Next Article in Journal
Groundwater Dynamics in African Endorheic Basins in Arid to Semi-Arid Transition Zones: The Batha Aquifer System, NE Chad
Next Article in Special Issue
Functional and Microbiological Responses of Iron–Carbon Galvanic Cell-Supported Autotrophic Denitrification to Organic Carbon Variation and Dissolved Oxygen Shaking
Previous Article in Journal
Exploring the Impact of Financial Development on Water–Energy Efficiency in Western China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Enhanced Adsorption of Aqueous Pb(II) by Acidic Group-Modified Biochar Derived from Peanut Shells
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 16
Issue 14
10.3390/w16142066
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Transformation and Mitigation of Tar and Related Secondary Pollutants during Sewage Sludge Pyrolysis

by
Qingyuan Lin
,
Yongxiao Liu
,
Yimeng Jiao
,
Pengzhao Lv
*,
Yanbo Liu
,
Wei Zuo
,
Yu Tian
and
Jun Zhang
*
State Key Laboratory of Urban Water Resource and Environment (SKLUWRE), School of Environment, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150090, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2024, 16(14), 2066; https://doi.org/10.3390/w16142066
Submission received: 6 June 2024 / Revised: 4 July 2024 / Accepted: 11 July 2024 / Published: 22 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Water Treatment and Contaminants Control: Technologies and Strategies)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Sewage sludge has long been perceived as the bottleneck of wastewater treatment plants in China, restraining the healthy development of sewage treatment for decades. In recent years, pyrolysis as a promising multifunctional platform has attracted increasing interest for converting sludge into valuable resources. However, the generation and presence of pyrolysis tar, one of the key by-products during sludge pyrolysis, limit the wide application of pyrolysis product resources. The efficient and selective conversion of tar is complicated by the inherent complexity of sludge and various pollutants (e.g., N-, S-, and Cl-containing organic pollutants, heavy metals) in pyrolysis products, which may either migrate into tar or be released into the environment, complicating the in-depth treatment of tar and posing environmental risks. This review systematically examines the transformation and migration of tar and related secondary pollutants during sludge pyrolysis in order to optimize the pyrolysis process for resource recovery. We provide an overview of the research progress on tar generation, transformation, and secondary pollutants during pyrolysis; discuss potential control strategies for pollution abatement; and highlight the importance of understanding tar transformation during pyrolysis. Additionally, we offer insights into future development trends and research hotpots in this field. This review aims to deliver valuable information on the mechanism of tar formation, the conversion pathways of secondary pollutants, and corresponding control strategies, thus guiding the design and optimization of sludge pyrolysis processes to achieve higher efficiency and selectivity, with minimal environmental pollution.

1. Introduction

Energy shortages and environmental damage are considered issues of growing concern for sustainable development [1]. China has suggested a two-stage carbon emission reduction target, the “double-carbon strategic goal”, in response to this situation, in which it is expected that carbon dioxide emissions will peak in 2030 and that carbon neutrality will be achieved by 2060. Sewage treatment contributes approximately 1–2% of the total greenhouse gas emissions in the world [2]. Recently, the sewage treatment industry in China has lowered its carbon emissions mainly by using low-energy magnetic levitation fans, precise aeration systems, and wastewater reuse systems and reducing additional carbon sources [3]. Therefore, controlling carbon emissions from sewage treatment is an effective way to meet China’s goal of carbon neutrality. Sewage sludge (SS), as the main byproduct of the sewage treatment process, is definitely generated in sewage treatment plants [4,5,6]. The annual production of dewatered SS in China was between 72 million and 75 million tons from 2014 to 2020, according to data from the Ministry of Ecology and Environment of China, as shown in Figure 1. It is estimated that the sludge yield will reach 90 million tons in 2025, with a growth rate of 8–10% [7]. However, the effective treatment rate of SS is only about 30%, greatly limiting the healthy development of sewage treatment. Furthermore, improper SS treatment can cause serious environmental pollution, especially secondary pollution of soil and water, subsequently entering the food chain. In recent years, with the continuous improvement in SS discharge standards, the cost of SS treatment has accounted for the vast majority of the total cost of water treatment [8]. Due to this circumstance, people are beginning to rethink traditional SS treatment processes for more sustainable SS management [9].
In China, the traditional treatment of SS is mainly landfilling, anaerobic digestion, incineration, agricultural purpose, and construction material production [10], which are limited in their development due to high pollution and non-recyclability [11]. Due to the huge SS output in China and the scarcity of land resources, the large-scale promotion of sanitary landfills is unrealistic [12], and due to the lack of system management systems, SS has become the main source of pollution in many areas near landfills [13]. Although most SS is still landfilled in EU countries, regulations have been put forward that aim at minimizing landfills, and France banned SS landfills in 2002 [14].
Compared with landfills, incineration has grown significantly in China as the most thorough SS treatment method, but its high cost and tendency to cause secondary pollution such as dioxins and fly ash during combustion limit its further development [15,16]. To ensure the sustainability of SS treatment and management, it is necessary to evaluate each process in terms of both the advantages and disadvantages (Table 1). Traditional disposal methods have their own limitations and cause secondary pollution of the environment. To comply with improved SS disposal standards, more environmentally friendly and efficient SS disposal methods need to be developed [17].
The SS pyrolysis process has received increasing attention worldwide due to its lower SOX, NOX, and greenhouse gas emissions and lower mobility of heavy metals than combustion. It is also considered as an effective way to realize resource utilization, reductions, and the harmlessness of SS [23]. Developing clean SS pyrolysis technology, converting waste SS into biomass energy, and recycling organic resources and energy in SS will become the new directions of industrial development in the future. Consequently, pyrolysis can produce diverse attractive value-added products, such as tar, biogas, and biochar [24,25]. The properties and components of products may change as the pyrolysis conditions change [26].
In addition, the bibliometric analysis by using “sludge pyrolysis” as the keyword is conducted in the “Web of Science” database. Figure 2a shows that since the first article was published in 1976, a total of 7008 articles had been published by February 2023, reaching the highest number of publications in 2022 and showing an overall increasing trend year by year. Through the VOS analysis of clustering network visualization (Figure 2b) and co-occurrence density visualization (Figure 2c) of SS pyrolysis, the popular keywords studied in recent years are “biochar”, “production”, “co-pyrolysis”, “gas”, “kinetic”, “model”, etc., while “bio-oil” or “tar” are less frequently found, indicating that more research focusing on “bio-oil” or “tar” is needed in the future. Early studies mainly focus on mesophilic flash pyrolysis to maximize the tar yields [27,28]. In addition to temperature, there are many conditions, such as heating method, residence time, and SS properties, which would affect the yield of final products [14]. Although the introduction of SS pyrolysis has been conducted in published reviews, there is little systematic and overall introduction of the effects of pyrolytic sludge on tar components, the key role of tar transformation into secondary pollutants, together with the contaminant control strategies. This review aims to evaluate pyrolysis technology as a promising clean, energy-efficient pollutant treatment option for SS treatment. Furthermore, we anticipate that this review will provide valuable information for optimizing SS pyrolysis platforms to achieve high efficiency and low pollution and stimulate research efforts to reduce SS pyrolysis pollution.

2. Insight into the Generation and Characteristics of Tar from SS

The calorific value of the dry base of SS is usually in the range of 12 to 20 MJ·kg−1, similar to that of low-rank coal, paper, wood, and black liquor [29]. Thus, tar (also known as bio-oil or pyrolytic oil) produced from SS pyrolysis at relatively low temperatures (400–700 °C) contains a large amount of C and H elements, resulting in a high calorific value depending on the water content of tar [30].

2.1. Influence of SS Composition on Pyrolysis Tar

Tar composition is mainly derived from the diverse and complex characteristics of SS, including organic matter, water content, elemental composition, and ash content [31], which further affects the distribution and composition of pyrolysis tars. Organic matter in SS mainly consists of proteins (24–42%), carbohydrates (7–18%), and lipids (1–14%). Li et al. [32] studied the relationship between the composition of SS and its combustion performance and found that combustion performance was different with different components of SS organic matter; protein was the main component of volatile matter, and SS combustion performance was significantly affected by protein concentration. It can be concluded that the tar composition is significantly affected by SS characteristics and pyrolysis processes. Here, we summarized the main components in tar from the pyrolysis of SS, as shown in Table 2.
It can be found that the tar yield of most of the SS increases with the proportion of organic matter in SS, and most of the liquid compounds in tar are derived from the devolatilization of SS [38]. However, too high a pyrolysis temperature is not conducive to the output of tar, and the production of PAHs increases significantly when the temperature is higher than 625 °C, indicating that high temperature produces toxic tars rich in polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) [39]. Compared with the higher tar yield of SS from WWTPs, some industrial SS samples, such as paper SS, leather and textile SS, high-ash SS, and milk processing SS, show lower tar yields [40], mainly due to their complex components, promoting the deoxygenation and aromatization reactions of heteroatom tars to form PAHs by self-pyrolysis, resulting in a decrease in tar quality. Therefore, pyrolytic tar of SS still faces serious shortcomings, such as high energy consumption, being low value-added, and the formation of toxic substances, due to the influence of SS sources and components.

2.2. Comparison of Pyrolysis Tar between Conventional and Microwave Pyrolysis

Different heating methods have a certain influence on the yield and composition of tar [41]. Conventional pyrolysis (CP) mainly refers to the method of transferring energy from the outside to the SS surface by means of electricity or fuel combustion. In the last decade, the CP technology of SS has mainly developed into the slow pyrolysis process [42], fast pyrolysis process [43,44], and flash pyrolysis process [45]. Future studies on CP of SS should focus on thermogravimetric analysis [46], metal oxide catalysts [47], characteristics of biochar [48], tar components [49], and biogas components [50]. Researchers have found that more tar can be produced at moderate temperatures and shorter residence times [51]. During the CP process, heat is first transferred to the surface of SS, and the local temperature increases, which first causes moisture evaporation in the drying stage (DS), and then the pyrolysis volatiles are gradually released at the primary pyrolysis stage (PPS). Primary volatiles are mainly produced by thermal cracking of chemical bonds of proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, and other organic compounds in SS. However, it is noted that CP of SS generally suffers from some key challenges, including low energy efficiency, high reactor complexity, poor product quality, and so on [52].
Microwave-assisted pyrolysis of SS (MP) has received increasing attention since 1999 due to the advantages of short processing times, low energy requirements, efficient heat transfer, and selective heating [53]. The energy transfer of MP is achieved by dipole rotation and ion conduction into heat inside the particles, which has the advantages of a fast temperature rise, uniform temperature distribution, and energy saving compared to the CP process. A comparison of CP and MP is shown in Figure 3 [54,55].
Due to the selective heating of the MP process, the effect of MP on chemical bonds in SS is very different [56]. Recent studies have found that MP can reduce the activation energy of H2 and CO by 23% and 36%, respectively [57], thereby increasing the release of H2 and CO, which can reduce the side reaction and promote the transfer of oxygen-containing functional groups to the liquid tar. A further increase in temperature can promote the cyclization and condensation of tar and the thermal decomposition of ester groups [58]. Other studies have shown that under the condition of MP, a higher H/C ratio indicates that more hydrogen atoms are directly converted into tar rather than released into biogases, due to the side reaction of hydrogen transfer during pyrolysis. There are more aromatic compounds in tar during MP, indicating that microwave can promote hydrogen transfer reaction at higher temperature in tar recovery [41]. From the point of view of energy saving, product quality, and efficiency, MP is considered a better method than CP because of its unique heating mechanism. Therefore, cooperation between different disciplines should be strengthened to promote the commercialization and development of this promising technology [59].

2.3. Characteristics of Tar Components from SS Pyrolysis

The tar produced by SS pyrolysis is a complex, dark-brown, smelly, and sticky compound in composition and includes organic compounds (hydrocarbons, heteroatomic compounds, ketones), minerals, and water (initial water evaporation of SS, dewatering reaction and fragmentation of high molecular weight oxygenated compounds) [24,60]. Some studies calculate the yield of tar including water and organic matter, while others quantify the yield of the water phase and organic phase, respectively [27,61]. Generally, the liquid product is divided into at least two layers, with the ratio of the aqueous phase to the organic phase being approximately 65:35 (v%), depending on the distribution of SS components, process conditions, and liquid recovery methods [29]. The density and viscosity of pyrolytic tar at 20 °C are in a range of about 940–1250 kg·m−3 and 17 cSt, respectively. And, because of the high moisture content, the heat value of the water phase is lower than 20 MJ·m3, while the heat value of the organic phase is as high as 30–45 MJ·m3, respectively [30,62]. The water phase mainly contains polar compounds, including ammonia, acetonitrile, carboxylic acid, methanol, trace monomeric, and oligomeric saccharides, and other polar organic compounds, while the organic phase is usually composed of aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons, phenols, carboxylic acids, aliphatic esters, and nitrogen heterocyclic compounds [63,64]. The overall calorific value of pyrolytic tar is in the range of 20–30 MJ·m3 due to differences in tar composition. The pH of the tar is slightly alkaline (7.9–10.1), because of the high nitrogen content in the SS [65]. The differences in polarity and density of many of the constituents are conducive to phase separation in SS pyrolysis tar. Each phase has different physical and chemical properties, and induced phase separation can improve the physical and chemical properties of tar.
The complexity (difficult to separate), corrosivity, and instability of tar compounds (susceptible to ageing and degradation, low-molecular-weight oxygen-containing compounds will undergo re-polymerization, condensation, etherification and esterification even at room temperature, leading to thermal instability and ageing of tar) and density with a low oxygen rate limit the direct application of tar [66]. Moreover, S and N compounds in tar, such as mercaptan, amide, and pyrrole, may emit potentially harmful gases such as SO2 and NOX during combustion [67]. Like other biomass pyrolytic tar, pyrolytic tar of SS has a large amount of water and free oxygen content [68]. The high water content significantly reduces the calorific value and limits its applicability as fuel, while contents with high oxygen rates make fuel upgrading challenging [69].

3. Key Role of Tar in the Transformation of Secondary Pollutants during Pyrolysis

Tar can be classified into five classes of compounds, including aliphatic, heterocyclic, light aromatic, light polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and heavy polyaromatic hydrocarbons. It is reported that the various abundant components of pyrolytic tar play important roles in the release of secondary pollutants during pyrolysis. Wang et al. [70] and Zhang et al. [71] reported that the pyrolysis of high nitrogen contents in oil sludge contributes to either NOX or N2O. Gao et al. [72] investigated the potential ecological risk index of pyrolysis chars containing a high concentration of heavy metals. Zhang et al. [73] investigated the behavior of sulfur during pyrolysis of waste tires and found that the sulfur-containing compounds in pyrolysis char are mainly composed of non-volatile sulfur, sulfur, and trace amounts of organic sulfides. Gao et al. [74] found that chlorine mainly remained in char (42.36%) in the form of inorganic Cl, while 35.03% and 22.61% of chlorine migrated into gas and tar, respectively. Based on the previous studies, the most reported secondary pollutants, such as N, S, Cl, and heavy metals (HMs), have been significantly investigated in recent years due to their toxic and harmful impacts on ecology and the environment.

3.1. Tar in the Transformation of Nitrogen-Containing Pollutants

The N content of SS (2.4–9.0 wt%) is higher than those of most conventional fuels, such as coal (<1.0 wt%) and biomass (0.1–4.0 wt%), of which 50–80% is converted to nitrogenous gas [75]. Moreover, the main nitrogen-containing substances in SS are in the form of protein–N, while pyridine–N and pyrrole–N are the main nitrogen-containing substances in coal [76,77]. The nitrogen compounds in SS may be more active than those in higher-rank coals and may even be less stable than those in lower-rank coals [78].
Previous researchers have conducted many studies focusing on the migration behavior of tar–N. Recently, Yan et al. [79] investigated the conversion of N-containing species in the pyrolysis of biomass. Liu et al. [80] studied the source of HNCO generation during coal tar pyrolysis. And Tian et al. [81] investigated the nitrogen conversions during microwave pyrolysis of sewage sludge. The main tar–N compounds were 1-cyanonaphthalene and 2-cyanonaphthalene, 5, 6-benzoquinoline, carbazole, quinoline, thiocyanic acid, 1H-indol-3-lyest, 9-cyanophenanthrene and acenaphtho (1, 2-B) pyridine. In SS pyrolysis, the light PAHs, such as cyano-aromatic compounds and N–heteroaromatic compounds, make up the majority of tar–N compounds. In addition, nitrogen-containing chemicals (amides, pyrroles) have been found in the tar formed by SS pyrolysis, which might lead to NOX emissions during combustion [67]. It is found that the thermal cracking of proteins in SS produced three important intermediate compounds, including amino–N, heterocyclic–N, and nitrile–N compounds. Meanwhile, the deamination of amino–N compounds in the range of 300 to 500 °C mainly leads to the formation of NH3. The hydrogenation and polymerization of amine–N from tar contribute to the formation of nitrile–N and heterocyclic–N compounds, respectively, which further thermally crack into hazardous HCN between 500 and 800 °C. Thus, HCN and NH3 emissions can be reduced by controlling the production of three intermediates at temperatures of 500–800 °C [81]. In addition, research on the pyrolysis of soybean protein also found that the decomposition of three intermediate compounds contributed more than 97% of the total (HCN and NH3) production. The N–migration paths of the SS and protein model compounds are shown in Figure 4 (a) and (b), respectively [81,82]. A detailed summary of the types of compounds to which N migrates is shown in Figure 4c [83].
During the pyrolysis of SS, a part of the nitrogen is released in the form of N–tar compounds. In addition to N–tar compounds, approximately 50–80% of the total nitrogen is released as nitrogenous gases, including NH3, N2, HCN, and nitrogen oxides. However, it is worth noting that the large amounts of harmful nitrogenous gas mainly containing NH3 and HCN may be converted into NOx, contributing to the severe photochemical smog and acid rain pollution. It is also reported that the cyano–N and heterocyclic–N compounds are identified as the major nitrogenated compounds in the tars during the pyrolysis of SS, which may also pose hazards to the environment and threats to human health [67,84].
Studies have shown that, although SS pyrolysis is different from SS combustion, there are still a number of nitrogen oxidation and nitrogen hydrogenation substances produced when the SS is heated in isolation from air. In the gas phase, approximately 0.2–0.6% of N in the SS would be converted into NO due to the presence of nitrite. A large amount of HCN is produced in the form of volatile components at 500 °C, and a maximum of 40% of the SS–N is converted into HCN at 800 °C [85]. NH3, as another important nitrogenous gas in SS pyrolysis, will pollute the atmosphere and environment. The formation of NH3 in the gas phase will be promoted by nitrogen-containing heterocyclic aromatic compounds in the tar in a temperature range of 200–600 °C [86]. At temperatures above 500 °C, the nitrogen-containing heterocyclic rings in tar are hydrogenated to form NH3 by the action of H free radicals [87].
The N migration from the char phase into the tar and gas phase has also been reported. It is believed that the N content in the char phase gradually decreases with increasing temperature, and the content of char–N decreases from 50% to 20% when the pyrolysis temperature increases from 500 to 800 °C [88]. The content of protein–N in char decreased continuously and transformed into high-thermal-stability pyridine–N, pyrrole–N, and quaternary graphic–N in tar, which could account for more than 90% of gaseous N production [89]. Although many studies have been carried out on N-functional groups in biochar, there are still many gaps to be filled. Firstly, there are various analytical methods for analyzing the composition and content of N-functional groups. However, due to technical limitations and the interactions between pyrolysis substances, there may be deviations or even errors in the determination of some nitrogen-containing species, such as pyrrolic–N and pyridine–N, which may not be accurately distinguished using the existing technologies. Furthermore, the development of in situ detection technology for Char–N compounds is also worthy of attention.

3.2. Tar in the Transformation of Sulfur-Containing Pollutants

Sulfur contents in SS are higher than 1 wt%, which is primarily constituted by S-containing biomolecular structures (e.g., amino acids with S-containing side chains), inorganic sulfides, and insoluble sulfates [90]. H2S and various S-containing compounds (e.g., thiols, organic sulfides, and thiophene-S) are identified as the major sulfur species in the gas and tar phase during SS pyrolysis [91]. The relationship between the behavior of S-containing compounds in tar and H2S formation has been extensively studied to search for the transformation pathway. Xu et al. [92] studied the migration mechanism of sulfur elements during SS pyrolysis and found that the content of H2S gradually increased in a range of 400 to 600 °C, which was mainly formed from methionine at low temperature. A large amount of sulfur-containing heterocyclic compounds was found in the tar, which were generated from sulfur-containing amino acids. With an increase in pyrolysis temperature, the heterocyclic compounds were further decomposed to produce H2S. Meanwhile, the aliphatic sulfur and aromatic sulfur compounds were identified as the two main organic sulfur sources for the release of sulfur-containing gases [93], while the presence of sulfonic acid and thiophene in tar had no significant effect on the release of sulfur-containing gases. Huang et al. [90] studied the migration of S during SS pyrolysis (250–750 °C) and found that aliphatic-S and sulfonates degraded preferentially at low temperatures (below 350 °C), contributing to the volatilization of S from the solid phase. The sulfates were thermochemically reduced and aromatized above 450 °C, contributing to the formation of metal sulfides (up to 27%) and thiophene (up to 70%).
The sulfur distribution and evolution of sulfur-containing compounds in char, tar, and gas fractions during the CP (conventional pyrolysis) and MP (microwave pyrolysis) process have been investigated in detail previously. Three similar H2S migration pathways were found during microwave pyrolysis and conventional pyrolysis. However, the secondary decomposition of thiophene-S compounds only occurs during CP above 700 °C. Comparing the contribution of MP and CP to H2S, the significant increase in H2S production of CP was mainly due to the decomposition of aromatic-S (10.4% increase) and thiophen-S compounds (11.3% increase). A further study on the mechanism of inhibiting H2S formation by microwave pyrolysis confirmed that the special heating characteristics and relatively short residence time of microwave pyrolysis promoted the retention of H2S on CaO and inhibited the secondary cracking of thiophen-S compounds at high temperature. The S migration in the char, tar, and gas products from the microwave pyrolysis and conventional pyrolysis is shown in Figure 5 [91].

3.3. Tar in the Transformation of Chlorine-Containing Pollutants

The conversion characteristics of chlorine-containing contaminants in tar are usually neglected in SS pyrolysis. Some oily sludges (OSs) contain high levels of chlorine-containing compounds, with the chlorine originating mainly from the crude oil itself and chemicals added during the extraction and refining process [94,95]. The main source of chlorine in raw SS includes inorganic chlorides such as sodium chloride (NaCl) and calcium chloride (CaCl2) and organochlorine compounds such as chlorobenzene [96]. The addition of NaCl and KCl can also inhibit the release of CH3Cl [97]. The Cl in OS can be distributed 78.59–73.14 wt% into the solid residues after pyrolysis, and increasing the pyrolysis temperature contributed to the migration of Cl from the solid phase to the tar and gas phase [98,99]. Lin et al. [100] also found that NaCl can retain 99% of total Cl in char, while polyvinyl chloride (PVC) releases about 33% of Cl into the gas, and multiple organic chlorine-containing compounds were detected in pyrolysis tar, mainly CH2Cl2 and C6H4Cl2. Some studies have summarized the migration for Cl release during the pyrolysis of biomass, as shown in Figure 6 [101], and found that the release of Cl was greatly influenced by the inorganic substances in the biomass, especially the alkali metal or alkaline earth metal (such as K, Ca, and Mg) compounds. Similar to S, Cl release in pyrolysis also comes from inorganic and organic Cl species available in biomass. Tar-associated Cl or HCl released at low temperatures can be recaptured by biochar through secondary reactions with available metals.
During higher-temperatures phases, more Cl elements are generated by OS pyrolysis, and the possibility of dioxin formation will further increase. During the pyrolytic conversion of SS with a high chlorine content, Cl- is easily converted to acid chloride or alkali chloride in the gas phase via evaporation. It is generally believed that Cl is most commonly coupled with potassium and sodium to form alkali chlorides, which exhibit considerable volatility through the evaporation into the gas phase above 600 °C, and this is the primary route for chlorine release [102].
It is noted that few studies focused on the release and transformation of chlorine-containing pollutants during the pyrolysis of SS, including OS [103]. The evolution of Cl covers the whole process of sludge pyrolysis, where the rapid release of HCl was in the 200 °C to 600 °C stage and the slow evaporation of KCl was in the >600 °C stage. The release of CH3Cl was below 500 °C, which could be effectively suppressed by increasing the heating rate from 10 °C·min−1 to 500 °C·min−1 [104].

3.4. Tar in the Transformation of Heavy Metal Pollutants

The distribution and transformation of heavy metals (HMs) during SS pyrolysis are quite important, as they will affect the environmental adaptability of pyrolysis products and recycling. Zn, Cu, Ni, Pb, Cr, Cd, As, Mn, and Hg are the most reported metals during SS pyrolysis [105], among which Cu and Zn are the main HMs in SS due to their extensive uses such as in water pipes and zinc-plating materials. Since the normal pyrolysis temperature of SS is lower than the boiling point of most HMs, this contributes to 80% HMs remaining in the char after SS pyrolysis [106].
To better explain the migration process in tar, the metals can be divided into four parts: exchangeable and acid-soluble part (F1), reducible part (F2), oxidizable part (F3), and residual part (F4) [107]. Cu, Zn, Pb, Cr, Mn, and Ni are detected mostly in F1 and F2 fractions in the pyrolysis chars ranging from 400 °C to 600 °C [108]. Nevertheless, biochar exhibits lower leaching properties of HMs than that of incineration residues or hydro char from hydrothermal treatment [29,109,110]. The immobilization of HMs in char is called HM immobilization, in which HMs in SS are transformed from weak binding forms (F1 and F2) to more stable forms (F3 and F4) during pyrolysis [108]. The improvement in pyrolysis conditions can make the form of heavy metals more stable, thus greatly reducing the ecological risk of SS biochar to the environment.
Kistler et al. [111] found that Cd volatilizes significantly at 600 °C (98% when the temperature reaches 750 °C) during SS pyrolysis. This is because HMs with lower boiling points become metallic vapor and escape at higher pyrolysis temperatures. When the pyrolysis temperature is higher than 600 °C, the rank of thermal volatilities of HMs is Cu < Cr < Ni < Mn < Pb < As < Zn < Cd ≈ Hg [112]. The migration patterns of HMs are mainly determined by their boiling points and corresponding chemical forms, so HMs with lower relative boiling points (such as Pb, Zn, and Cd) are more likely to be removed from the pyrolysis process than metals with higher boiling points (such as Ni, Cr, and Cu) [113]. Therefore, the pyrolysis process is considered to be an effective method for the treatment of SS-containing HMs at relatively low temperatures.
It is worth noting that previous research on the migration of HMs in SS pyrolysis mainly focuses on the char fraction, but the distribution of HMs in tar during pyrolysis has received little attention in previous studies. Yuan et al. [114] conducted a risk assessment of HMs in SS pyrolysis tar and found that at high pyrolysis temperatures (>850 °C), Zn and Cd in tar have high risks, while at low pyrolysis temperatures, Cd, Zn, and Ni are the main pollutants. In addition, the mechanism of HM migration in IS pyrolysis is shown in Figure 7. Therefore, in the future, to evaluate the safety of SS pyrolysis, the study of heavy metals in the tar and gas phases will become a meaningful research work.

4. Contaminant Mitigation Strategy in SS Pyrolysis

From the above section, it can be concluded that tar plays an important role in the migration and transformation of N, S, Cl, and HM-related secondary pollutants during SS pyrolysis. On this basis, it is necessary to search for effective measures to prevent the generation and discharge of these pollutants.
The pretreatment process prior to SS pyrolysis has been found to have a significant impact on the control of pollutants, in particular the reduction of nitrogen, sulfur, and chlorine pollutants. The most reported strategies include torrefaction pretreatment, hydrothermal pretreatment (HTP), alkali treatment, acid treatment, oxidant treatment, biological treatment, co-pyrolysis, etc. [116,117]. In the following section, the control of pollutant elements in terms of N/S/Cl as well as HMs and tar during treatment processes will be discussed.

4.1. Nitrogen, Sulfur, and Chlorine Contaminants’ Control Strategy in SS Pyrolysis

In recent years, studies have shown that torrefaction can enhance the grindability, energy density, and calorific value of SS. It is also suggested that the roasting process has the advantage of the devolatilization, polycondensation, and carbonization of biodegradable organic matter in SS into non-biodegradable substances with stable aromatic and heterocyclic structures, where about 30% of N and 50% of sulfur in SS can be removed via torrefaction pretreatment [18]. This results in a significant reduction in the emissions of NOX and SOX precursors, such as NH3, HCNO, H2S, COS, CS2 methyl mercaptan, pyrrole, and indole [18]. However, the majority of the existing literature primarily focuses on the effect of the drying degree on the physicochemical properties of SS [118,119]. The structural changes in carbonized sewage sludge and the resulting pyrolysis behavior, especially the formation of NOX and SOX precursors and corresponding control strategy of pyrolysis pollutants, have not been discussed in depth.
It is found that SS pretreatment through a combination of initial HPT and high-temperature pyrolysis influences the formation pathways related to NOX precursors in different pyrolysis stages, thereby significantly reducing their total yield (66-95%), and the effect on NH3–N is greater than that on HCN–N. Specifically, denitrification during hydrothermal pretreatment is one reason for weakening the source of NOX precursors in the primary pyrolysis stage, while nitrogen function stabilization during hydrothermal pretreatment is another reason for suppressing the formation of NOX precursors in the secondary reaction stage. Zhao et al. [120] found that HTP can efficiently convert organic Cl to inorganic Cl, thus reducing the possibility of clogging, corrosion, and dioxin formation during the combustion of high-Cl-content biowaste. However, at present, hydrothermal pretreatment coupled with pyrolysis mainly focuses on the control of N pollution, and the control of pollutants like S and Cl needs further in-depth research to evaluate its application in sludge pyrolysis.
Alkali treatment primarily adjusts the acid–base balance of SS by adding alkaline substances, such as NaOH or KOH, which can promote the degradation and oxidation of organic matter, thereby increasing the efficiency of pyrolysis reactions. At lower temperatures (i.e., 250 °C), alkali can facilitate the conversion of unstable organic aliphatic and aromatic sulfurs to more stable sulfoxides and sulfonic acids. The alkali can also immobilize inorganic sulfides and sulfates in the char. Moreover, the use of strong alkali exhibits a more pronounced reduction effect on sulfur-containing gases, possibly due to the generation of more ·OH through organic sulfur conversion. In addition, alkali treatment also has a certain influence on the pyrolysis of OS. Chen et al. [121] found that the washing treatment with surfactants and alkali can remove a significant proportion of organic components from the sludge, thereby reducing the generation of pollutants.
Oxidation treatment involves increasing the oxygen concentration by adding oxidants, such as K2FeO4 or KMnO4, to the sludge. This accelerates the oxidation reaction of organic matter and promotes their decomposition and degradation. Simultaneously, the oxidant helps to remove certain organic pollutants and odorous substances in the sludge. K2FeO4 as a sludge conditioner has been shown to reduce the activation energy required for SS pyrolysis, making SS more susceptible to thermal decomposition, resulting in the production of volatiles. Specifically, K2FeO4 facilitates the release of C/H/O gases while suppressing the release of N/S/Cl noxious gases from the SS [122]. In addition, combined oxidation processes, such as Fenton peroxidation and CaO regulation, have been proposed to control the release of pollutants [123]. This combined regulation inhibits the conversion of amine–N/pyridine–N, pyrrole–N, and nitrile–N to HCN, thereby increasing their yields in char. The formation of the Ca2Fe2O5 complex facilitates the decomposition of these intermediates, thereby enhancing the conversion of sludge–N and NOX precursors (such as tar–N, NH3, and HCN) to N2, thereby effectively controlling pollutant emissions. The content of calcium acetate and sodium acetate in nitrogenous gas emissions is significantly reduced due to the production of acetone when acetate is heated, and acetone readily reacts with NH3 to form binary clusters or amines. The above studies suggest that the addition of acetate is an important strategy to mitigate NH3 emissions during SS pyrolysis.
Furthermore, co-pyrolysis is considered as a sustainable technology to optimize the pyrolysis process and improve the quality and performance of pyrolysis products. With the addition of Ca/Fe/Si/Al substances, the pyrolysis behavior of SS and the thermal conversion of nitrogen-containing substances are significantly affected. CaO facilitates the transfer of nitrogen into the gas/tar phases in the form of NH3 and heterocycle–N at relatively lower temperatures (350–450 °C). In contrast, polyferric salts (PFA) inhibit the devolatilization of mono–heterocyclic–N and enhance the thermal stability of heterocyclic–N compounds, resulting in an increase in the nitrogen content in the char while reducing the release of NH3 and HCN. However, the effect of silica-aluminates (SIA) on the pyrolysis behavior of PR was less significant compared to that of CaO and PFA. The acid centers on the SIA attacking the C-C or C-O bonds in the char matrix, promoting the transfer of aromatics and phenolics to the tar phase, which reduced the stability of the carbon–nitrogen bond, further leading to a slight increase in the release of nitrogen-containing gases and volatiles [124], while the residual iron compounds in ferrous SS stabilize char–N in a more stable form of pyridine–N and pyrrole–N (e.g., pyrrole–N appears at 900 °C). This stabilization process inhibits the secondary cracking of amine–N compounds in tar–N [125].
CaO is considered as an additive with high sulfur retention capacity for sulfur-containing pollutants. At temperatures below 350 °C, the addition of CaO can inhibit the decomposition of aliphatic sulfur-containing compounds and promote the formation of aromatized aliphatic sulfur-containing compounds, thereby controlling the emission of harmful S-containing gases. Li et al. [47] found that with an increase in the OS pyrolysis temperature, solid minerals, such as CaO, MgO, Fe2O3, Al2O3, etc., tend to inhibit the N, S, and Cl pollutant emissions at the dehydration and devolatilization stages (<358 °C). However, in the thermal cracking and secondary reaction stages (>358 °C), these minerals facilitate the release of pollutants. The co-pyrolysis of municipal domestic waste and paper SS adding additive (MgO) also confirmed that the addition of MgO resulted in a decrease in the mass of tar and a decrease in pollutant emissions (CO, SO2, NO, and HCl). These results demonstrate the remarkable role of metal oxides and alkaline minerals in the control of SS pollutant precursors, offering meaningful insight for the mitigation of pollutants during energy utilization.

4.2. Heavy Metals Control Strategy in SS Pyrolysis

As described in the previous section, some of the strategies for N-, S-, and Cl-containing pollutant control can also contribute to heavy metal removal in the SS treatment process. Hydrothermal pretreatment (HTP) of SS has been shown to transform SS into a homogeneous, carbon-rich solid product (hydro char) with a low alkali metal content and low contaminant content [120]. During the pyrolysis of dead leaves of fan palm (a plant species common in Southern China) with HTP, it is found that HTP can effectively remove most alkaline earth metals/alkali metals and destroy the chemical structure of fan palm significantly, increasing the hydrocarbon content of pyrolysis tar [126].
Biological pretreatment is proven as an effective way to mitigate the HM transformation during SS pyrolysis. Previous studies have found that adding Ochrobactrum in pretreatment can inhibit the volatilization of Cr and Cu during SS pyrolysis, especially in the case of high-concentration Cu [127]. This study is of great significance for the subsequent acceleration of HM fixation in SS, and its mechanism still needs to be further investigated.
Moreover, more and more attention has been paid to the in situ control of contaminants during the pyrolysis of SS in recent years. People tried adding organic and inorganic chlorination reagents (PVC, NaCl, MgCl2, CaCl2) to control HMs in situ during SS pyrolysis and found that the removal of Zn, Mn, Cu, and Pb can efficiently reach above 86%. However, it should be noted that the operating costs and levels of secondary chlorine contaminants such as Cl2 and HCl will increase significantly to corrode equipment and pollute the environment [128]. The addition of metal-loaded PVC microplastics to SS had a positive effect on the immobilization of HMs during the pyrolysis process, which can reduce the bioavailable yields of Cd, Cr, Ni, and Zn in biochar [129]. In addition, the phosphorus content of biomass can also greatly alter the behavior of HMs. Similar findings have been reported in subsequent studies. It is confirmed that phosphorus can be combined with HMs (Cu, Zn, Ni, etc.). Xiong et al. [130] verified the effect of phosphorus and revealed the relationship between orthophosphate content and HM migration during pyrolysis. It may be due to the degradation of organic groups during the co-pyrolysis process, and organophosphates are transformed into orthophosphates and inorganic phosphates by precipitation or adsorption of HMs. Furthermore, the number of functional groups increased as the proportion of biomass increased. Among them, functional groups such as carboxyl, hydroxyl, and phenolic hydroxyl are easy to complex with HMs, affecting the migration of HMs, and the addition of biomass also indirectly reduces the concentration of HMs [48]. Studying the co-pyrolysis of different SS (electroplating SS and sewage SS), it has been found that HMs can combine with inorganic mineral components to form stable crystalline compounds (CuCl, Cu2NiSnS4, NiSi2 and ZnS). Meanwhile, it can also react with functional groups (Si-O-Si, -OH) on the surface of biochar and aromatic groups generated by the decomposition of organic matter through complexation reactions, where the combination with π electrons promotes the immobilization of HMs [131]. Therefore, the co-pyrolysis of different types of sludge also provides a new idea for HM immobilization during sludge treatment. Co-pyrolysis has broad potential for improving product quality and immobilizing HMs, as it may enable the use of additives to overcome the mismatch between SS properties and pyrolysis.

4.3. Tar Pollutants Control Strategy in SS Pyrolysis

The changes in tar constituents during SS pyrolysis are clearly related to the hydrothermal pretreatment. It is found that the ketone and acid content of tar decreases, while the levoglucosan content is much higher than that of the original tar without HTP, which will help to improve the thermal stability and calorific value of tar and extract levoglucosan from tar. Furthermore, Jiang et al. [132] found that the HTP can decompose oxygen-containing functional groups and remove some water-soluble inorganic substances in oil shale, thereby reducing the formation of gas and water during pyrolysis. The tar obtained by further pyrolysis has a higher H/C ratio, which is conducive to increasing the production of shale oil. However, the effect of HTP on the control of pollutants in sludge pyrolysis and the characterization of treated SS pyrolysis derivatives has barely been reported in the literature. There are still relatively few studies on the regulation mechanism of HTP and SS pyrolysis on the contaminant control strategy [133].
HTP also leads to an increase in the proportion of stable heterocyclic–N in char, which further controls nitrogen oxide emissions. Liu et al. [134] investigated the effect of HTP on SS and found that the properties of SS during HTP are improved, including better thermal stability, reduced nitrogen content, and enhanced aromaticity, which may affect the subsequent pyrolysis. After HTP, the composition of tar showed obvious changes. The contents of unwanted O/N-containing compounds, especially acids and amides, are significantly reduced, while the yields of aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons increased by 10% and 23%, respectively. Additionally, many studies have been devoted to improving the quality of tar and reducing pollutant emissions by combining HTP with the pyrolysis of various biomass or low-rank coals.
Chemical methods also play a very important role in controlling tar quality. Acid treatment can promote the hydrolysis and decomposition of organic matter and reduce the catalytic activity of inorganic compounds by either washing out the metals or passivating metals from interacting with organic components [135,136], further affecting the contaminant distribution of the pyrolysis process. It is reported that acid pretreatment of SS in pyrolysis can improve the quality of tar and enhance the adsorption performance of biochar [137,138]. Other studies have found that a higher acid concentration and lower treatment temperature can achieve a better deashing effect [139]. However, the internal effects of acid pretreatment on catalytic pyrolysis of SS are limited, and the associated corrosion problem as well as the need for additional chemicals for neutralization are also special challenges for strong acid desalination.
From the above sections, the strategies for controlling different contaminants in SS pyrolysis are summarized, which indicates that the research focus of SS pyrolysis technology in recent years has begun to evolve towards co-pyrolysis with other biomass, which can make the SS pyrolysis process more efficient, environmentally friendly, and economical. It can be seen that the co-pyrolysis technology has great potential in the pyrolysis and immobilization of HMs in SS, but there are few studies focusing on the control of other pollutants. Due to the complexity and variability of SS itself and the unclear pyrolysis mechanism, its industrial application still has a long way to go. However, previous research on sludge pyrolysis pretreatment were not investigated systematically, and there is no uniform standard for the pretreatment process. Therefore, in future research on the pretreatment process of SS pyrolysis, the development of a new pretreatment process and method and the study of its pollutant control mechanism will become the focus.
Based on the above analysis, future research in the field of tar pollutant mitigation should include the following aspects: (1) in-depth study of the impact of HPT on the release of S, Cl, and even HMs during the subsequent pyrolysis of SS; (2) in-depth understanding of the pyrolysis mechanism of co-pyrolysis of SS and various additives, clearly study the reasons for their potential synergy and pollutant control mechanism, and further improve the efficiency of co-pyrolysis; (3) investigation of co-pyrolysis processes of SS and more types of biomass substances and explore the synergistic mechanism of SS co-pyrolysis.

5. Conclusions and Future Perspectives

This study addresses the critical issues of tar generation and transformation during SS pyrolysis, with a particular focus on the formation and mitigation of secondary pollutants. The findings of this study are aimed at developing effective strategies to improve the pyrolysis tar quality and to minimize the risk of secondary pollution during pyrolysis.
Sewage sludge is increasingly considered as a recoverable carbon-rich resource that can be used as a raw material for the production of various chemicals, biofuels, and solid biochar from a renewable carbon supply through pyrolysis. However, the complexity of sludge composition and the generation of hazardous secondary contaminants pose significant challenges such as the low quality of the pyrolysis product. Therefore, to maximize the benefits of SS pyrolysis, it is crucial to enhance the pyrolysis efficiency, conversion selectivity, and control of pyrolysis pollutants. Understanding the distribution, transformation, and release of various constituents and pollutants during SS pyrolysis is critical. Despite numerous studies, gaps remain in transforming biomass and compounds into target products efficiently and selectively and in controlling and regulating the pyrolysis process.
Future research should focus on the development of in situ analytical or online detection techniques, such as TG-FTIR-MS, Py-GC-MS coupling techniques, and other advanced techniques such as solid-state 13C NMR spectroscopy and synchrotron-based X-ray adsorption spectroscopy, which could provide a practical way to better understand the mechanism and behavior of complicated sludge pyrolysis products. Additionally, future research should also focus on the novel, efficient, and sustainable pyrolysis catalysts, optimization of pyrolysis process parameters, etc., to convert C, N, H, O, and S elements in sludge into target products (such as tar) and avoid unnecessary by-products (such as N-, S-, Cl-containing gases and other organic pollutants). The catalyst design should focus on specific reaction mechanisms and the stability of catalyst under different pyrolysis conditions. Multifunctional pyrolysis catalysts with tunable pore sizes and structures can improve various catalytic processes, such as hydrodeoxygenation, hydrogenation, hydrogen transfer, steam reforming, and water gas conversion reactions. Reducing tar formation and improving tar quality through effective catalyst design will further improve the economic viability of pyrolysis products.
Finally, the large-scale production and economic competitiveness of pyrolysis tar compared to fossil fuels remain a challenge [140]. Future research should aim to lower production costs, improve products quality, and reduce secondary pollution to make it competitive with petroleum fuels. Fluidized bed reactors, known for their efficiency and economic viability, should be considered for large-scale sludge pyrolysis.

Author Contributions

Writing original draft, Q.L. and Y.L. (Yongxiao Liu); Writing—review and editing, J.Z. and W.Z.; Data preparation and analysis, Q.L., Y.L. (Yongxiao Liu), Y.J., and P.L.; Investigation, P.L. and Y.L. (Yanbo Liu); Formal analysis, Y.L. (Yanbo Liu); Methodology, Q.L.; Revised the manuscript, Y.J. and Y.T.; Funding acquisition, J.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China (2023YFC 3902800), National Natural Science Foundation of China (52170028), Heilongjiang Provincial S&T Program (HST2023GF003) and the State Key Laboratory of Urban Water Resource and Environment, HIT (2023DX11).

Acknowledgments

We are deeply indebted to the National Key R&D Program of China (2023YFC3207401), National Natural Science Foundation of China (52170028), Heilongjiang Provincial S&T Program (HST2023GF003) and the State Key Laboratory of Urban Water Resource and Environment, HIT (2023DX11) for their generous funding that made this research possible. The authors also appreciate Heilongjiang Touyan Innovation Team Program for their invaluable technical assistance and insightful discussions throughout the project. We also extend our appreciation to the editors and anonymous reviewers whose constructive feedback significantly contributed to improvements in this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Zhao, X.; Hu, Y.; Xia, N.; Li, M.C.; Chen, D.S.; Xu, Y.Y. Urban regeneration and SDGs assessment based on multi-source data: Practical experience from Shenzhen, China. Ecol. Indic. 2024, 165, 112138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lu, L.; Guest, J.S.; Peters, C.A.; Zhu, X.P.; Rau, G.H.; Ren, Z.J. Wastewater treatment for carbon capture and utilization. Nat. Sustain. 2018, 1, 750–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Li, H.H.; Cheng, X.H.; Ding, H.; Yang, Y.; Li, D.; Wang, J.Q.; Han, J.J. Cleaner production and carbon reduction target: Analysis of sewage treatment plants in Nort-Central China. Energy Source Part A 2022, 44, 2770–2781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Gao, N.; Quan, C.; Liu, B.; Li, Z.; Wu, C.; Li, A. Continuous Pyrolysis of Sewage Sludge in a Screw-Feeding Reactor: Products Characterization and Ecological Risk Assessment of Heavy Metals. Energy Fuels 2017, 31, 5063–5072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Raheem, A.; Sikarwar, V.S.; He, J.; Dastyar, W.; Dionysiou, D.D.; Wang, W.; Zhao, M. Opportunities and challenges in sustainable treatment and resource reuse of sewage sludge: A review. Chem. Eng. J. 2018, 337, 616–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yang, J.; Song, J.; Liang, S.; Guan, R.; Shi, Y.; Yu, W.; Zhu, S.; Fan, W.; Hou, H.; Hu, J.; et al. Synergistic effect of water content and composite conditioner of Fenton’s reagent combined with red mud on the enhanced hydrogen production from sludge pyrolysis. Water Res. 2017, 123, 378–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Li, X.; Chen, L.; Mei, Q.; Dong, B.; Dai, X.; Ding, G.; Zeng, E.Y. Microplastics in sewage sludge from the wastewater treatment plants in China. Water Res. 2018, 142, 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Wei, Y.; Van Houten, R.T.; Borger, A.R.; Eikelboom, D.H.; Fan, Y. Minimization of excess sludge production for biological wastewater treatment. Water Res. 2003, 37, 4453–4467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Joo, S.H.; Dello Monaco, F.; Antmann, E.; Chorath, P. Sustainable approaches for minimizing biosolids production and maximizing reuse options in sludge management: A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 158, 133–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Zhou, G.; Gu, Y.; Yuan, H.; Gong, Y.; Wu, Y. Selecting sustainable technologies for disposal of municipal sewage sludge using a multi-criterion decision-making method: A case study from China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 161, 104881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Karayildirim, T.; Yanik, J.; Yuksel, M.; Bockhorn, H. Characterisation of products from pyrolysis of waste sludges. Fuel 2006, 85, 1498–1508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Yuan, H.; Lu, T.; Zhao, D.; Huang, H.; Noriyuki, K.; Chen, Y. Influence of temperature on product distribution and biochar properties by municipal sludge pyrolysis. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2013, 15, 357–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Cheng, L.; Wang, L.; Geng, Y.; Wang, N.; Mao, Y.; Cai, Y. Occurrence, speciation and fate of mercury in the sewage sludge of China. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 186, 109787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Karaca, C.; Sozen, S.; Orhon, D.; Okutan, H. High temperature pyrolysis of sewage sludge as a sustainable process for energy recovery. Waste Manag. 2018, 78, 217–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Horn, A.L.; Düring, R.-A.; Gäth, S. Comparison of decision support systems for an optimised application of compost and sewage sludge on agricultural land based on heavy metal accumulation in soil. Sci. Total Environ. 2003, 311, 35–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Hospido, A.; Carballa, M.; Moreira, M.; Omil, F.; Lema, J.M.; Feijoo, G. Environmental assessment of anaerobically digested sludge reuse in agriculture: Potential impacts of emerging micropollutants. Water Res. 2010, 44, 3225–3233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Djandja, O.S.; Yin, L.-X.; Wang, Z.-C.; Duan, P.-G. From wastewater treatment to resources recovery through hydrothermal treatments of municipal sewage sludge: A critical review. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2021, 151, 101–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zheng, A.; Li, L.; Tippayawong, N.; Huang, Z.; Zhao, K.; Wei, G.; Zhao, Z.; Li, H. Reducing emission of NOx and SOx precursors while enhancing char production from pyrolysis of sewage sludge by torrefaction pretreatment. Energy 2020, 192, 116620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Jang, C.; Abebe, T.N. Utilizing Wheel Washing Machine Sludge as a Cement Substitute in Repair Mortar: An Experimental Investigation into Material Characteristics. Materials 2024, 17, 2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Jin, L.; Zhang, G.; Tian, H. Current state of sewage treatment in China. Water Res. 2014, 66, 85–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fytili, D.; Zabaniotou, A. Utilization of sewage sludge in EU application of old and new methods—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2008, 12, 116–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, X.; Gao, M.; Zhang, C.; Zang, X.; Wu, L. Feasibility of sludge deep dewaterability improvement for incineration disposal by combined conditioning of freeze-thaw and sawdust. Environ. Res. 2024, 252, 118987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Chanaka Udayanga, W.D.; Veksha, A.; Giannis, A.; Lisak, G.; Chang, V.W.C.; Lim, T.-T. Fate and distribution of heavy metals during thermal processing of sewage sludge. Fuel 2018, 226, 721–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Alvarez, J.; Lopez, G.; Amutio, M.; Artetxe, M.; Barbarias, I.; Arregi, A.; Bilbao, J.; Olazar, M. Characterization of the bio-oil obtained by fast pyrolysis of sewage sludge in a conical spouted bed reactor. Fuel Process. Technol. 2016, 149, 169–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Qian, Y.; Zhang, J.; Wang, J. Pressurized pyrolysis of rice husk in an inert gas sweeping fixed-bed reactor with a focus on bio-oil deoxygenation. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 174, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Raczkiewicz, M.; Ostolska, I.; Mašek, O.; Oleszczuk, P. Effect of the pyrolysis conditions and type of feedstock on nanobiochars obtained as a result of ball milling. J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 458, 142456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Fonts, I.; Azuara, M.; Gea, G.; Murillo, M.B. Study of the pyrolysis liquids obtained from different sewage sludge. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2009, 85, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zaimes, G.G.; Soratana, K.; Harden, C.L.; Landis, A.E.; Khanna, V. Biofuels via Fast Pyrolysis of Perennial Grasses: A Life Cycle Evaluation of Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 10007–10018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Manara, P.; Zabaniotou, A. Towards sewage sludge based biofuels via thermochemical conversion—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 2566–2582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Fonts, I.; Kuoppala, E.; Oasmaa, A. Physicochemical Properties of Product Liquid from Pyrolysis of Sewage Sludge. Energy Fuels 2009, 23, 4121–4128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Luo, J.; Ma, R.; Lin, J.; Sun, S.; Gong, G.; Sun, J.; Chen, Y.; Ma, N. Review of microwave pyrolysis of sludge to produce high quality biogas: Multi-perspectives process optimization and critical issues proposal. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2023, 173, 113107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Li, M.; Xiao, B.; Wang, X.; Liu, J. Consequences of sludge composition on combustion performance derived from thermogravimetry analysis. Waste Manag. 2015, 35, 141–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Arazo, R.O.; Genuino, D.A.D.; de Luna, M.D.G.; Capareda, S.C. Bio-oil production from dry sewage sludge by fast pyrolysis in an electrically-heated fluidized bed reactor. Sustain. Environ. Res. 2017, 27, 7–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Liu, Z.; McNamara, P.; Zitomer, D. Autocatalytic Pyrolysis of Wastewater Biosolids for Product Upgrading. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 9808–9816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Liu, Y.; Ran, C.; Siddiqui, A.R.; Chtaeva, P.; Siyal, A.A.; Song, Y.; Dai, J.; Deng, Z.; Fu, J.; Ao, W.; et al. Pyrolysis of sewage sludge in a benchtop fluidized bed reactor: Characteristics of condensates and non-condensable gases. Renew. Energy 2020, 160, 707–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Huang, F.; Yu, Y.; Huang, H. Temperature influence and distribution of bio-oil from pyrolysis of granular sewage sludge. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2018, 130, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Arazo, R.O.; Capareda, S.C.; Ofrasio, B.I.G.; Ido, A.L.; Chen, W.-H.; de Luna, M.D.G. Low-temperature catalytic conversion of alkaline sewage sludge bio-oil to biodiesel: Product characteristics and reaction mechanisms. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021, 21, 101266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Fonts, I.; Gea, G.; Azuara, M.; Ábrego, J.; Arauzo, J. Sewage sludge pyrolysis for liquid production: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 2781–2805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Trinh, T.N.; Jensen, P.A.; Dam-Johansen, K.; Knudsen, N.O.; Sørensen, H.R. Influence of the Pyrolysis Temperature on Sewage Sludge Product Distribution, Bio-Oil, and Char Properties. Energy Fuels 2013, 27, 1419–1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Jayanarasimhan, A.; Pathak, R.M.; Shivapuji, A.M.; Rao, L. Tar Formation in Gasification Systems: A Holistic Review of Remediation Approaches and Removal Methods. ACS Omega 2024, 9, 2060–2079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Liu, Y.; Chen, T.; Gao, B.; Meng, R.; Zhou, P.; Chen, G.; Zhan, Y.; Lu, W.; Wang, H. Comparison between hydrogen-rich biogas production from conventional pyrolysis and microwave pyrolysis of sewage sludge: Is microwave pyrolysis always better in the whole temperature range? Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2021, 46, 23322–23333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mphahlele, K.; Matjie, R.H.; Osifo, P.O. Thermodynamics, kinetics and thermal decomposition characteristics of sewage sludge during slow pyrolysis. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 284, 112006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Atienza-Martínez, M.; Fonts, I.; Lázaro, L.; Ceamanos, J.; Gea, G. Fast pyrolysis of torrefied sewage sludge in a fluidized bed reactor. Chem. Eng. J. 2015, 259, 467–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wei, F.; Cao, J.-P.; Zhao, X.-Y.; Ren, J.; Gu, B.; Wei, X.-Y. Formation of aromatics and removal of nitrogen in catalytic fast pyrolysis of sewage sludge: A study of sewage sludge and model amino acids. Fuel 2018, 218, 148–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Alvarez, J.; Amutio, M.; Lopez, G.; Barbarias, I.; Bilbao, J.; Olazar, M. Sewage sludge valorization by flash pyrolysis in a conical spouted bed reactor. Chem. Eng. J. 2015, 273, 173–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Fang, S.; Yu, Z.; Ma, X.; Lin, Y.; Chen, L.; Liao, Y. Analysis of catalytic pyrolysis of municipal solid waste and paper sludge using TG-FTIR, Py-GC/MS and DAEM (distributed activation energy model). Energy 2018, 143, 517–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Li, J.; Zheng, F.; Li, Q.; Farooq, M.Z.; Lin, F.; Yuan, D.; Yan, B.; Song, Y.; Chen, G. Effects of inherent minerals on oily sludge pyrolysis: Kinetics, products, and secondary pollutants. Chem. Eng. J. 2022, 431, 133218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Dong, Q.; Zhang, S.; Wu, B.; Pi, M.; Xiong, Y.; Zhang, H. Co-pyrolysis of Sewage Sludge and Rice Straw: Thermal Behavior and Char Characteristic Evaluations. Energy Fuels 2019, 34, 607–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Gao, N.; Kamran, K.; Quan, C.; Williams, P.T. Thermochemical conversion of sewage sludge: A critical review. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2020, 79, 100843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wang, B.; Liu, Y.; Guan, Y.; Feng, Y. Characteristic of the production of hydrogen-rich combustible gas by pyrolysis of high-ash sewage sludge. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 334, 130224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Naqvi, S.R.; Tariq, R.; Shahbaz, M.; Naqvi, M.; Aslam, M.; Khan, Z.; Mackey, H.; McKay, G.; Al-Ansari, T. Recent developments on sewage sludge pyrolysis and its kinetics: Resources recovery, thermogravimetric platforms, and innovative prospects. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2021, 150, 107325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zaker, A.; Chen, Z.; Wang, X.; Zhang, Q. Microwave-assisted pyrolysis of sewage sludge: A review. Fuel Process. Technol. 2019, 187, 84–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bohlmann, J.T.; Lorth, C.M.; Drews, A.; Buchholz, R. Microwave High-Pressure Thermochemical Conversion of Sewage Sludge as an Alternative to Incineration. Chem. Eng. Technol. 1999, 22, 404–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Li, S.; Li, C.; Shao, Z. Microwave pyrolysis of sludge: A review. Sustain. Environ. Res. 2022, 32, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zhang, Y.; Chen, P.; Liu, S.; Peng, P.; Min, M.; Cheng, Y.; Anderson, E.; Zhou, N.; Fan, L.; Liu, C.; et al. Effects of feedstock characteristics on microwave-assisted pyrolysis—A review. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 230, 143–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Nizamuddin, S.; Baloch, H.A.; Siddiqui, M.T.H.; Mubarak, N.M.; Tunio, M.M.; Bhutto, A.W.; Jatoi, A.S.; Griffin, G.J.; Srinivasan, M.P. An overview of microwave hydrothermal carbonization and microwave pyrolysis of biomass. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2018, 17, 813–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Uddin, M.N.; Daud, W.M.A.W.; Abbas, H.F. Effects of pyrolysis parameters on hydrogen formations from biomass: A review. RSC Adv. 2014, 4, 10467–10490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ren, L.; Wang, F.; Cheng, F.; Yang, F.; Zhang, K. Mechanisms of gas generation from conventional and microwave pyrolysis of coal slime. Chem. Eng. J. 2023, 452, 139388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Su, G.; Ong, H.C.; Cheah, M.Y.; Chen, W.-H.; Lam, S.S.; Huang, Y. Microwave-assisted pyrolysis technology for bioenergy recovery: Mechanism, performance, and prospect. Fuel 2022, 326, 124983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Chen, Y.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Li, A. Pressurized pyrolysis of sewage sludge: Process performance and products characterization. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2019, 139, 205–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Park, E.-S.; Kang, B.-S.; Kim, J.-S. Recovery of Oils with High Caloric Value and Low Contaminant Content by Pyrolysis of Digested and Dried Sewage Sludge Containing Polymer Flocculants. Energy Fuels 2008, 22, 1335–1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Domínguez, A.; Menéndez, J.A.; Inguanzo, M.; Pis, J.J. Investigations into the characteristics of oils produced from microwave pyrolysis of sewage sludge. Fuel Process. Technol. 2005, 86, 1007–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gil-Lalaguna, N.; Fonts, I.; Gea, G.; Murillo, M.B.; Lázaro, L. Reduction of Water Content in Sewage Sludge Pyrolysis Liquid by Selective Online Condensation of the Vapors. Energy Fuels 2010, 24, 6555–6564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Fonts, I.; Azuara, M.; Lázaro, L.; Gea, G.; Murillo, M.B. Gas Chromatography Study of Sewage Sludge Pyrolysis Liquids Obtained at Different Operational Conditions in a Fluidized Bed. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2009, 48, 5907–5915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Azuara, M.; Fonts, I.; Bimbela, F.; Murillo, M.B.; Gea, G. Catalytic post-treatment of the vapors from sewage sludge pyrolysis by means of γ-Al2O3: Effect on the liquid product properties. Fuel Process. Technol. 2015, 130, 252–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zhang, Z.; Sui, S.; Wang, F.; Wang, Q.; Pittman, C. Catalytic Conversion of Bio-Oil to Oxygen-Containing Fuels by Acid-Catalyzed Reaction with Olefins and Alcohols over Silica Sulfuric Acid. Energies 2013, 6, 4531–4550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Chen, H.; Namioka, T.; Yoshikawa, K. Characteristics of tar, NOx precursors and their absorption performance with different scrubbing solvents during the pyrolysis of sewage sludge. Appl. Energy 2011, 88, 5032–5041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Saber, M.; Nakhshiniev, B.; Yoshikawa, K. A review of production and upgrading of algal bio-oil. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 58, 918–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Neveux, N.; Yuen, A.K.; Jazrawi, C.; Magnusson, M.; Haynes, B.S.; Masters, A.F.; Montoya, A.; Paul, N.A.; Maschmeyer, T.; de Nys, R. Biocrude yield and productivity from the hydrothermal liquefaction of marine and freshwater green macroalgae. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 155, 334–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Wang, Y.; Dong, B.; Fan, Y.; Hu, Y.; Zhai, X.; Deng, C.; Xu, Y.; Shen, D.; Dai, X. Nitrogen transformation during pyrolysis of oilfield sludge with high polymer content. Chemosphere 2019, 219, 383–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zhang, J.; Tian, Y.; Yin, L.; Zuo, W.; Gong, Z.; Zhang, J. Investigation on the removal of H2S from microwave pyrolysis of sewage sludge by an integrated two-stage system. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 19920–19926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Gao, N.; Li, J.; Quan, C.; Tan, H. Product property and environmental risk assessment of heavy metals during pyrolysis of oily sludge with fly ash additive. Fuel 2020, 266, 117090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Zhang, X.; Tang, J.Y.; Chen, J. Behavior of sulfur during pyrolysis of waste tires: A critical review. J. Energy Inst. 2022, 102, 302–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Gao, P.P.; Hu, Z.C.; Sheng, Y.; Pan, W.T.; Tang, L.F.; Chen, Y.H.; Chen, X.L.; Wang, F.C. Migration characteristics of chlorine during pyrolysis of municipal solid waste pellets. Waste Manag. 2023, 172, 208–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Fang, S.; Deng, Z.; Lin, Y.; Huang, Z.; Ding, L.; Deng, L.; Huang, H. Investigation of the nitrogen migration characteristics in sewage sludge during chemical looping gasification. Energy 2021, 216, 119247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Liu, H.; Luo, G.Q.; Hu, H.Y.; Zhang, Q.; Yang, J.K.; Yao, H. Emission characteristics of nitrogen- and sulfur-containing odorous compounds during different sewage sludge chemical conditioning processes. J. Hazard. Mater. 2012, 235–236, 298–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Kawashima, H.; Wu, Z.; Sugimoto, Y. Change of nitrogen functionality of 15N-enriched condensation products during pyrolysis. Fuel 2002, 81, 2307–2316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Liu, H.; Zhang, Q.; Hu, H.; Liu, P.; Hu, X.; Li, A.; Yao, H. Catalytic role of conditioner CaO in nitrogen transformation during sewage sludge pyrolysis. Proc. Combust. Inst. 2015, 35, 2759–2766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Yan, X.; Duan, C.; Sun, R.; Ji, X.; Zhang, Y.; Chu, H. Revealing the nitrogen migration mechanism during pyrolysis and steam gasification of biomass: A combined ReaxFF MD and DFT study. Fuel 2024, 369, 131739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Liu, X.; Shen, J.; Wang, Z.; Guo, Y.; Wang, S.; Chen, B.; Deng, S.; Zhang, H. Theoretical Revelation of HNCO Formation during Coal Pyrolysis: Mechanism, Formation Pathway and DFT Calculation. Combust. Sci. Technol. 2024, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Tian, Y.; Zhang, J.; Zuo, W.; Chen, L.; Cui, Y.; Tan, T. Nitrogen conversion in relation to NH3 and HCN during microwave pyrolysis of sewage sludge. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 3498–3505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Zhang, J.; Tian, Y.; Cui, Y.; Zuo, W.; Tan, T. Key intermediates in nitrogen transformation during microwave pyrolysis of sewage sludge: A protein model compound study. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 132, 57–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Liu, T.; Guo, Y.; Peng, N.; Lang, Q.; Xia, Y.; Gai, C.; Liu, Z. Nitrogen transformation among char, tar and gas during pyrolysis of sewage sludge and corresponding hydrochar. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2017, 126, 298–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Tian, F.-J.; Zhang, S.; Hayashi, J.-I.; Li, C.-Z. Formation of NOx precursors during the pyrolysis of coal and biomass. Part X: Effects of volatile–char interactions on the conversion of coal-N during the gasification of a Victorian brown coal in O2 and steam at 800 °C. Fuel 2010, 89, 1035–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Xie, Z.; Feng, J.; Zhao, W.; Xie, K.-C.; Pratt, K.C.; Li, C.-Z. Formation of NOx and SOx precursors during the pyrolysis of coal and biomass. Part IV. Pyrolysis of a set of Australian and Chinese coals. Fuel 2001, 80, 2131–2138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Leppälahti, J.; Koljonen, T. Nitrogen evolution from coal, peat and wood during gasification: Literature review. Fuel Process. Technol. 1995, 43, 1–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Tian, F.-J.; Li, B.-Q.; Chen, Y.; Li, C.-Z. Formation of NOx precursors during the pyrolysis of coal and biomass. Part V. Pyrolysis of a sewage sludge. Fuel 2002, 81, 2203–2208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Wei, L.-H.; Wen, L.-N.; Liu, M.-J.; Yang, T.-H. Interaction Characteristics of Mineral Matter and Nitrogen during Sewage Sludge Pyrolysis. Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 10505–10510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Wang, Z.; Wang, Z.; Sun, Z.; Ma, K.; Du, L.; Yuan, R. Evolution of S/N containing compounds in pyrolysis of highly oily petroleum sludge. Fuel 2022, 318, 123687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Huang, R.; Tang, Y.; Luo, L. Thermochemistry of sulfur during pyrolysis and hydrothermal carbonization of sewage sludges. Waste Manag. 2021, 121, 276–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Zhang, J.; Zuo, W.; Tian, Y.; Chen, L.; Yin, L.; Zhang, J. Sulfur Transformation during Microwave and Conventional Pyrolysis of Sewage Sludge. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 709–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Xu, L.; Cheng, J.-H.; Ma, X.-Q.; Shen, J.-Y.; Xu, Z.-X.; Duan, P.-G. Transformation of the Sulfur Element during Pyrolysis of Sewage Sludge at Low Temperatures. Energy Fuels 2020, 35, 501–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Liu, S.; Wei, M.; Qiao, Y.; Yang, Z.; Gui, B.; Yu, Y.; Xu, M. Release of organic sulfur as sulfur-containing gases during low temperature pyrolysis of sewage sludge. Proc. Combust. Inst. 2015, 35, 2767–2775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Ma, R.; Zhu, J.; Wu, B.; Li, X. Adsorptive removal of organic chloride from model jet fuel by Na-LSX zeolite: Kinetic, equilibrium and thermodynamic studies. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2016, 114, 321–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Wu, B.; Li, Y.; Li, X.; Zhu, J. Distribution and Identification of Chlorides in Distillates from YS Crude Oil. Energy Fuels 2015, 29, 1391–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Tsubouchi, N.; Saito, T.; Ohtaka, N.; Ohtsuka, Y. Evolution of Hydrogen Chloride and Change in the Chlorine Functionality during Pyrolysis of Argonne Premium Coal Samples. Energy Fuels 2012, 27, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Tang, S.; Tang, Y.; Zheng, C.; Zhang, Z. Alkali metal-driven release behaviors of volatiles during sewage sludge pyrolysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 203, 860–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Du, S.; Wang, X.; Shao, J.; Yang, H.; Xu, G.; Chen, H. Releasing behavior of chlorine and fluorine during agricultural waste pyrolysis. Energy 2014, 74, 295–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Li, J.; Lin, F.; Xiang, L.; Zheng, F.; Che, L.; Tian, W.; Guo, X.; Yan, B.; Song, Y.; Chen, G. Hazardous elements flow during pyrolysis of oily sludge. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 409, 124986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Lin, F.; Xiang, L.; Sun, B.; Li, J.; Yan, B.; He, X.; Liu, G.; Chen, G. Migration of chlorinated compounds on products quality and dioxins releasing during pyrolysis of oily sludge with high chlorine content. Fuel 2021, 306, 121744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Liu, W.J.; Li, W.W.; Jiang, H.; Yu, H.Q. Fates of Chemical Elements in Biomass during Its Pyrolysis. Chem. Rev. 2017, 117, 6367–6398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Turn, S.Q. Chemical Equilibrium Prediction of Potassium, Sodium, and Chlorine Concentrations in the Product Gas from Biomass Gasification. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2007, 46, 8928–8937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Chen, G.; Li, J.; Li, K.; Lin, F.; Tian, W.; Che, L.; Yan, B.; Ma, W.; Song, Y. Nitrogen, sulfur, chlorine containing pollutants releasing characteristics during pyrolysis and combustion of oily sludge. Fuel 2020, 273, 117772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Wang, Y.; Wu, H.; Sárossy, Z.; Dong, C.; Glarborg, P. Release and transformation of chlorine and potassium during pyrolysis of KCl doped biomass. Fuel 2017, 197, 422–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Liu, T.; Liu, Z.; Zheng, Q.; Lang, Q.; Xia, Y.; Peng, N.; Gai, C. Effect of hydrothermal carbonization on migration and environmental risk of heavy metals in sewage sludge during pyrolysis. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 247, 282–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Wang, X.; Chi, Q.; Liu, X.; Wang, Y. Influence of pyrolysis temperature on characteristics and environmental risk of heavy metals in pyrolyzed biochar made from hydrothermally treated sewage sludge. Chemosphere 2019, 216, 698–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Huang, H.J.; Yuan, X.Z. The migration and transformation behaviors of heavy metals during the hydrothermal treatment of sewage sludge. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 200, 991–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Jin, J.; Li, Y.; Zhang, J.; Wu, S.; Cao, Y.; Liang, P.; Zhang, J.; Wong, M.H.; Wang, M.; Shan, S.; et al. Influence of pyrolysis temperature on properties and environmental safety of heavy metals in biochars derived from municipal sewage sludge. J. Hazard. Mater. 2016, 320, 417–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Shao, J.; Yuan, X.; Leng, L.; Huang, H.; Jiang, L.; Wang, H.; Chen, X.; Zeng, G. The comparison of the migration and transformation behavior of heavy metals during pyrolysis and liquefaction of municipal sewage sludge, paper mill sludge, and slaughterhouse sludge. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 198, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Breulmann, M.; van Afferden, M.; Müller, R.A.; Schulz, E.; Fühner, C. Process conditions of pyrolysis and hydrothermal carbonization affect the potential of sewage sludge for soil carbon sequestration and amelioration. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2017, 124, 256–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Kistler, R.C.; Widmer, F.; Brunner, P.H. Behavior of chromium, nickel, copper, zinc, cadmium, mercury, and lead during the pyrolysis of sewage sludge. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1987, 21, 704–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Zhang, Z.; Ju, R.; Zhou, H.; Chen, H. Migration characteristics of heavy metals during sludge pyrolysis. Waste Manag. 2021, 120, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Lu, T.; Yuan, H.; Wang, Y.; Huang, H.; Chen, Y. Characteristic of heavy metals in biochar derived from sewage sludge. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2015, 18, 725–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Yuan, X.; Leng, L.; Huang, H.; Chen, X.; Wang, H.; Xiao, Z.; Zhai, Y.; Chen, H.; Zeng, G. Speciation and environmental risk assessment of heavy metal in bio-oil from liquefaction/pyrolysis of sewage sludge. Chemosphere 2015, 120, 645–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Udayanga, W.D.C.; Veksha, A.; Giannis, A.; Liang, Y.N.; Lisak, G.; Hu, X.; Lim, T.T. Insights into the speciation of heavy metals during pyrolysis of industrial sludge. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 691, 232–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Passos, F.; Uggetti, E.; Carrère, H.; Ferrer, I. Pretreatment of microalgae to improve biogas production: A review. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 172, 403–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Alvira, P.; Tomas-Pejo, E.; Ballesteros, M.; Negro, M.J. Pretreatment technologies for an efficient bioethanol production process based on enzymatic hydrolysis: A review. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 4851–4861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Poudel, J.; Ohm, T.I.; Lee, S.H.; Oh, S.C. A study on torrefaction of sewage sludge to enhance solid fuel qualities. Waste Manag. 2015, 40, 112–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Huang, Y.W.; Chen, M.Q.; Luo, H.F. Nonisothermal torrefaction kinetics of sewage sludge using the simplified distributed activation energy model. Chem. Eng. J. 2016, 298, 154–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Zhao, P.; Shen, Y.; Ge, S.; Chen, Z.; Yoshikawa, K. Clean solid biofuel production from high moisture content waste biomass employing hydrothermal treatment. Appl. Energy 2014, 131, 345–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Chen, G.; Cheng, C.; Zhang, J.; Sun, Y.; Hu, Q.; Qu, C.; Dong, S. Synergistic effect of surfactant and alkali on the treatment of oil sludge. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2019, 183, 106420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Zhang, H.; Tao, W.; Hou, M.; Ran, M.; Chen, C.; Liu, J.; Tu, L.; Huang, L.; Deng, P.; Chen, D.; et al. Effect of Potassium Ferrate as a Dewatering Conditioner on Sludge Pyrolysis Characteristics and the Releasing Characteristics of Nitrogen, Sulfur, and Chlorine during Sewage Sludge Pyrolysis. Processes 2023, 11, 920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Liu, H.; Yi, L.; Hu, H.; Xu, K.; Zhang, Q.; Lu, G.; Yao, H. Emission control of NOx precursors during sewage sludge pyrolysis using an integrated pretreatment of Fenton peroxidation and CaO conditioning. Fuel 2017, 195, 208–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Yuan, Z.; Ma, W.; Zhu, N.; Zhu, Y.; Wu, S.; Lou, Z. Identifying the fate of nitrogenous species during sewage sludge pyrolysis via in-situ tracing of protein-sludge inherent components interactions. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 859, 160437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Xiao, K.; Yu, Z.; Wang, H.; Yang, J.; Liang, S.; Hu, J.; Hou, H.; Liu, B. Investigation on emission control of NOx precursors and phosphorus reclamation during pyrolysis of ferric sludge. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 670, 932–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Yao, Z.; Ma, X. Effects of hydrothermal treatment on the pyrolysis behavior of Chinese fan palm. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 247, 504–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Peng, H.; Guan, T.; Luo, J.; Yang, K.; Wu, Y.; Xu, L.; He, W.; Liang, Y.; Liu, W. Pretreatment with Ochrobactrum immobilizes chromium and copper during sludge pyrolysis. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 199, 110755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Xia, Y.; Tang, Y.; Shih, K.; Li, B. Enhanced phosphorus availability and heavy metal removal by chlorination during sewage sludge pyrolysis. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 382, 121110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Li, W.; Meng, J.; Zhang, Y.; Haider, G.; Ge, T.; Zhang, H.; Li, Z.; Yu, Y.; Shan, S. Co-pyrolysis of sewage sludge and metal-free/metal-loaded polyvinyl chloride (PVC) microplastics improved biochar properties and reduced environmental risk of heavy metals. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 302, 119092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Xiong, Q.; Wu, X.; Lv, H.; Liu, S.; Hou, H.; Wu, X. Influence of rice husk addition on phosphorus fractions and heavy metals risk of biochar derived from sewage sludge. Chemosphere 2021, 280, 130566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Chen, X.; Ma, R.; Luo, J.; Huang, W.; Fang, L.; Sun, S.; Lin, J. Co-microwave pyrolysis of electroplating sludge and municipal sewage sludge to synergistically improve the immobilization of high-concentration heavy metals and an analysis of the mechanism. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 417, 126099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Jiang, H.; Deng, S.; Chen, J.; Zhang, M.; Li, S.; Shao, Y.; Yang, J.; Li, J. Effect of hydrothermal pretreatment on product distribution and characteristics of oil produced by the pyrolysis of Huadian oil shale. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 143, 505–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Zhuang, X.; Song, Y.; Wang, X.; Zhan, H.; Yin, X.; Wu, C.; Wang, P. Pyrolysis of hydrothermally pretreated biowastes: The controllability on the formation of NO precursors. Chem. Eng. J. 2020, 393, 124727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Liu, Y.; Zhai, Y.; Li, S.; Liu, X.; Liu, X.; Wang, B.; Qiu, Z.; Li, C. Production of bio-oil with low oxygen and nitrogen contents by combined hydrothermal pretreatment and pyrolysis of sewage sludge. Energy 2020, 203, 117829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Pittman, C.U.; Mohan, D.; Eseyin, A.; Li, Q.; Ingram, L.; Hassan, E.-B.M.; Mitchell, B.; Guo, H.; Steele, P.H. Characterization of Bio-oils Produced from Fast Pyrolysis of Corn Stalks in an Auger Reactor. Energy Fuels 2012, 26, 3816–3825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Kuzhiyil, N.; Dalluge, D.; Bai, X.; Kim, K.H.; Brown, R.C. Pyrolytic sugars from cellulosic biomass. ChemSusChem 2012, 5, 2228–2236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Sheha, D.; Khalaf, H.; Daghestani, N. Experimental Design Methodology for the Preparation of Activated Carbon from Sewage Sludge by Chemical Activation Process. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2012, 38, 2941–2951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Lin, Q.; Chen, G.; Liu, Y. Scale-up of microwave heating process for the production of bio-oil from sewage sludge. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2012, 94, 114–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Hakeem, I.G.; Halder, P.; Marzbali, M.H.; Patel, S.; Rathnayake, N.; Surapaneni, A.; Short, G.; Paz-Ferreiro, J.; Shah, K. Mild sulphuric acid pre-treatment for metals removal from biosolids and the fate of metals in the treated biosolids derived biochar. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 107378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Haghighat, M.; Majidian, N.; Hallajisani, A.; Samipourgiri, M. Production of bio-oil from sewage sludge: A review on the thermal and catalytic conversion by pyrolysis. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2020, 42, 100870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Water 16 02066 g001
Figure 1. Annual production of dewatered SS in China from 2014 to 2020.
Figure 1. Annual production of dewatered SS in China from 2014 to 2020.
Water 16 02066 g001
Water 16 02066 g002
Figure 2. (a) Number of articles related to SS pyrolysis; (b) net visualization; (c) density visualization.
Figure 2. (a) Number of articles related to SS pyrolysis; (b) net visualization; (c) density visualization.
Water 16 02066 g002
Water 16 02066 g003
Figure 3. Comparison of conventional pyrolysis and microwave pyrolysis.
Figure 3. Comparison of conventional pyrolysis and microwave pyrolysis.
Water 16 02066 g003
Water 16 02066 g004
Figure 4. N migration of SS (a), soybean protein (b) and tar–N (c) during the pyrolysis [81,82,83].
Figure 4. N migration of SS (a), soybean protein (b) and tar–N (c) during the pyrolysis [81,82,83].
Water 16 02066 g004
Water 16 02066 g005
Figure 5. S migration in the char, tar, and gas products from microwave pyrolysis and conventional pyrolysis [91].
Figure 5. S migration in the char, tar, and gas products from microwave pyrolysis and conventional pyrolysis [91].
Water 16 02066 g005
Water 16 02066 g006
Figure 6. Migration of Cl in biomass pyrolysis [101].
Figure 6. Migration of Cl in biomass pyrolysis [101].
Water 16 02066 g006
Water 16 02066 g007
Figure 7. The mechanism of HM migration in IS pyrolysis [115].
Figure 7. The mechanism of HM migration in IS pyrolysis [115].
Water 16 02066 g007
Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of SS treatment technologies [18,19,20,21,22].
Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of SS treatment technologies [18,19,20,21,22].
SS Treatment TechnologyDescriptionAdvantagesDisadvantages
Agricultural purposesStabilized SS could be used as a fertilizer.N, P, and K can provide high-value fertilizer; organic matter can serve as an effective soil conditioner.The direct disposal of SS in farmland can be a source of risks for both human health and the environment.
Construction material productionSS could be used as building materials.Reduced land occupation and the consumption of resources; recycling of resources.There are strict requirements for the pre-processing of SS.
LandfillingLandfilling is the conventional way of treating, storing and disposing of SS.Well-known process for disposal of SS due to mature technology; extensive experience; Simple operation management; economic energy saving; low investment, fast results; generates 50–60% of CH4 under anaerobic conditions.The high moisture and volatile solids contents of the SS complicates the process; the CH4 could be generated along with CO2 (30–40%) and many harmful pollutants, such as H2S, NH3, and volatile organic compounds; additional environmental challenges include limited land resources and strict anti-leakage requirements.
IncinerationOperating temperature: 800–900 °C; O2/air atmosphere; atmospheric pressure; suitable for dry SS.High Waste volume reduction (up to 70%); recovery of fuel (similar to the sub-grade coal); overall CO2 reduction; effectively kill the pathogen; solve the problem of stains and smell.High cost; Source of noxious emissions of furans, dioxins, HF, CxHy, HCl, SO2, N2O, and NOX; strict emission standards; require additional fuel.
GasificationOperating temperature: >700 °C; gasifying agent (steam/CO2, etc.) needed; atmospheric pressure; suitable for dry to semidry SS.High-grade burnable gas.High-energy consumption; low resulting gas quality; low gasification efficiency.
Anaerobic digestionAnaerobic digestion is one of the most well-known conventional processes for the stabilization of organic SS, and it is now considered an essential part of modern wastewater treatment due to its economical and environmentally friendly aspects.Sustainable technology for SS management; production of biogas for heat and power generation or conversion into transport fuel or renewable natural gas; reduce 35% -50% of volatile solids in SS; reduce the amount of SS dry solids; reduce subsequent SS treatment costs.Sticky reaction conditions; need for additional energy input; low treatment yield, low product recovery; high greenhouse gas production; small fraction of CH4 produced; limited reduction of volatile solids; long reaction time (over 20 days), high environmental conditions and long initial debugging of the microbial bacteria; high moisture content of the SS after anaerobic and digestion.
PyrolysisOperating temperature: 400–600 °C; inert atmosphere; atmospheric pressure or high pressure; suitable for dry SS.Production of bio-oil, biogas, or biochar; optimization of the conversion and maximization of the most desired product yield and properties.High costs for the pre-drying process.
Table 2. Major components in tar from pyrolysis of SS.
Table 2. Major components in tar from pyrolysis of SS.
ComponentsProportion of Peak Area of Relative Contents (%) a
[24] b[33][4][34][35][36][37]
Alcohols2.084.6502.546.027.403.25
Aldehydes0.191.74-0.07- -
Aliphatic hydrocarbons0.2321.935.86-3.0812.2613.57
Amides3.421.209.93--3.83-
Amines1.09------
Aromatic hydrocarbons0.332.469.211.81-8.509.38
Acids5.533.1520.13 8.4525.76-
Ethers1.20--1.65---
Esters0.720.889.18--1.3748.59
Furans3.241.66-----
Ketones6.8511.726.402.007.25--
Nitriles2.378.185.47--14.89-
Phenols17.8215.287.001.4801.406.95
Pyrroles3.824.04--27.99--
Saccharides2.66------
Halo hydrocarbon--20.44----
Guaiacol---0.45---
Notes: a expressed in the proportion of peak area (%) in GC-MS result except stated otherwise; b expressed in wt%; - not mentioned.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lin, Q.; Liu, Y.; Jiao, Y.; Lv, P.; Liu, Y.; Zuo, W.; Tian, Y.; Zhang, J. Transformation and Mitigation of Tar and Related Secondary Pollutants during Sewage Sludge Pyrolysis. Water 2024, 16, 2066. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16142066

AMA Style

Lin Q, Liu Y, Jiao Y, Lv P, Liu Y, Zuo W, Tian Y, Zhang J. Transformation and Mitigation of Tar and Related Secondary Pollutants during Sewage Sludge Pyrolysis. Water. 2024; 16(14):2066. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16142066

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lin, Qingyuan, Yongxiao Liu, Yimeng Jiao, Pengzhao Lv, Yanbo Liu, Wei Zuo, Yu Tian, and Jun Zhang. 2024. "Transformation and Mitigation of Tar and Related Secondary Pollutants during Sewage Sludge Pyrolysis" Water 16, no. 14: 2066. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16142066

APA Style

Lin, Q., Liu, Y., Jiao, Y., Lv, P., Liu, Y., Zuo, W., Tian, Y., & Zhang, J. (2024). Transformation and Mitigation of Tar and Related Secondary Pollutants during Sewage Sludge Pyrolysis. Water, 16(14), 2066. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16142066

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop