Chemosphere 193 (2018) 521e529

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemosphere
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/chemosphere

A decision support tool for selecting the optimal sewage sludge

treatment
Ville Turunen*, Jaana Sorvari, Anna Mikola
Aalto University, School of Engineering, P.O. Box 15200, 00076 Aalto, Finland

h i g h l i g h t s

A decision support tool was constructed to facilitate sludge treatment decisions.

The tool considers the benefits and drawbacks of alternative methods.

Testing with data from two wastewater plants showed the applicability of the tool.

The superiority of the treatment options was dependent on the local conditions.

The quality and lack of input data emerged as the main practical limitations.

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

Article history: Sewage sludge contains significant amounts of resources, such as nutrients and organic matter. At the
Received 30 July 2017 same time, the organic contaminants (OC) found in sewage sludge are of growing concern. Consequently,
Received in revised form in many European countries incineration is currently favored over recycling in agriculture. This study
7 November 2017
presents a Multi-Attribute Value Theory (MAVT)-based decision support tool (DST) for facilitating sludge
Accepted 10 November 2017
Available online 13 November 2017
treatment decisions. Essential decision criteria were recognized and prioritized, i.e., weighted, by experts
from water utilities. Since the fate of organic contaminants was in focus, a simple scoring method was
Handling Editor: Prof. J. de Boer developed to take into account their environmental risks. The final DST assigns each sludge treatment
method a preference score expressing its superiority compared to alternative methods.
Keywords: The DST was validated by testing it with data from two Finnish municipal wastewater treatment plants
Sludge treatment (WWTP). The validation results of the first case study preferred sludge pyrolysis (preference score: 0.629)
Nutrient recycling to other alternatives: composting and incineration (score 0.580, and 0.484 respectively). The preference
Environmental risk scores were influenced by WWTP dependent factors, i.e., the operating environment and the weighting
MCDA
of the criteria. A lack of data emerged as the main practical limitation. Therefore, not all of the relevant
criteria could be included in the value tree. More data are needed on the effects of treatment methods on
the availability of nutrients, the quality of organic matter and sludge-borne OCs. Despite these short-
comings, the DST proved useful and adaptable in decision-making. It can also help achieve a more
transparent, understandable and comprehensive decision-making process.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Sewage sludge (SS) is a residue generated at centralized
wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) (Harrison et al., 2006). SS
treatment is one of the most controversial issues of modern
municipal wastewater treatment. Advanced wastewater treatment
technologies have resulted in a higher quality of the effluent but
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ville.j.turunen@aalto.fi (V. Turunen).
some of them have also increased the amount of sludge generated
in the process. At the same time, the traditional disposal routes of
sludge, such as dumping in the sea and landfill disposal, are no
longer possible due to tightening environmental regulations.
Moreover, agricultural use faces increasing opposition because of
the potential harmful effects of organic contaminants (OC). As a
result, incineration of sludge has become increasingly popular in
the European countries (Fytili and Zabaniotou, 2008; Kelessidis and
Stasinakis, 2012).
SS can be seen as a resource, the recycling of which is encour-
aged in the European framework directive on waste (2008/98/EC).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.11.052
0045-6535/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
522 V. Turunen et al. / Chemosphere 193 (2018) 521e529
SS contains significant amounts of phosphorus (P) (2e4% in dry
weight) and nitrogen (N) (2.8e3.8% in dry weight), which are
essential for plant growth (Haynes et al., 2009; O’ Connor et al.,
2004). In addition, SS contains organic matter (OM), potassium
and micronutrients, such as copper and zinc (Sternbeck, 2011). At
present, most of the phosphorus fertilizers are produced from
phosphate rock, which is a nonrenewable and depleting natural
resource (Childers et al., 2011). SS can offer an alternative, renew-
able phosphorus source for agriculture and also partly replace man-
made nitrogen fertilizers. However, the availability of P and N in the
SS has traditionally been considered lower compared to commer-
cial fertilizers (Seyhan and Erdincler, 2003), although some studies
have reported that the availability of sludge P and N is close to or
comparable to inorganic fertilizers (Kahiluoto et al., 2015; Rigby
et al., 2016). Unfortunately, SS also includes some contaminants
that may limit its use, such as pathogens, heavy metals and OCs,
originating from industrial and municipal wastewater (So € rme et al.,
2003; Rogers, 1996). The potential risks related to land application
of SS have fostered the development of different phosphorus re-
covery processes. At present, these processes are generally not yet
economically feasible (Egle et al., 2016).
Before SS is used as a soil amendment or fertilizer, it needs to be
treated to reduce its water content and odor, inactivate pathogenic
organisms, and stop the biological degradation. The various treat-
ment methods include anaerobic digestion, composting, and sta-
bilization with alkaline material or other chemicals, thermal
treatment by heat drying, pyrolysis, incineration, and combinations
of these (Fytili and Zabaniotou, 2008). The treatment changes the
physicochemical properties of the sludge, and may therefore affect
the quality and feasibility of the final SS product. In the past, high
concentrations of heavy metals restricted the use of SS in agricul-
ture (So€ rme et al., 2003). Due to regulatory guidelines and other
source control measures, the concentrations of heavy metals in the
SS generated in Finland have declined substantially (Kasurinen
et al., 2014). Presently, the OCs pose the highest risks, since the
use of synthetic organic chemicals both in industry and households
has rapidly increased in the past 50 years. Many of the OCs are
harmful to terrestrial and aquatic organisms and may disrupt their
hormonal activity and/or have carcinogenic or mutagenic effects
(Haynes et al., 2009). The ability of the common SS treatment
methods to degrade the OCs varies significantly (Smith, 2009).
The costs of SS treatment can account for up to 50% of the total
costs associated with wastewater treatment, making the selection
of the treatment method(s) also a significant financial issue. At the
same time, the potential environmental problems caused by con-
taminants and the direct environmental effects of SS treatment and
management, e.g. odors and increased traffic, may disturb the local
community (Campbell, 2000; Haynes et al., 2009). Hence, choosing
an optimal SS treatment method is a decision having diverse
environmental, economic and social consequences.
The impacts of SS and sewage treatment systems and land
application of SS have been previously assessed in numerous life
cycle assessment (LCA) studies (Hospido et al., 2004; Lundin et al.,
2004; Yoshida et al., 2013; Alyaseri and Zhou, 2017; Harder et al.,
2017). In addition to LCA, some multi-criteria decision analysis
(MCDA) based methods have been applied. MCDA provides a
framework that analyzes and evaluates the alternatives systemat-
ically (Kiker et al., 2005). For example, Pijuan et al. (2010) presented
a combined MCDA and fuzzy logic tool for assessing the suitability
of SS for land application and Garrido-Baserba et al. (2015) used a
MCDA for the evaluation of SS treatment technologies. However,
many of the previous studies do not comprehensively compare the
effects and assess the trade-offs associated with different treatment
options but only consider the effects of one treatment method or
ignore stakeholders.
The aim of our study was to build a DST in cooperation with
wastewater utilities to facilitate the selection of a sludge treatment
method. Multi-attribute value theory (MAVT), a particular MCDA-
method, formed the theoretical basis for the DST. The DST was
validated by testing it with data from two Finnish WWTPs. Its us-
ability in a wider context was also assessed. The ultimate goal was
to enable systematic decision-making and involve stakeholders in
the decision-making in order to promote justified sludge treatment
decisions.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Choosing the form of DST e theoretical framework
The basis of MCDA is in so-called value-focused thinking, which
implies that the decision makers' and stakeholders’ underlying
objectives must be recognized and structured in all decision-
making, contrary to the traditional way of thinking where the de-
cision is often based on the best available alternative (Mustajoki,
2015).
MAVT was chosen as the theoretical basis of the DST. In MAVT,
the alternatives are ranked based on their performance in relation
to several objectives. MAVT is a compensatory approach, and good
performance related to one objective can offset poor performance
related to another objective. MAVT also enables the weighting of
criteria and it supports both quantitative and qualitative data
(Keeney and Raiffa, 1976; Ferretti et al., 2014). A more in-depth
explanation of MAVT and calculation of additive scores for deci-
sion alternatives can be found in Keeney and Raiffa (1976) and Von
Winterfeldt and Edwards (1986).
2.2. Constructing the DST
In our case, the overall objective of the decision-making was to
identify the optimal SS treatment solution, where the use of re-
sources is maximized and the adverse effects caused to the com-
munity and the environment are minimized. The main objective
was divided into distinct sub-objectives, also called criteria, which
were further divided into attributes and their sub-attributes.
Finally, indicators, which measure the goodness of an alternative
in terms of a specific criterion, were defined for the attributes at the
lowest level. The relation between the overall objective, the criteria
and the attributes is shown by a value tree (Fig. 2), which is a
graphical representation of the problem hierarchy. The criteria
were chosen in a way that they are not overlapping and that it is
possible to measure the value of the (sub-)attributes based on the
indicators.
The important decision criteria were recognized on the basis of
interviews and consultation with the representatives of the
WWTPs participating in our case studies. The process is described
in more detail in the supplementary material.
The system boundaries of the DST (Fig. 1) start from the SS
leaving the preliminary treatment and extend to the disposal or
reuse of the sludge product generated in the treatment processes.
The system does not cover the avoided emissions caused by the
substitution of energy and material in production. It also excludes
dewatering or conditioning processes, such as the addition of
polymers to SS, because these are considered as a preliminary
treatment even though they might be located after the main
treatment.
In our DST, the final product from the SS treatment was assumed
to be applied on land as a fertilizer (if it fulfills the Finnish fertilizer
regulations) or disposed of as waste (if the fertilizer regulations are
not met). When assessing the environmental risks in land appli-
cation, only OCs were considered, since the heavy metals and
 V. Turunen et al. / Chemosphere 193 (2018) 521e529 523

Risk factor
Wastewater treatment plant

5
8
7
0
1
3
6
9
Sludge pre-
treatment

Risk to groundwater and surface water

Treatment Treatment Treatment
system boundaries

method 1 method 2 method n

Product of Product of trea tment Product of trea tment

1 ¼ risks are uncertain

trea tment method 1 method 2 method n

Risk factors of organic contaminants (OC); PNEC ¼ Predicted No Effect Concentration; the references for each parameter are presented in the supplementary data (Table S19; S20; S21).

2 ¼ possible risk
Disposal// Disposal/ Disposal/

0 ¼ no risk
recycling recycling recycling

Avoi ded use of Avoi ded use of Avoi ded use of

0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
ma terials/energy ma terials/energy ma terials/energy

1 ¼ risk of accumulation uncertain

Fig. 1. The system boundaries of the DST for choosing a sludge treatment method.

2 ¼ possible accumulation risk

pathogens in the SS products were not expected to cause envi-

0 ¼ does not accumulate

Accumulation in animals
ronmental hazards if their corresponding national limit values
were not exceeded. Some treatment methods decrease the OM
content of SS, thus increasing the concentration of heavy metals in
the product and may prevent its land application if the limit values
for metals are exceeded (Supplementary material:Table S2).
The OCs/OC groups considered were: polycyclic aromatic hy-

1
2
2
0
0
0
2
2
drocarbons (PAH), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), poly-
chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans (PCDD/F), linear
alkylbenzene sulphonates (LAS), nonylphenols and their etoxylates

1 ¼ risk of accumulation uncertain

(NP/NPE), di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP), polybrominated

2 ¼ possible accumulation risk

diphenyl ethers (PBDE), perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), and
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). This list includes different types of
0 ¼ does not accumulate
Accumulation in plants

contaminants, i.e., traditional recalcitrant persistent organic pol-

lutants (POP) as well as less recalcitrant bulk chemicals and
emerging problematic compounds such as perfluorinated com-
pounds (PFC) and PBDEs (Smith, 2009; Sternbeck, 2011; Clarke and
Smith, 2011). In addition, a significant amount of data was available
in the literature concerning the environmental fate and effects of
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
these compounds. 1
0 ¼ half life < 6 months

2 ¼ half life > 6 months

2.3. Calculation of preference scores

1 ¼ half life uncertain
Accumulation in soil

In MAVT, the superiority of each decision alternative is based on

its performance with respect to the decision criteria. The total
Average PNEC of naphthalene and phenanthrene was used.

preference score thus represents the superiority of a particular

alternative in relation to other decision alternatives. The higher is
the total preference score, the more desired is the decision alter-
Average PNEC of BDE-99 and BDE-209 was used.
2
2
2
0
0
0
2
2

native. Preference scores were calculated, as per Von Winterfeldt

and Edwards (1986), on the basis of attribute and sub-attribute
¼ 0,001 - 1 mg/kg

values and weights addressed to them and the criteria. The

Toxicity (soil PNEC mg/kg)

< 0,001 mg/kg

weights indicate the relative importance of each criterion or attri-

1e15 mg/kg
> 15 mg/kg

bute. The sum of the weights is normalized to 1 before calculating

the preference scores. In our DST, the value functions of the attri-
butes are assumed to be linear, and the values of the attributes’
value functions are normalized between 0 and 1.
PNEC
PNEC
PNEC
PNEC

We used Web-HIPRE, Java-based decision-making software

¼
¼
¼
¼

available from the internet, for calculating the preference scores of

0
1
2
3

2
3
3
0
1
2
1
2

the treatment alternatives (Mustajoki and Ha €ma€la

€inen, 2000).
Web-HIPRE was also used for conducting a sensitivity analysis to
NP/NPE
PCDD/F

test the sensitivity of our DST to changes in the weights. Sensitivity

PBDEb
DEHP
Table 1

PAHa

PFOS
PCB
LAS

analysis examines the stability of the model by checking the extent

OC

a
b

of variation in the output when the parameters of the model are

524 V. Turunen et al. / Chemosphere 193 (2018) 521e529

changed (Qureshi et al., 1999). soil, the contaminant's half-life in soil, the potential to accumulate
in crops, the potential to accumulate in animals, and the potential
risks it poses to ground water and surface waters (Table 1).
2.4. Determination of risk values for organic contaminants

In the determination of the environmental risks arising from

land application, the potential additive toxic effect of OCs present in
SS was taken into account by first calculating a risk value for each
individual key contaminant (Eq. (1)) and then summing up the
values to produce an aggregated risk value (ARV) (Eq. (3)).
Risk valueoc ¼ Ci  Rfi
Ci ¼ ð1  Di Þ  C0
Xn
ARV ¼ i¼1
Riskvalueoci
where Ci is the concentration of an organic contaminant “i” in the
SS product, Rfi is the risk factor of that OC, Di is the degradation rate
of that OC related to a specific treatment process, C0 is the initial
concentration of that OC in the SS and ARV is the aggregated risk
value of the SS product. Data on the concentrations (Ci) were
compiled partly from the analyses made by the WWTPs and partly
calculated by using Eq (2) and degradation data documented in the
literature.
The calculation of the risk factor (Rfi) is based on the procedure
presented by Clarke and Smith (2011). It considers five parameters:
the predicted no-effect concentration (PNEC) of a contaminant in
2.5. Testing of the DST
2.5.1. Case studies
The validity of the DST was tested using data from two (2)
Finnish WWTPs representative of Finnish WWTPs with different
(1) scales and operational environments. Case A is a large-scale WWTP
located in Southern Finland in an urban environment. The capacity
of the WWTP is approximately 1,000,000 inhabitants based on the
(2)
incoming wastewater load, and the plant produces 64,000 metric
tons of SS per year, which is digested anaerobically and dewatered
(3) to ca. 30% of total solids. Case B is a substantially smaller plant
(capacity for 47,000 inhabitants) located in Eastern Finland, in a
more rural setting. It produces 4773 metric tons of sludge annually,
which is digested anaerobically and dewatered to ca.30% of total
solids. The treatment methods we studied were identified on the
basis of discussions with the WWTP representatives, i.e., an
employee in an operational role (case A) and the WWTP manager
(case B), and considering the following conditions:

The implementation of the SS treatment option is feasible in the
particular case

The available data on the effects of the SS treatment for calcu-
lating the needed DST input data are sufficient.

Public opinion
Dema nd for the
s l udge product Usability

Organic ma er
Phosphorus
Recoverable
Nutrients
res ources
Nitrogen
Energy

Conta minants i n Metals

the s ludge product
Pathogens
Op mal treatment op on
Emi s sions and Organic contaminants
res i dues
GHG-emissions

Net cos ts Wa s te

Di rect a dverse effects

Securi ty of the Availability

process
Reliability

Fig. 2. The final value tree and its criteria/attributes/sub-attributes. The lighter color signifies that the attribute was not considered in decision-making in this study.
GHG ¼ Greenhouse gas. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
 V. Turunen et al. / Chemosphere 193 (2018) 521e529
Processes for nutrient recovery were not considered based on
the above-mentioned preconditions. In all the treatment alterna-
tives in both cases, SS is anaerobically digested before additional
treatment processes.
The decision alternatives in case A were:

A1: composting

A2: heat drying þ incineration

A3: pyrolysis
The decision alternatives in case B were:

B1: stabilization with lime and acid

B2: composting

B3: heat drying þ incineration
The criteria, attributes, and sub-attributes were weighted using
direct weighting. The elicitation of weights was based on the
preferences of the WWTP representatives.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Value tree
In our final value tree (Fig. 2).the main objective is divided into
seven (7) criteria, some of which are further divided into lower-
level attributes and sub-attributes. In the expert consultation pro-
cess, the draft value tree was slightly modified, e.g., some criteria
were omitted and new ones were added. The criterion describing
the mass of a SS product was originally expected to be an important
decision criterion, but the interviews showed that it was rather a
factor affecting the costs of sludge treatment. Thus, the criterion
“Mass of the sludge product” was omitted from our final value tree.
The criterion “Demand for sludge product” and the attributes
“Organic matter” and “GHG emissions” were added to the value
tree. In the preliminary value tree the attribute “Contaminants in
the sludge product” was hierarchically below the criterion “Emis-
sions and residues”. In the final value tree it was included as a
criterion of its own.
We distinguished suitable indicators for each attribute and sub-
attribute to determine the values for the criteria (see Table 2). We
addressed qualitative (i.e., verbal) indicators for the attributes that
were not quantitatively measurable. These were further converted
to numeric values. We defined the values for the attributes based
on the literature, process data from the two studied WWTPs, and
the expert judgment provided by the representatives of the
WWTPs. Criteria that are time-dependent, such as operating costs,
were analyzed over the course of one year of WWTP's operation.
The aggregated risk value (ARV) (see Section 2.4) was used for
determining the risk caused by sludge-borne OCs following land
application of SS.
3.2. Validation of the DST
3.2.1. Values of the criteria and attributes and their weighting
For the validation of the DST, values were calculated for the
attributes and criteria in each decision alternative in both WWTP
cases, and the criteria and attributes were weighted. The detailed
calculation of the values can be found in the supplementary ma-
terial. In case A, heavy weights were given to the criteria “Recov-
erable resources” (0.3) and “Contaminants in the sludge product”
(0.3) with much less weight addressed to ”Net costs” and the “Se-
curity of the process” (0.1 and 0.05 respectively). In case B, the
criteria “Net costs” and “Recoverable resources” received the
highest weights (0.3, both). The rest of the criteria and attributes
525
were rather evenly weighted but slightly emphasizing the criteria
“Demand for the sludge product” and “Contaminants in the sludge
product”.
3.2.2. Preferred treatment options
As expected, in the different decision alternatives, the contri-
bution of the different criteria to the total preference score varied
(Fig. 3). Since the weighting in case A heavily favors destruction of
OCs and utilization of recoverable resources, the treatment option
A3 (i.e. pyrolysis) receives the highest total score (0.629). However,
the difference between the total preference scores of option A1 and
option A3 is not substantial because option A1 (composting) re-
ceives the highest score, for example, for the criteria “Direct
adverse effects” and “Net costs” and reasonably good scores for the
rest of the criteria (total score of 0.580). Option A2 receives the
lowest score (0.484).
In case B, the preference scores differ more significantly. The
lowest preference score (0.100) is attributed to option B3: heat
drying þ incineration. This is mainly because the process in this
option is the most expensive, and it does not enable OM or nutri-
ents to be utilized. In fact, option B3 receives the lowest scores in all
of the criteria except the criterion “Contaminants in the sludge
product”. Option B1 (acid and lime treatment) receives the best
overall preference score (0.869), since it scores best with respect to
the criteria “Recoverable resources” and “Net costs,” among others.
In the validation of the model, the optimal treatment alternative
varied due to differences in the SS's properties, operational envi-
ronment of the WWTPs, and weighting. It can be noticed that the
same treatment alternatives (e.g., A1 and B2) receive different
preference scores in case A and in case B, depending on the local
conditions. In case A, the WTTP's large size enables lower treatment
costs, whereas the direct adverse effects caused by the composting
process are expected to be more pronounced owing to the higher
population number. Thus, the two different case studies demon-
strate our DST's validity in a wide variety of different decision-
making situations. The more intricate and abundant the input
data is, the easier it is to represent the idiosyncrasy of the specific
situation.
In the DST, very different attributes are compared with each
other at the same level of hierarchy. For instance, it can be very
difficult for stakeholders to assess the importance of GHG emis-
sions against the importance of adverse effects caused by the OCs in
the SS product. Due to decision makers’ differing values and pref-
erences, the weighting may also cause conflicts in the decision
situation, which can complicate decision-making. Assigning
weights to criteria/attributes may in fact be one of the most
problematic issues of our DST.
Most previous decision support aids and LCAs assessing the
effects of SS treatment include the three main criterion groups in
environmental decision-making: economic, environmental and
social criteria (Pijuan et al., 2010; Garrido-Baserba et al., 2015;
Alyaseri and Zhou, 2017). The differences rise from the division of
these main criteria to smaller criterion groups and attributes.
A previous MCDA study by Garrido-Baserba et al. (2015)
included the global warming potential and annual cash flow,
whereas many LCA studies include numerous environmental
impact categories such as agricultural land occupation, climate
change effects on the ecosystem and human health, eutrophication
and human toxicity. The criteria included in these LCA studies are
affected and limited by the methodology of the Life Cycle Impact
Assessment (LCIA) (Alyaseri and Zhou, 2017). Our DST has its focus
on the recycling of resources and managing the risks caused by
sludge-borne OCs. It does not, however, consider, for example the
land requirements for building treatment facilities nor exhibit a
complicated financial analysis. Moreover, the value tree in this
526 V. Turunen et al. / Chemosphere 193 (2018) 521e529

Table 2
Indicators of the criteria/attributes/sub-attributes and their data sources. GHG ¼ Greenhouse gas; WWTP ¼ Wastewater treatment plant; ARV ¼ Aggregated risk value.

Criterion/attribute Explanation Measure Data source

Demand for the sludge product (þ) The market for the sludge product for
beneficial reuse
Public opinion Perception and public acceptance of the qualitative (1e10): 1 ¼ very strong expert judgement
use of the sludge product in agriculture opposition; 5 ¼ average; 10 ¼ perceived
as safe and acceptable
Usability The physical characteristics and quality qualitative (1e10): 1 ¼ cannot be used; expert judgement
of the sludge product which affect the 5 ¼ can be used but the properties are
spreading, storing etc. not ideal; 10 ¼ ideal properties for use
Recoverable resources (þ) Resources which can be utilized in the
treatment operation
a, b
Energy produced Energy produced in treatment methods GWh/a the two WWTPs studied; literature
for example incineration of sludge or
biogas
Nutrients Nutriens that can be utilized in
agriculture in the final product of
sludge treatment
Phosphorus Amount of phosphorus utilizable in t/year the two WWTPs studied
agriculture
c, d, e, f
Nitrogen Amount of nitrogen utilizable in t/year the two WWTPs studied; literature
agriculture
d, e, g, h, i
Organic matter Amount of organic matter utilizable in t/year Data from the WWTP; literature
agriculture
Pollutants in the sludge product (¡) The pollutants in the sewage sludge
which may cause risks in sludge land-
application
Pathogens Pathogens present in the final product e
(not considered)
Metals Amount of metals in the final product e
(not considered)
Organic contaminants Amount of organic contaminants in the ARV calculated value, see chapter 2.4 for details
final product
Emissions and residues (¡) The emissions and non-utilizable
sidestreams of the sludgre treatment
process
GHG-emissions Greenhouse gases emitted directly or t/year the two WWTPs studied; literaturea, j, k, l

indirectly by the treatment processes

Waste Waste generated in the treatment
processes
Net costs (¡) The cost of running sludge treatment
operation (the possible revenue of
selling the final product was not
included)
Security of the process (þ) The ease-of-use and maintanance of the
treatment process
Reliability The frequency of malfunctions or
breakages of the process equipment
Availability The availability of the process
equipment and/or spare parts for
maintanance or breakage situations
Direct adverse effects (¡) Local adverse effects caused by the
treatment methods
e
a, m
MV/year the two WWTPs studied; literature
qualitative (0e2): 0 ¼ unreliable; expert judgement
1 ¼ semi reliable; 2 ¼ very reliable
qualitative (0e2): 0 ¼ novelty process, expert judgement
poor availability; 1 ¼ used on a sizable
scale, moderately available; 2 ¼ used
extensively, commonly available
qualitative (0e3):0 ¼ adverse effects expert judgement
are very rate; 1 ¼ occasional adverse
effects; 2 ¼ significant or frequent
adverse effects; 3 ¼ severe adverse
effects or risk of accident

Bold was used to differentiate between the higher level criteria and the attributes/subattributes.
a
Myllymaa et al. (2008)
b
Inguanzo et al. (2002)
c
Hossain et al. (2011)
d
Solis et al. (2002)
e
Alvarez et al. (2002)
f
Mo€ller and Müller (2012)
g
Haynes et al. (2009)
h
Fonts et al. (2012)
i
Rigby et al. (2016)
j
Zupan ci
c and Ros (2003)
k
SYLVIS Environmental (2009)
l
Wang et al. (2013)
m €yry Environment (2007)
Po

study was built in cooperation with WWTP representatives. With structure of the DST, criteria, and the weighting of the criteria might
the contribution of different or additional stakeholders, the differ significantly. The hierarchical structure of the value tree can
 V. Turunen et al. / Chemosphere 193 (2018) 521e529
Fig. 3. The total preference scores of the decision alternatives: Case study A - A1:
mesophilic anaerobic digestion þ composting; A2: mesophilic anaerobic
digestion þ heat drying þ incineration; A3: mesophilic anaerobic
digestion þ pyrolysis. Case study B - B1: mesophilic anaerobic digestion þ stabilization
with lime and acid; B2: mesophilic anaerobic digestion þ composting; B3: mesophilic
anaerobic digestion þ heat drying þ incineration.
affect the outcome of the decision process because the attributes
that are low in the hierarchy have a smaller effect on the total
preference score. The low-level attributes may also receive less
emphasis from the decision-makers (Borcherding and von
Winterfeldt, 1988), which is why the value tree should have
approximately the same number of criteria/attributes on each hi-
erarchy level (Mustajoki, 2015). Our value tree had a slightly un-
even distribution of criteria/attributes.
3.3. Sensitivity to weights
To test the sensitivity of our DST to changes in criteria weights,
we conducted a sensitivity analysis for the case studies (Fig. 4). The
analysis for case A showed that if higher weights were attributed to
“Direct adverse effects” (>0.15), “Security of the process” (>0.15),
“Emission and residues” (>0.35)”or “Net costs” (>0.15) the optimal
treatment method would change from option A3 to option A1. The
optimal treatment method would only change to option A2 if the
criterion “Contaminants in the sludge product” was heavily
weighted (weight > 0.6). In case B, the optimal treatment option
(B1) is significantly less sensitive to the changes in criteria weights.
The optimal treatment alternative changes to B2 if “Demand” or
“Emissions and residues” are heavily weighted (>0.65 and > 0.5,
respectively) or if “Contaminants in the sludge product” receives a
527
weight higher than 0.3. If “Contaminants in the sludge product” is
very heavily weighted (>0.7) the optimal treatment method
changes to option B3. Both the overall distribution of criteria
weights and the case-specific values of the criteria/attributes affect
the sensitivity of the preferred treatment method to the weights.
3.4. Uncertainties involved
The validation of the DST includes many uncertainties caused by
a lack or low quality of the input data and data gaps concerning SS.
The most important knowledge gaps are related to the fate of OCs
and the availability of nutrients in the SS product. The effect of SS
treatment on the availability of phosphorus is still unknown, and
the documented studies show controversial results (Kahiluoto
et al., 2015; Seyhan and Erdincler, 2003; Haynes et al., 2009;
Jardin and Po € pel, 1994) while the effect of SS treatment processes
on nitrogen is known better (Hossain et al., 2011; Mo €ller and
Müller, 2012). In our study, the potential availability of P and N
was not considered due to the controversial data. In addition, we
did not consider the quality of the OM in the DST. The quality and
properties of the OM of the products from different SS treatment
processes are highly variable, but choosing a suitable single indi-
cator for OM was challenging. Furthermore, potassium and other
micronutrients present in SS were not considered in the DST, even
though they may increase the fertilizing properties of the SS
product.
Because of the unknown environmental fate and risks of sludge-
borne OCs, our risk assessment based on using ARV includes un-
certainty. The data needed for deriving the ARVs, such as the con-
centration of OCs and degradation rate, vary significantly in
different literature sources. It should also be noted that our risk
calculation method produces a risk factor of zero (0) for LAS. This
means that LAS would not contribute to the potential adverse ef-
fects in the land application of SS. However, in reality, high con-
centrations of LAS may cause environmental risks. Moreover, due to
the lack of data, the calculated ARV assumes additivity of the OCs’
toxic responses and hence, ignores any combined effects, e.g.,
antagonism or synergism.
Finally, it is worth noting that other factors, such as the prop-
erties of soil, climate, weather conditions, and plant species, and
not only the SS treatment process, also determine the final
bioavailability of nutrients and OCs to organisms. Moreover, the
costs of SS treatment depend on the demand and supply of the
treatment technologies and are therefore highly variable. Finally,
the reliability of the values of the qualitative indicators depends on
their assessor's expertise and perceptions.
4. Conclusions and future perspectives
In this paper, we presented the construction and validation of an
MAVT-based DST, which provides a systematic and transparent
process for making a justified decision on a sewage sludge treat-
ment. The final DST is a hierarchical value tree, which comprises
criteria, attributes and sub-attributes that can be weighted. Each
alternative receives a preference score based on its performance as
for the attributes and the weighting of the criteria.
The DST offers a systematic framework for decision-making thus
making it less likely for decisions to be made based on prejudices
and old habits. A structured, relatively simple and transparent
decision-making tool also enables an easier and wider involvement
of the stakeholders. However, in this study, the weighting was done
only with the WWTP representatives. In a real-life situation, other
stakeholders are usually involved in the decision process, which
may lead to different results.
528 V. Turunen et al. / Chemosphere 193 (2018) 521e529

Case A

Direct adverse effects

Contaminants in the sludge Emissions and residues Netcosts
product
1 1 1

Preference score

Preference score

Preference score
1 0.8 0.8 0.8
Preference score

0.8
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.6
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
0 0 0 0
0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1
Weight Weight Weight Weight

A1 A2 A3 A1 A2 A3 A1 A2 A3 A1 A2 A3

Security of the process

1
Preference score

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1
Weight

A1 A2 A3

Case B

Demand for sludge product Contaminants in the sludge Emissions and residues Security of the process
product
1 1 1
Preference score

Preference score
Preference score

0.8 1 0.8 0.8

Preference score

0.8
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.6
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
0 0 0 0
0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1
Weight Weight Weight Weight

B1 B2 B3 B1 B2 B3 B1 B2 B3 B1 B2 B3

Fig. 4. Sensitivity of the results to criteria weights. Only those results where the change in the weighting of a single criterion caused changes in the preference order of the
treatment options are shown. Hence, the weighting of criteria “Demand for sludge product” and “Recoverable resources” (case A) and “Recoverable resources”, “Net costs” and
“Direct adverse effects” (case B) did not affect the priority order of the treatment alternatives. Case study A - A1: mesophilic anaerobic digestion þ composting; A2: mesophilic
anaerobic digestion þ heat drying þ incineration; A3: mesophilic anaerobic digestion þ pyrolysis. Case study B - B1: mesophilic anaerobic digestion þ stabilization with lime and
acid; B2: mesophilic anaerobic digestion þ composting; B3: mesophilic anaerobic digestion þ heat drying þ incineration; the horizontal line indicates the original weight of the
criterion in the case study.

The validation of the DST showed its usefulness for decision- also beneficial to study whether some characteristics of the
making in different situations. While weighting has a strong ef- WWTPs affect the stakeholders’ prioritization.
fect on the preferred treatment method, the outcome is also highly
affected by the values of the criteria/attributes, which in turn are Appendix A. Supplementary data
very dependent on the operational environment.
It is worth noting that any decision problem is almost inevitably Supplementary data related to this article can be found at
simplified when described by a value tree, and some important https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.11.052.
decision criteria may be left out. Real-life decision-making situa-
tions often include factors related to politics, regulations, and References
scheduling, which can have a significant impact on the decision. It
is also recommended that as many relevant stakeholders as Alvarez, E.A., Mochon, M.C., S anchez, J.J., Rodrıguez, M.T., 2002. Heavy metal
extractable forms in sludge from wastewater treatment plants. Chemosphere
possible are involved in the process of constructing a value tree. 47, 765e775.
However, in practice, the amount of data to be compiled and Alyaseri, Isam, Zhou, Jianpeng, 2017. Towards better environmental performance of
handled when using the DST limits the number of elements that wastewater sludge treatment using endpoint approach in LCA methodology.
Heliyon 3, 1e24.
can be incorporated in it. One of the significant shortcomings of our
Borcherding, K., von Winterfeldt, D., 1988. The effect of varying value trees on
DST is the omission of the nutrients' availability and the quality of multiattribute evaluations. Acta Psychol. 68, 153e170.
organic matter after a SS treatment. More data are needed on these Campbell, H.W., 2000. Sludge managementefuture issues and trends. Water Sci.
factors in order to produce more realistic results for decision- Technol. 414, 1e8.
Childers, D.L., Corman, J., Edwards, M., Elser, J.J., 2011. Sustainability challenges of
making. In addition, more information is needed on the environ- phosphorus and food: solutions from closing the human phosphorus cycle.
mental fate of and risks posed by OCs in SS. In the future, it would Bioscience 61, 117e124.
Clarke, B.O., Smith, S.R., 2011. Review of ‘emerging’organic contaminants in
 V. Turunen et al. / Chemosphere 193 (2018) 521e529
biosolids and assessment of international research priorities for the agricultural
use of biosolids. Environ. Int. 37, 226e247.
Egle, L., Rechberger, H., Krampe, J., Zessner, M., 2016. Phosphorus recovery from
municipal wastewater: an integrated comparative technological, environmental
and economic assessment of P recovery technologies. Sci. Total Environ. 571,
522e542.
Ferretti, Valentina, Bottero, Marta, Mondini, Giulio, 2014. Decision making and
cultural heritage: an application of the Multi-Attribute Value Theory for the
reuse of historical buildings. J. Cult. Herit. 15, 644e655.

Fonts, I., Gea, G., Azuara, M., Abrego, J., Arauzo, J., 2012. Sewage sludge pyrolysis for
liquid production: a review. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 16, 2781e2805.
Fytili, D., Zabaniotou, A., 2008. Utilization of sewage sludge in EU application of old
and new methodsda review. Renev Sustain. Energy Rev. 12, 116e140.
Garrido-Baserba, M., Molinos-Senante, M., Abelleira-Pereira, J.M., Fdez-Güelfo, L.A.,
Poch, M., Herna ndez-Sancho, F., 2015. Selecting sewage sludge treatment al-
ternatives in modern wastewater treatment plants using environmental deci-
sion support systems. J. Clean. Prod. 107, 410e419.
Harder, R., Peters, G.M., Svanstro €m, M., Khan, S.J., Molander, S., 2017. Estimating
human toxicity potential of land application of sewage sludge: the effect of
modelling choices. Int. J. Life Cycle Ass 22, 731e743.
Harrison, E.Z., Oakes, S.R., Hysell, M., Hay, A., 2006. Organic chemicals in sewage
sludges. Sci. Total Environ. 367, 481e497.
Haynes, R.J., Murtaza, G., Naidu, R., 2009. Inorganic and organic constituents and
contaminants of biosolids: implications for land application. Adv. Agron. 104,
165e267.
Hospido, A., Moreira, M.T., Fern andez-Couto, M., Feijoo, G., 2004. Environmental
performance of a municipal wastewater treatment plant. Int. J. Life Cycle Ass 9,
261e271.
Hossain, M.K., Strezov, V., Chan, K.Y., Ziolkowski, A., Nelson, P.F., 2011. Influence of
pyrolysis temperature on production and nutrient properties of wastewater
sludge biochar. J. Environ. Manage 92, 223e228.
Inguanzo, M., Domınguez, A., Mene ndez, J.A., Blanco, C.G., Pis, J.J., 2002. On the
pyrolysis of sewage sludge: the influence of pyrolysis conditions on solid, liquid
and gas fractions. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol 63, 209e222.
Jardin, N., Po€pel, H.J., 1994. Phosphate release of sludges from enhanced biological
P-removal during digestion. Water Sci. Technol. 30, 281e292.
Kahiluoto, H., Kuisma, M., Ketoja, E., Salo, T., Heikkinen, J., 2015. Phosphorus in
manure and sewage sludge more recyclable than in soluble inorganic fertilizer.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 2115e2122.
Kasurinen, V., Munne, P., Mehtonen, J., Türkmen, A., Seppa €l€
a, T., Mannio, J.,
Verta, M., Ayst€ o €, L., 2014. Orgaaniset haitta-aineet puhdistamolietteissa €.
Organic Contaminants in Sewage Sludges. A report of Finnish Environmental
Institute, p. 74.
Keeney, R., Raiffa, H., 1976. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and
Value Trade-offs. Wiley, New York, p. 569.
Kelessidis, A., Stasinakis, A.S., 2012. Comparative study of the methods used for
treatment and final disposal of sewage sludge in European countries. Waste
Manage 32, 1186e1195.
Kiker, G.A., Bridges, T.S., Varghese, A., Seager, T.P., Linkov, I., 2005. Application of
multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integ. Envi-
ron. Asses 1, 95e108.
Lundin, M., Olofsson, M., Pettersson, G.J., Zetterlund, H., 2004. Environmental and
economic assessment of sewage sludge handling options. Resour. Conservat.
Recy. 4, 255e278.
Mo€ller, K., Müller, T., 2012. Effects of anaerobic digestion on digestate nutrient
availability and crop growth: a review. Eng. Life Sci. 12, 242e257.
Mustajoki, J., Ha€ma €l€
ainen, R.P., 2000. Web-HIPRE: global decision support by value
529
tree and AHP analysis. INFOR Inf. Syst. Operational Res. 38, 208e220.
Mustajoki, Jyri, Marttunen, Mika, Hokkanen, Joonas, 2015. Monitavoitearvioinnin ja
ongelmien ja €sentelymenetelmien hyo €dynta €minen ymp€ € vaikutusten
aristo
arvioinneissa. Utilization of Multiple Criteria Analysis and Problem Structuring
in Assessment of Environmental Effects (In Finnish). A report of Finnish Envi-
ronmental Institute, p. 97.
Myllymaa, Tuuli, Moliis, Katja, Tohka, Antti, Rantanen, Pirjo, Ollikainen, Markku,
Dahlbo, Helena, 2008. Ja €tteiden kierra€tyksen ja polton ka €sittelyketjujen
ympa €risto
€kuormitus ja kustannukset. The Environmental Effects of Recyling
and Incinerating Wastes (In Finnish). A report of Finnish Environmental Insti-
tute, p. 85.
O'Connor, G.A., Sarkar, D., Brinton, S.R., Elliott, H.A., Martin, F.G., 2004. Phytoavail-
ability of biosolids phosphorus. J. Environ. Qual. 33, 703e712.
Pijuan, J., Valls, A., Passuello, A., Schuhmacher, M., 2010. Evaluating the impact of
sewage sludge application on agricultural soils. In: XV Congreso espan ~ ol sobre
tecnologías y lo gica fuzzy (ESTYLF), Huelva (Spain), pp. 369e374.
€yry Environment Oy, 2007. Lietteenka
Po €sittelyn nykytila Suomessa ja
ka€sittelymenetelmien kilpailukykyselvitys. Current State of Sludge Treatment
in Finland and the Competitiveness Report of Different Treatment Technologies
(in Finnish) A report of sludge treatment technologies for Sitra, p. 45.
Qureshi, M.E., Harrison, S.R., Wegener, M.K., 1999. Validation of multicriteria anal-
ysis models. Agr Syst. 62, 105e116.
Rigby, H., Clarke, B.O., Pritchard, D.L., Meehan, B., Beshah, F., Smith, S.R., Porter, N.A.,
2016. A critical review of nitrogen mineralization in biosolids-amended soil, the
associated fertilizer value for crop production and potential for emissions to the
environment. Sci. Total Environ. 541, 1310e1338.
Rogers, H.R., 1996. Sources, behaviour and fate of organic contaminants during
sewage treatment and in sewage sludges. Sci. Total Environ. 185, 3e26.
Seyhan, D., Erdincler, A., 2003. Effect of lime stabilisation of enhanced biological
phosphorus removal sludges on the phosphorus availability to plants. Water
Sci. Technol. 48, 155e162.
Smith, S.R., 2009. Organic contaminants in sewage sludge (biosolids) and their
significance for agricultural recycling. Philosophical Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A Math.
Phys. Eng. Sci. 367, 4005e4041.
Solis, G.J., Alonso, E., Riesco, P., 2002. Distribution of metal extractable fractions
during anaerobic sludge treatment in southern Spain WWTPs. Water, Air, Soil
Pollut. 140, 139e156.
€ rme, L., Lindqvist, A., So
So €derberg, H., 2003. Capacity to influence sources of heavy
metals to wastewater treatment sludge. Environ. Manage 31, 421e428.
Sternbeck, J., 2011. Using Sludge on Arable Land: Effect Based Levels and Longterm
Accumulation for Certain Organic Pollutants. Nordic Council of Ministers,
Copenhagen, Denmark, p. 101.
Sylvis Environmental, 2009. The Biosolids Emissions Assessment Model (BEAM): a
Method for Determining Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Canadian Biosolids
Management Practices. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment,
Winnipeg, Canada, p. 200.
Von Winterfeldt, D., Edwards, W., 1986. Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research.
Cambridge University Press, New York, p. 624.
Wang, Ning-Yi, Shih, Chun-Hao, Chiueh, Pei-Te, Huang, Yu-Fong, 2013. Environ-
mental effects of sewage sludge carbonization and other treatment alternatives.
Energies 6, 871e883.
Yoshida, Hiroko, Thomas, H., Scheutz, Christensen Charlotte, 2013. Life cycle
assessment of sewage sludge management: a review. Waste Manage Res. 31,
1083e1101.
Zupan ci
c, G.D., Ros, M., 2003. Heat and energy requirements in thermophilic
anaerobic sludge digestion. Renew. Energy 28, 2255e2267.