtity of Athens, Dept. of Home Economics & Ecology.
Kelessidis, A., Stasinakis, A.S., 2012. Comparative study of the methods used for
treatment and final disposal of sewage sludge in European countries. Waste
Management 32 (6), 1186–1195.
Krogmann, U., Boyles, L.S., Bamka, W.J., Chaiprapat, S., Martel, C.J., 1999. Biosolids
and sludge management. Water Environmental Research 71, 692–714.
Lisk, D.J., 1989. Compressive strength of cement containing ash from municipal
refuse or sewage sludge incinerators. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination
and Toxicology 42, 540–543.
Lundin, M., Olofsson, M., Pettersson, G., Zetterlund, H., 2004. Environmental and
economic assessment of sewage sludge handling options. Resource
Conservation and Recycling 41, 255–278.
Malerius, O., Werther, J., 2003. Modeling the adsorption of mercury in the flue gas of
sewage sludge incineration. Chemical Engineering Journal 96, 197–205.
Manara, P., Zabaniotou, A.A., 2012. Towards sewage sludge based biofuels via
thermochemical conversion – a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 16, 2566–2582.
Maniatis, K., 1999, Overview of EU thermal gasification projects. In: Sipila, K.,
Korhonen, M., (Eds.), Power production from biomass III, gasification &
pyrolysis R&D for industry (192), VTT Symposium, VTT Espoo.
McAuley, B., Kunkel, J., Manahan S.E., 2001, A new process for drying and
gasification of sewage sludge. Water Engineering and Management, May, 18–
23.
Meeroff, D.E., Bloetscher, F., 1999. Sludge Management, Processing, Treatment and
Disposal. Florida Water Resources Journal, November, 23–24.
Menendez, J.A., Inguanzo, M., Pis, J.J., 2002. Microwave-induced pyrolysis of sewage
sludge. Water Resources 36, 3261–3264.
Millot, N., Huyard, A., Faup, G.M., Michel, J.P., 1989. Sludge liquefaction by
conversion to fuels. Water Science and Technology 21, 917–923.
Morais, J., Barbosa, R., Lapa, N., Mendes, B., Gulyurtlu, I., 2011. Environmental and
socio-economic assessment of co-combustion of coal, biomass and non-
hazardous wastes in a Power Plant. Resources – Conservation and Recycling
55, 1109–1118.
O’Connor, G.A., 1996. Organic compounds in sludge-amended soils and their
potential for uptake by crop plants. Science of the Total Environment 185, 71–
81.
Oleszkiewicz, J., Reimers, R., 1998. Drying of sewage sludge, The International
Training Seminar. The Fundamentals and practice of sludge treatment and
management, Kraków.
Pokorna, E., Postelmans, N., Jenicek, P., Schreurs, S., Carleer, R., Yperman, J., 2009.
Study of bio-oils and solids from flash pyrolysis of sewage sludges. Fuel 88,
1344–1350.
420 M.C. Samolada, A.A. Zabaniotou / Waste Management 34 (2014) 411–420
Samolada, M.C., Zabaniotou, A.A., 2012. Potential application of pyrolysis for the
effective valorization of the end of life tires in Greece. Environmental
Development 4, 73–87.
Shen, L., Zhang, D.-K., 2002. An experimental study of oil recovery from sewage
sludge by low-temperature pyrolysis in a fluidised-bed. Fuel 82, 465–472.
Shinogi, Y., Kanri, Y., 2003. Pyrolysis of plant, animal and human waste: physical
and chemical characterization of pyrolytic products. Bioresource Technology
90, 241–247.
Siomkos, G., ‘‘Strategic Marketing’’ – SWOT Analysis, Stamoulis Publishing Co, 2004,
Greece.
Spinosa, L., Ayol, A., Baudez, J.-C., Canziani, R., Jenicek, P., Leonard, A., Rulkens, W.,
Xu, G., van Dijk, Lex., 2011. Sustainable and innovative solutions for sewage
sludge management. Water 3, 702–717.
Takeda, N., Hiraoka, M., Sakai, S., Kitai, K., Tsunemi, T., 1989. Sewage sludge melting
process by coke-bed furnace system development and application. Water
Science and Technology 21, 925–935.
Tanner, B.D., 2008. Estimated occupational risk from bioaerosols generated during
land application of Class B biosolids. Journal of Environmental Quality 37,
2311–2321.
Tay, J., Show, K., 1991. Properties of cement made from sludge. Journal of
Environmental Engineering 117, 236–246.
UNEP 2009, United Nations Environment Program, Developing Integrated Solid
Waste Management Plan Training Manual, vol. 2: Assesment of Current Waste
Management System and Gaps there in. <http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/
Publications/spc/ISWMPlan_Vol2.pdf>.
Vierrath, H., Greil, C., 2001. Energy and electricity from biomass, forestry and
agricultural waste. In: Kyritsis, S., Beenackers, A.A.C.M., Helm, P., Grassi, P.,
Chiaramonti, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st world biomass conference,
proceedings of the first world conference and exhibition on biomass for energy
and industry, James & James.
Wang, H., Brown, S.L., Magesan, G.N., Slade, A.H., Quintern, M., Clinton, P.W., Payn,
T.W., 2008. Technological options for the management of biosolids.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research 15, 308–317.
WCED, World Commission on Environmental Development, ‘‘Our common future’’,
1987, <http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf>.
Werle, S., Wilk, R.K., 2010. A review of methods for the thermal utilization of
sewage sludge: the Polish perspective. Renewable Energy 35, 1914–1919.
YPEKA 2010, Ministry for Environment and Climate Change, ‘‘Application of
Directive 91/271/EOK in Greece, Status in 2009’’, Athens, June 2010.
<www.ypeka.gr>.
Zaman, U.A., 2009. Technical Development of Waste Sector in Sweden: Survey and
Life Cycle Environmental Assessment of Emerging Technologies. Master’s Thesis
in Environmental Strategies Research, KTH, Department of Urban Planning and
Environment Division of Environmental Strategies Research, Degree Project
SoM EX 2009-31.